Court Records · Updated 2026-05-24 · Citation-verified edition
Court Records in 2026: What's New, What's Open, What's Locked
The federal filing backbone is being torn out and rebuilt under armed guard. The Tennessee Supreme Court just set a new sealing standard. Missouri's Cole County Circuit Court struck down the state's redaction rule as unconstitutional. Louisiana eliminated fax court filing on January 1. Tyler Technologies bought the country's largest courtroom-audio company for $212.5 million. Every claim below is tied to a primary source.
By Open Public Records2026-05-24~18 min read37 sources
May 21, 2026: Tennessee Supreme Court sets a new "compelling-interest" sealing standard
On May 21, 2026, the Tennessee Supreme Court ordered the release of three sealed documents in a Davidson County criminal case and, in doing so, articulated a new standard: "Finding no compelling interest in this instance, the Court ordered that the documents at issue be made available for public inspection"(Tennessee Courts press release). The Nashville Banner, whose reporting in 2024 first surfaced the pattern of Davidson County sealing, called it "a major victory for transparency" and confirmed that the case involved Criminal Court Judge Cheryl Blackburn, the judge who had originally sealed the records (Nashville Banner — May 21, 2026)(Nashville Banner — original 2024 reporting).
The Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, which had been tracking the underlying sealing pattern for nearly a year, published its own analysis describing the decision as setting "a new 'compelling interest' standard for sealing judicial records" (TCOG — ruling analysis)(TCOG — case preview from earlier in the term). TCOG's homepage describes the organization as a "nonpartisan, nonprofit organization advocating transparency in government" (tcog.info).
The doctrinal effect is larger than a single case. After Tennessee, any state-court party seeking to seal records faces an explicit threshold the trial court must articulate on the record. The presumption is openness; the seal requires a compelling-interest finding. That is the same posture the federal courts have long maintained in theory but inconsistently in practice — and three other state high courts are about to weigh in on the same question.
CM/ECF
CM/ECF is being torn out — and you should care
On March 10, 2026, the Judicial Conference of the United States — the federal judiciary's 26-member policy-making body presided over by the Chief Justice — announced an accelerated modernization plan for the federal court filing system. Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove, chairman of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, told the Conference that development of a replacement for CM/ECF was being expedited (U.S. Courts — March 10, 2026 release)(March 2025 JCUS proceedings)(September 2025 JCUS proceedings).
The driver was not an upgrade cycle. It was a breach. In August 2025, Politico first reported that the federal court filing system had been hit by what investigators called a "sophisticated and persistent" attack — the second known foreign compromise of the case-management infrastructure in five years (Politico — August 12, 2025). The New York Times confirmed on August 12 that investigators had "uncovered evidence that Russia is at least partly responsible" for the intrusion (New York Times — August 12, 2025). Reuters' August 7 lead documented that "the case management system — which carries sensitive information such as sealed indictments and arrest warrants — has long been a magnet for" foreign intelligence services. MIT's Urban Cyber Defense lab framed it as "foreign adversaries hack federal court system for second time" (MIT Urban Cyber Defense).
The judicial-branch response was unusual: some districts reverted, temporarily, to paper filings of highly sensitive documents while the breach scope was assessed. The Judicial Conference's expedited timeline calls for the first pilots of the replacement — internally called the Case Management Modernization initiative — at six "pathfinder" courts (U.S. Courts — modernization announcement).
The scale of what's being replaced is hard to overstate. PACER — the public-facing front door to CM/ECF — provides access to "more than 1 billion documents filed at all federal courts", per PACER's own homepage statement (pacer.uscourts.gov homepage). The architecture being replaced has been in continuous service for nearly three decades.
Why the replacement matters for records access
CM/ECF's replacement architecture will determine, for the next twenty years, how docket entries are structured, how sealed materials are handled, how foreign-state-actor intrusions are detected, and — critically — whether the federal docket can ever be queried without paying $0.10 per page. The Open Courts Act, repeatedly introduced and re-introduced since 2020, would eliminate PACER fees outright. The judiciary's own FY2026 Electronic Public Access budget appendix concedes: "Although the Open Courts Act has not yet been enacted, the judiciary expects that it (or similar legislation) will continue to be pursued"(U.S. Courts EPA FY2026 appendix).
State Systems
The state systems that just changed under you
The federal modernization gets the headlines, but the state courts are where most people actually need records — and in 2026 they're undergoing a year of structural changes that arrive without much warning.
Louisiana: Act 352 takes effect January 1, 2026. The Louisiana State Bar Association's February 2026 bulletin explains the practical consequence: "Act 352 changes how Louisiana lawyers file court papers starting Jan. 1, 2026. After that date, attorney filings must be made either in person using p[aper]" — or electronically through approved portals. The statute eliminates fax filings, the longstanding workaround for parish clerks who hadn't yet built e-filing systems (Louisiana State Bar — Act 352)(La. R.S. 13:850 — text). Ascension Parish's clerk-of-court page documents the practical fee structure under the new rule (Ascension Parish Clerk of Court). The Louisiana Supreme Court followed up on December 22, 2025 with a separate rules-package update repealing and re-enacting Rules I–XII and XLII (Louisiana Supreme Court — December 22, 2025 press release).
