STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RANDALL C. JOHNSON - Articles

All Content

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RANDALL C. JOHNSON

Posted by: David Lazar on May 21, 2026

Head Comment: With opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part from KIRBY and BIVINS and from BIVINS

Court: TN Supreme Court

Attorneys 1: Daniel A. Horwitz and Sarah L. Martin, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, The Nashville Banner.

Attorneys 2: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; J. Matthew Rice, Solicitor General; Edwin Alan Groves, Jr., Assistant Attorney General for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Attorneys 3: Melanie R. Bean, Lebanon, Tennessee, and Bernard F. McEvoy, Nashville, Tennessee, for the defendant, Randall C. Johnson.

Attorneys 4: Paul R. McAdoo, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the amici curiae, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press et al.

Judge(s): WAGNER

This appeal addresses sealing judicial records. Three filings were sealed without a written order. The presiding judge later recused herself and the matter was transferred. Then The Nashville Banner intervened to unseal the records. The trial court denied the motion to unseal. The appellate court denied the Rule 10 appeal and then denied the petition for writ of certiorari. We reverse. Rule 10 interlocutory review is available to media intervenors when judicial proceedings are closed or documents are sealed. Sealing judicial records protected by the First Amendment right of access requires entry of a written order after finding that a compelling interest necessitates sealing. Any such order must be narrowly tailored and seal only those judicial records, or the portions thereof, necessary to protect the identified interest. After conducting a de novo review, we do not find a compelling interest necessitating sealing. The documents shall be made available to the public.

Attachments: