An Act to amend and reenact § 8.01-626 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 8.01-670.3, relating to orders closing a proceeding; petitions for review.
HB185 amends Virginia appellate procedure to create a specific, expedited path for Supreme Court review of certain circuit court orders. It revises § 8.01-626 to clarify that petitions for review may be filed within 15 days not only for orders involving preliminary injunctions, but also for orders reviewable under the new § 8.01-670.3. The bill requires the petition to be served on opposing counsel, allows a response within 15 days unless the court orders otherwise, and directs the clerk to assign the matter to a three-justice panel, while preserving the Supreme Court’s ability to act with more than three justices if it chooses.
The bill also adds § 8.01-670.3, which makes certain orders closing a proceeding or sealing a record immediately appealable. Specifically, it covers circuit court orders granting or denying motions to close proceedings not otherwise authorized to be closed, sua sponte closure orders, and circuit court decisions affirming or reversing closure orders from general district court or juvenile and domestic relations district court. An aggrieved person may petition the Supreme Court for review within 15 days using the same procedure as injunction review. In practical terms, the bill expands appellate oversight of courtroom closure and sealing decisions and gives parties a fast mechanism to challenge them.
HB185 changes Virginia law governing interlocutory appellate review by adding a new category of immediately reviewable orders involving closed proceedings and sealed records. It affects § 8.01-626 and creates § 8.01-670.3, thereby extending Supreme Court review procedures to parties challenging closure or sealing decisions in circuit court and, in some cases, district court rulings reviewed by circuit court. The bill primarily impacts litigants, courts, and counsel involved in confidentiality, access-to-courts, and open-proceedings disputes.
The available record shows the bill was enacted without any recorded committee transcript or vote detail in the provided materials, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate strong opposition. The final enactment as Chapter 366 suggests the measure had sufficient support to pass and be signed into law. Based on the text, the bill appears procedural and targeted, which often draws relatively neutral or pragmatic support rather than broad controversy.
The main potential point of contention is the balance between public access to judicial proceedings and the need for courts to close proceedings or seal records in appropriate cases. Supporters of the bill would likely favor quicker appellate review to protect transparency and prevent improper closures, while opponents or cautious observers may worry that expanded immediate appeals could add delay, increase litigation costs, or complicate trial court management of sensitive matters. The bill’s use of a 15-day petition window and expedited Supreme Court review reflects an effort to limit those burdens while still providing meaningful oversight.