Open Meetings Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 23, 2026
Bottom line
The bill mandates public notice and live audio streaming for meetings of the Judicial Conference and other federal judicial councils, aiming to increase transparency in the federal judiciary.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the "Open Meetings Act of 2026," amends title 28 of the United States Code to require greater transparency for meetings of the Judicial Conference and other judicial councils. It mandates public notice of meetings 30 days in advance, including the agenda, and requires live audio streaming of these meetings, with archives published online. Exceptions are provided for closed sessions when legally required or for sensitive matters, provided a reason is stated.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill will significantly enhance transparency and accountability within the federal judiciary by opening up the decision-making processes of the Judicial Conference and other councils to public scrutiny. They contend that greater public access to these meetings will foster trust in the judicial system and allow for more informed public discourse on judicial administration and policy.
Opponents contend
Opponents might express concerns that mandating live streaming and public notice could impede candid discussion among judicial leaders on sensitive or confidential matters, potentially chilling open debate. They may also raise practical issues regarding the administrative burden and costs associated with implementing and maintaining the required streaming and archiving infrastructure, as well as the potential for public misunderstanding of complex internal deliberations.
The bill text is very short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for a thorough understanding of its provisions.
Section 2(a), adding 28 U.S.C. § 336(b)
Public Notice Requirement for Covered Meetings
This provision requires the Judicial Conference to publish a notice on its website at least 30 days before any 'covered meeting' (meetings of a conference or council under Chapter 15 of Title 28). The notice must include the date, time, place, and agenda of the meeting. The Judicial Conference can waive this requirement for 'good cause,' but must publish an explanation for doing so.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that advance public notice of meetings and agendas is a fundamental step towards transparency, allowing interested parties and the public to be aware of upcoming discussions and decisions within the federal judiciary. This proactive disclosure fosters public engagement and accountability.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that a strict 30-day notice requirement could introduce inflexibility into the scheduling of judicial council meetings, potentially hindering the ability to address urgent matters promptly. They may also argue that detailed agendas could pre-empt necessary internal deliberations.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's right to know with the administrative flexibility and operational needs of the Judicial Conference. The 'good cause' waiver attempts to mitigate rigidity but could also be seen as a potential loophole by transparency advocates.
Section 2(a), adding 28 U.S.C. § 336(c)
Live Audio Streaming and Archiving Requirement
This provision mandates that all 'covered meetings' must provide live audio streaming accessible to the public without charge or registration. The Judicial Conference is also required to maintain an archive of these streams and publish them on its website within 7 days of the meeting. It allows for closed sessions if publication is prohibited by law or if the conference/council votes by majority to consider a sensitive or confidential matter, provided a reason for the closed session is stated.