CASPER, Wyo. — A proposal that would have required Wyoming courts to provide free online access to virtually all court records and livestream hearings was tabled Tuesday after members of the Legislature’s Joint Judiciary Committee expressed concerns about privacy, cost and administrative burden.
Committee rejects sweeping transparency measure
House Bill 93, branded in sponsors’ language as the People’s Right to Judicial Transparency bill, failed to gain committee approval at an interim meeting in the Thrya Thompson State Building in downtown Casper. The bill did not advance with a recorded vote of eight opposed and four in favor.
The measure sought to require the courts to “make all of its court records available for public viewing at no cost through an online portal accessible through the court’s website,” and to mandate livestreaming of all hearings. The bill would have carved out limited exceptions, including juvenile records, adoption matters, sexual assault cases, sealed records and court-identified “sensitive and bulky exhibits.” Advocates proposed a two-year implementation fund of $100,000 from the general fund.
Judges and local officials warn of unintended consequences
A number of judges and local officials from Casper and Mills attended the hearing and urged caution. They voiced philosophical support for transparency but cautioned that mandatory public online publication and livestreaming could produce serious privacy harms and impose substantial financial and staffing costs on courts.
“Do we want someone who has just filed for divorce to get a deluge of refinancing offers from maybe not the most reputable lenders?”
The comment came from Matt Castano, a circuit court judge for the Sixth Judicial District. He framed the issue as more than theoretical, pointing to potential commercial solicitations and privacy intrusions that could follow broad online publication of filings and case materials.
Deputy Legal Services Administrator Brian Fuller told the committee the bill’s language would apply broadly to case materials, including pleadings, filings, motions, orders, judgments, evidence and case metadata. Attorney Elizabeth Grill emphasized that some court files can contain highly sensitive materials such as trade secrets, patents and graphic multimedia evidence.
Practical hurdles: staffing, redaction and technology
Committee members and witnesses raised several operational problems the bill would create, including workload for court staff tasked with reviewing and redacting files, the cost of building a secure public portal and the question of how to handle large or sensitive exhibits.
- Privacy risks from wide online distribution of personal or commercial information
- Potentially significant redaction and review workload for court personnel
- Unclear technical and security requirements for hosting voluminous court material
While the bill included a modest implementation appropriation of $100,000 over two years, opponents argued the amount would not cover necessary staffing or technological upgrades, particularly if courts were required to scrub personal data from older files before posting them online.
Where the debate goes from here
With the measure not advancing, the discussion around transparency and access to judicial information remains unresolved. Lawmakers who support broader online access say the public has a right to see court records and proceedings, while judges and some attorneys urged a more measured approach that balances openness with privacy protections.
The committee co-chairs present at the meeting included Representatives Art Washut and Jared Olsen and Representative Daniel Singh was photographed at the event. Additional testimony at the hearing came from Dawnessa Synder, identified as a district court judge, among other speakers opposed to immediate adoption of the proposed mandate.
Any future effort to expand online access to court records will likely require more detailed legislative language that addresses redaction processes, technology standards, funding levels and narrower definitions of what must be published or streamed. For now, Wyoming courts will continue to operate under existing public access rules while lawmakers consider next steps.
Reporting from the Joint Judiciary Committee meeting included public comment and testimony from judges, court officials and local representatives. The debate highlights the tension between open government and the practical duties of courts to protect sensitive information and administratively manage case records.
