Utah Adopts a New Legislative Approach to Courtroom Access

Utah has enacted H.B. 397, the Courtroom Audiovisual Modifications Bill, introducing a new framework for expanded public access to court proceedings, which took effect May 6, 2026. Most notably, H.B. 397—codified at Utah Code Section 78A-2-234—requires the Administrative Office of the Courts to livestream court proceedings and make recordings publicly available online. Even for practitioners and industry observers outside of Utah, increased visibility into state courts is relevant to those interested in accessing and tracking state-level proceedings. Further, immediate access to proceedings may influence public perception, expectations, and discourse surrounding the judiciary writ large, including federal courts. For litigators practicing in Utah or monitoring developments in court access policy, this legislation presents a distinct model that merits attention.

Key Provisions: Livestreaming and Recording Requirements

At its core, H.B. 397 mandates the Administrative Office of the Courts to provide a livestream of each “court proceeding”—defined as any hearing, trial, or other appearance before a court that is open to the public—freely available to the public. This livestream must be accessible via a link posted on the court’s website in an easily accessible form.

Beyond live access, this legislation also requires the Administrative Office of the Courts to create an audiovisual recording of each livestream and post that recording (or a link to it) on a court website within three business days of the proceeding. These recordings must remain freely available to the public for a minimum of one year, and must be properly labeled with the date, time, and place of the court proceeding. The recordings must capture all open portions of the proceeding, from commencement through adjournment.

Exceptions and Safeguards

H.B. 397 includes a series of exceptions and safeguards intended to address privacy, safety, and fairness concerns. As an initial matter, the livestream requirement does not apply when the court has already excluded members of the public from proceedings under existing law. Additionally, upon a request by a party, witness, or victim—or on the court’s own motion—the court may decline to livestream if it makes findings on the record that there is a reasonable likelihood that the livestream would prejudice a party’s right to a fair court proceeding; compromise a victim’s right; jeopardize an individual’s safety or wellbeing; jeopardize a minor’s interests or well-being; or constitute an unwarranted invasion of an individual’s personal privacy.

To that end, the bill employs a “least restrictive alternative” framework. Before denying livestreaming entirely, the court must consider whether less restrictive alternatives exist—such as allowing remote audio listening while disabling video observation or suspending the livestream during particular testimony. Only when no less restrictive alternative can mitigate the risk while preserving public access may a court deny livestreaming altogether.

Protections for Confidential Information and Witness Sequestration

H.B. 397 includes detailed provisions to prevent unintended disclosures during livestreams. Courts are required to take reasonable steps to ensure there is no audio or visual transmission of: jurors or prospective jurors; the face of an individual known to be a minor; exhibits or documents not part of the official public record; matters conducted in chambers; the content of bench conferences; and confidential communications between counsel and client, between clients, or between counsel. Further, courts must notify parties and attorneys of the location of microphones and any ability to mute microphones, and if a prohibited transmission does occur, the court must work with the parties and attorneys to prevent recurrence.

For recorded proceedings, if a prohibited transmission occurred during a livestream, the Administrative Office of the Courts must censor that portion of the audiovisual recording before posting it to the court’s website.

Remote observation of trials also raises questions about witness sequestration—specifically, whether a sequestered witness might circumvent exclusion by watching the livestream. H.B. 397 addresses this issue directly. Courts may implement measures to prohibit access to a livestream by a witness who has been excluded from a court proceeding. Moreover, courts are authorized to inquire of any witness, while under oath and outside the presence of the jury, whether that witness observed any portion of the court proceeding or discussed any portion with anyone before testifying.

Press and Media Impact

The law includes provisions that affect press and other media, including:

• Expanded media access to courts. H.B. 397 establishes livestreaming of open court proceedings as the default, departing from the traditional approach that limits cameras and broadcasting devices in the courtroom. This is a significant development for media organizations that cover court proceedings.
• Reduced logistical barriers to reporting. Members of the media covering court proceedings will be able to observe remotely and review archived recordings, reducing logistical barriers to reporting. 
• Archived recordings for broader use. Recordings must remain freely available for at least one year, giving media outlets, legal commentators, academics, and others expanded access to primary source material. 
• Privacy and broadcasting safeguards. The bill’s exceptions and safeguards—including protections against broadcasting jurors, minors, and confidential communications—are directly relevant to media organizations that may use or redistribute courtroom footage. 

Practical Considerations

H.B. 397 establishes livestreaming of open court proceedings as the default, and effectively enumerates a presumption of access, departing from the traditional approach, which limits the use of cameras and broadcasting devices in the courtroom. Nevertheless, its explicit list of protected categories of rights—fair trial rights, victims’ rights, safety, minors, and privacy—provides a framework for courts to evaluate requests to limit or suspend livestreaming. Court implementation and application of these considerations in practice will shape the legislation’s impact over time.

Practitioners should be prepared for several practical implications. First, counsel should anticipate that hearings and trials will be subject to broader public observation and consider preparing clients and witnesses who will be present in the courtroom accordingly. Conduct, statements, and other courtroom interactions may be observed by a wider audience both live during proceedings and afterward.

Second, attorneys should consider whether circumstances warrant seeking an exception to livestreaming. The bill’s framework requiring consideration of less restrictive alternatives means that a request to entirely forgo livestreaming will require a developed record. Where concerns are particularized—such as a specific victim’s safety or a minor’s involvement in sensitive matters—counsel should be prepared to articulate how livestreaming would cause harm and why alternative or partial measures would be inadequate.

Third, accessibility of court proceedings under H.B. 397 may increase media coverage of, and public attention toward, court proceedings. This could generate broader public familiarity and engagement with the judicial system, particularly as members of the media covering court proceedings will be able to observe remotely and review archived recordings. Beyond potentially reducing logistical barriers to reporting, legal commentators, academics, and law students will likewise have expanded access to primary source material for use in educational and academic spaces.

Fourth, attorneys should consider how broader public access to court proceedings may affect strategic decisions in litigation. The availability of livestreams and recordings means that opposing counsel, potential future adversaries, and industry observers can study an attorney’s courtroom style, argumentation, and overall litigation technique. For instance, witnesses in related matters may review recordings to prepare for questioning by observing recorded examinations as samples. Similarly, on the negotiation and dispute resolution level, parties considering settlement may be influenced by how proceedings are perceived publicly. Finally, the expanded archive of recorded proceedings may facilitate development and refinement of litigation analytics that track judicial conduct and behavior, enabling practitioners to assess a particular judge’s receptiveness to certain motion types, argument styles, and procedural approaches. Counsel should factor these dynamics into their strategic planning, including decisions about what arguments to make in open court versus in written submissions and filings.

Takeaway

Utah’s H.B. 397 presents a new model for public access to court proceedings that practitioners and policymakers in other jurisdictions may find instructive. By establishing livestreaming as the default while providing a framework of exceptions and procedural requirements, the legislation offers one approach to navigating the landscape of courtroom audiovisual access. Those with litigation in Utah should be prepared for increased public visibility and should evaluate how the bill’s provisions may affect their cases. Those in other states should monitor how this model develops in practice, as it may inform similar legislative efforts elsewhere.

Copyright © 2026 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
www.ballardspahr.com
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.

This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.