On February 4, 2026, a unanimous Tennessee Appellate Court substantially overruled much of the trial court’s ruling which had blocked public access to the records obtained by the Metropolitan Police Department with respect to the Covenant School murders in March 2023. Opinion.
Tennessee Firearms Association and Chief James Hammond (retired) working with Judicial Watch sued the Nashville Metropolitan Police Department shortly after the Covenant School murders to obtain access to the records obtained by it secondary to the event and killing of the shooter by Metro officers. Several other interest groups also petitioned for access to similar records. Despite the death of the shooter at the scene and public statements that there did not appear to be any other shooters or conspirators, Metro denied access to the records claiming that there was a pending investigation.
In the trial court, a Nashville Chancellor denied access to all of the records on a variety of reasons. That denial was appealed by Tennessee Firearms Association, Chief Hammond and others.
In the appellate opinion released on February 4, 2026, much of the trial court’s substantive rulings to block access to the records were declared moot (Metro has closed its investigation in 2025) or were otherwise rejected by the Court of Appeals.
Since Metro has closed its investigation without any prosecution, the Court of Appeals properly concluded that Metro’s reliance on the “pending investigation” excuse was not longer relevant or available. It ordered that all records in possession of Metro that did not originate from those seized from the shooter (with limited exceptions) must be immediately disclosed:
The primary dispute in this case is whether the shooter’s personal writings and compilations must be disclosed to Petitioners under the TPRA. Indeed, much of the proceedings in the lower court centered around the potential consequences of disclosing those items. Nonetheless, it is clear from the trial court’s order that a portion of Metro’s investigative file includes material created or collected by Metro, or other government agencies, during Metro’s investigation into the shooting. For example, the trial court lists
Opinion, p. 16
Metro internal documents, search warrants, Metro history reports, Metro incident reports, and 911 phone communications in its final order. As best we can discern from what we know about Metro’s file, such items are different from and unrelated to the shooter’s personal writings. To the extent that any such material is responsive to Petitioners’ records request and was withheld pursuant to Rule 16, those records must be made immediately available for inspection by Petitioners.
Next, the trial court had also blocked all of the shooter’s writings under the “school security” exception. However, the trial court failed in two regards. First, it did examine in its order the shooters records on a document by document, page by page, basis to conclude that each document and each page contained protected “school security” information. Second, the trial court did not make any effort to order the redaction of those records so that information unrelated to school security would be made available. The Court of Appeals expressed its frustration with the trial court as follows:
Against this backdrop, we are asked to accept at face value the trial court’s finding that every single item compiled or created by the shooter, for many years before the event at issue, relates to the Covenant School’s security. This conclusion strains credulity, and we are neither willing nor able to make the blind logical leap the Covenant Intervenors ask of us. Without a more robust record reflecting which TPRA exceptions apply specifically to which responsive documents and why, our review of this issue is severely hindered. We are particularly troubled by the request made of us considering the TPRA’s “noble and worthwhile purpose[,]” which is to “provid[e] a tool to hold government officials and agencies accountable to the citizens of Tennessee through oversight in government activities.” Tennessean, 485 S.W.3d at 864; see also Memphis Publ’g Co. v. City of Memphis, 871 S.W.2d 681, 684 (Tenn. 1994) (directing courts to be “vigilant in upholding th[e] clear legislative mandate” to construe the TPRA broadly, “even in the face of serious countervailing considerations”).
* * *To the extent a school-shooter manifesto exception to the TPRA is warranted, that decision is more appropriately left to the General Assembly or our Supreme Court. See Schneider, 226 S.W.3d at 340 (explaining that public policy exceptions to the TPRA are the province of the legislature). Thus, the trial court erred in concluding that section 10-7-504(p) bars disclosure of all the shooter’s writings and compilations.
Opinion, pp. 21-22
Next, Covenant School had raised the argument that the Copyright Act preempts the Tennessee Public Records Act and the trial court had adopted that argument to permanently block all of the shooter’s writing from public access. The Court of Appeals completed rejected that argument and the holding by the trial court in a length analysis.
Finally, Covenant Parents had argued that they and their children were crime victims and that they were entitled under Tennessee’s constitution and victim’s rights statute to block access to these records in their entirety. The trial court had rejected that argument but the Covenant Parents raised it anew on appeal. The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument.
The Court of Appeals then remanded the case to the trial court with the following mandate:
Having addressed the issues raised on appeal, the question becomes what to do on remand. First, the trial court shall instruct Metro to release any responsive documents that were withheld solely based on Rule 16. Second, the trial court shall determine which of the shooter’s writings and other works are exempt from disclosure under section 10-7-504(p), in accordance with this opinion. No record in Metro’s file should be deemed exempt “simply because it contains some exempt information.” Schneider, 226 S.W.3d at 346 (emphasis added). “Rather, redaction of the exempt information is appropriate.” Id. (citing Eldridge, 86 S.W.3d at 574). Further,
Opinion, p. 34
[t]he trial court has discretion to prescribe additional procedures as necessary to govern the proceedings on remand. The entire process should be concluded as expeditiously as possible. Because almost three years has passed since the first request for this information, we encourage the trial court to impose upon [Metro] an expedited schedule for completion of its review of the [requested public records].
Id.
For those who are following the Covenant School and the open records issue, a significant amount of the police investigative records have previously been made available by the FBI on its “vault.” The vault contains many pages of the shooter’s own notebooks and writing (although with some redaction).
Litigation like this is funded in part by member donations to the Tennessee Firearms Association and by charitable contributions to the Tennessee Firearms Foundation. Your continued financial support is important and needed.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.