Open Meetings Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 23, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to significantly increase public transparency and accessibility for meetings of federal judicial policy-making bodies by requiring public notice, live audio streaming, and archived recordings.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the "Open Meetings Act of 2026," amends chapter 15 of title 28, United States Code, to impose new transparency requirements on meetings of the Judicial Conference and other federal judicial councils. It mandates public notice, live audio streaming, and archiving of these meetings, while providing specific exceptions for closed sessions under certain circumstances.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill enhances judicial transparency, accountability, and public trust by making the proceedings of the Judicial Conference and other councils more accessible. They contend that greater openness will foster a better public understanding of judicial policy decisions and allow for more informed public discourse.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that these new requirements could impede the deliberative process of the Judicial Conference, potentially chilling open discussion on sensitive judicial administration matters. Concerns could also be raised about the administrative burdens and costs associated with implementing and maintaining the streaming and archiving infrastructure.
The bill text is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for readers to evaluate its provisions thoroughly.
Section 2(b) of the new 28 U.S.C. 336
Public Notice of Covered Meetings
This provision mandates that the Judicial Conference must publish notice of any "covered meeting" on its internet website at least 30 days before the meeting. The notice must include the date, time, place, and agenda of the meeting. The Judicial Conference may waive this requirement for "good cause," but if waived, an explanation for the waiver must be published on its website.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that advance public notice is fundamental to transparency, allowing stakeholders and the public to be aware of and prepare for important discussions affecting the federal judiciary.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that a strict 30-day notice period could be inflexible for urgent matters, and the administrative overhead for publishing detailed agendas could be significant, potentially hindering agile decision-making.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's right to know with the administrative flexibility and operational needs of judicial bodies, particularly concerning the timing and detail of public disclosures.
Section 2(c) of the new 28 U.S.C. 336
Live Audio Streaming and Public Archive
This provision requires that each covered meeting must provide live audio streaming, accessible to the public without charge or registration. Furthermore, the Judicial Conference must maintain an archive of each live audio stream and publish it on its website within 7 days after the meeting, also accessible to the public without charge or registration.
Section 2(c)(4) of the new 28 U.S.C. 336
Authority for Closed Sessions
This provision outlines exceptions to the live audio streaming requirement, allowing covered meetings to resolve into a closed session. This can occur when publication of the matter at issue is prohibited by law, or if the conference or council votes by majority to close a session for consideration of a sensitive or confidential matter. Prior to entering a closed session, the reason for doing so must be publicly stated.