Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is defending one of the nation’s most restrictive open-records laws — a statute that blocks non-residents from obtaining government documents under the Tennessee Public Records Act (TPRA).
In a filing this month in Volokh v. Williamson County Archives & Museum, Skrmetti’s office argued the law is constitutional and ensures that “Tennesseans – who foot the bill for recordkeeping – are the primary beneficiaries under the TPRA.” The case was brought by University of California law professor Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment scholar who was denied access to local court records while researching a Tennessee case.
Tennessee is one of only five states — along with Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Virginia — that restrict public records to state residents. Critics say the policy obstructs journalists conducting multi-state investigations, border-area residents seeking information across county lines, and national watchdogs tracking how federal tax dollars are spent in Tennessee.
Deborah Fisher, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, told The Center Square that there’s little appetite in the General Assembly to amend the law: “None of their constituents live out of state, obviously. So it’s very hard for them to advocate for a law change for something that doesn’t help their constituents.”
Volokh’s suit argues that denying him access to judicial records violates the First Amendment and the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause. He emphasizes he’s not challenging the law’s application to other types of government records, but contends that judicial documents occupy a special constitutional category protected by public-access precedents.
Skrmetti’s office responded that the case is now moot because the county ultimately provided Volokh with the records after he filed suit. Volokh says he will continue the litigation to prevent future denials.
Broader Context
Tennessee’s position underscores the state’s ongoing legal assertiveness under Skrmetti, who has intervened in multiple national-level disputes ranging from social-media moderation to transgender health policy. Defending the records-access restriction places Tennessee squarely in the minority among states, but aligns with a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld Virginia’s similar residency rule.
Transparency advocates argue that, even if constitutional, the policy weakens public oversight of how Tennessee manages both state and federal resources. Since a significant share of Tennessee’s budget comes from federally funded programs — including education, transportation, and healthcare — critics say taxpayers across the country have a legitimate interest in how those dollars are spent.
Analysis
While Skrmetti frames the restriction as a matter of fiscal fairness, the political optics are complex: the state that touts transparency and accountability is simultaneously defending a law that closes its books to outsiders. For lawmakers, the lack of constituent pressure makes reform unlikely. For journalists and researchers, Tennessee’s policy continues to pose one of the nation’s firmest barriers to public information.
Discover more from TNPOLITICO
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