Missouri: Order 3143 — and its constitutional challenge. On December 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of Missouri issued Order 3143, amending Court Operating Rules 2, 4, and 8 and Rules 19.10, 55.025, 55.0275, and 84.015 — with an effective date of July 1, 2026. The order tightens witness- and victim-redaction requirements for case files made remotely accessible (Missouri Bar — Order 3143)(Missouri Bar — Redaction Resource Center).
Then, between Order 3143's issuance and its effective date, the Cole County Circuit Court struck the redaction requirements down. Missouri Bar's case explainer documents the holding: "the witness and victim redaction requirements were unconstitutional on multiple grounds and barred the state from enforcing" them (Missouri Bar — short life and death of the redaction requirements). The Gateway Journalism Review's coverage adds that "Judge Martin (found) the redaction law was unconstitutional under both the First Amendment of the federal constitution and the Open Courts" provision of the Missouri Constitution (Gateway Journalism Review). The Supreme Court of Missouri then issued an April 21, 2026 follow-up order on Rule 55.0275 (Missouri Bar — orders archive).
M&A
Tyler bought For The Record. What that means for the record itself.
On February 2, 2026, Tyler Technologies — the Plano-based vendor whose Odyssey case-management platform serves the majority of large U.S. trial courts — announced the acquisition of Phoenix-based For The Record, the dominant courtroom-audio-capture company. Cash purchase price: approximately $212.5 million, with the transaction closed on April 14, 2026 (Tyler Technologies — investor announcement). The deal "will bring together AI-powered transcription technology with a suite of court solutions from Tyler Technologies," per Government Technology's coverage (Government Technology). Dallas Innovates documented the transaction in parallel (Dallas Innovates).
The implication is straightforward and large: the company that already runs case management for the majority of large U.S. trial courts now also owns the audio capture from inside those courtrooms. The audio-to-transcript pipeline is the new docket entry. Whether that transcript becomes part of the public record, what redactions are applied at the AI layer, and whether the audio file is itself a record subject to disclosure under state public-records laws are unresolved questions in most states.
The transaction closed on April 14, 2026, at the previously announced cash price of approximately $212.5 million(Tyler Technologies — closing announcement). Integration of For The Record's courtroom-audio capture with Tyler's Odyssey case-management platform is underway as of this writing.
PACER
PACER fees, free alternatives, and the bill that won't die
The Open Courts Act has been introduced repeatedly since 2020. The Senate version was introduced by Senators Ron Wyden and Rob Portman in earlier sessions, with companion House versions in successive Congresses; the Reporters Committee covered the House passage in 2020 (Wyden press release — Wyden/Portman Open Courts Act)(Reporters Committee — House passes Open Courts Act). The Alliance for Justice tracks the bill's reintroduction history through Senators Rob Portman, Patrick Leahy, and others, with House companions from Reps. Hank Johnson and Doug Collins in earlier Congresses (Alliance for Justice — PACER fight history).
The Asterisks
What records aren't online, despite the claims
Every public-records directory tells you "search court records online for free." The honest version of that statement, in 2026, has a lot of asterisks.
Family-law cases are usually excluded. Texas's statewide re:SearchTX portal — the gateway to "case information from all 254 Texas counties" — excludes family law from its standard search. The Texas State Law Library's research guide explains: "Re:SearchTX offers a free subscription plan that lets you search records from multiple counties and courts. It includes civil cases from district, county" courts but not the family-law dockets (re:SearchTX)(Texas State Law Library guide)(Victoria County District Clerk — civil case notices via re:SearchTX).
Juvenile cases are sealed by default in virtually every state.
Mental-health and competency proceedings usually carry default sealing.
Search-warrant returns are sealed for the active-investigation period and frequently never unsealed afterward.
Sealed indictments live in CM/ECF — the same system that was breached in 2025.
The audio recording of a hearing may not be a "record" in your state. Massachusetts's Land Court Standing Order 1-26 is one example of the audio carve-out problem.
The Tyler Odyssey portal's public-facing module shows you docket entries, not the actual filed documents in most counties.
The Gap
Who can see what — and the gap is growing
In 2026, the gap between what is technically a public record and what is practically accessible to the public is widening, not narrowing. The Tennessee Supreme Court's compelling-interest standard pushed the wall in one direction; Massachusetts Land Court Standing Order 1-26 pushed it the other way. Missouri's Order 3143 attempted to redact, and a circuit court struck the redaction down. Louisiana eliminated fax — closing one door for self-represented filers while opening an electronic one.
The Los Angeles Superior Court is now piloting AI tools to help judges draft rulings, summarize legal filings, and generate draft decisions — with judges required to review all outputs (Governing — LA Courts AI pilot). The implications for the case record are still being worked out: a draft order generated by AI, edited by a clerk, reviewed by a judge, and entered onto the docket is a public record in every state we know of — but its provenance is a new question.
What's Pending
Coming through 2027
The next eighteen months will produce, in some order: the first rollout of the federal CM/ECF replacement at the six pathfinder courts (likely late 2026 into 2027); the second wave of state-supreme-court sealing rulings, possibly in Florida and California, both of which have parallel sealing-procedure cases on their dockets; the integration of Tyler Technologies' Odyssey platform with For The Record's courtroom-audio capture pipeline (post-close); and, if the political math allows, another reintroduction of the Open Courts Act in the 119th Congress.
The structural question across all of these — federal modernization, state sealing fights, the Tyler-FTR integration, the persistent PACER-paywall debate — is the same: what is a court record, who decides, and when can the public see it? In 2026 those four questions are all being re-answered, simultaneously, by different actors who are not coordinating.