Tennessee Court Weighs Family Intervention in Covenant School Shooter Records Case

Children from The Covenant School, a private Christian school in Nashville, Tenn., hold hands as they are taken to a reunification site at the Woodmont Baptist Church after a deadly shooting at their school on March 27, 2023. (Jonathan Mattise/AP Photo)

The legal battle surrounding the release of writings left behind by the March 27 Covenant School shooter continues in Nashville, as the Tennessee Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on Monday over whether families of the schoolchildren should be granted legal standing to intervene in a Tennessee Public Records Act (TPRA) case.

The case could set a precedent and raises questions about the balance between public interest and personal privacy in the aftermath of traumatic events.

Nearly seven months ago, a shooter entered the Covenant School, a private Christian school located on the campus of Covenant Presbyterian Church, leaving six dead, including three children.

Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD) has kept various records related to the incident, including a “manifesto” from the shooter, under wraps, prompting appeals from media outlets and other organizations for the release of these documents.

Monday’s hearing and the focus of the appellate court panel stems from a lower court allowing the Covenant School parents, church, and school to join the lawsuit as third-party interveners. The plaintiffs, who disagreed with that decision, took their appeal to the higher court on May 30.

Arguments in the lower court over the merits of the case have not even been argued yet—as the immediate appeal of the court’s decision to allow intervention led the higher court to issue a stay to halt those proceedings back in June as the appeal process plays out.

Related Stories

Parents, Staff at Covenant School Join Prominent Officials in New Filings Seeking to Stop Release of Shooter’s Writings

6/24/2023

Group of Private Schools, Nashville DA File Briefs Supporting Attempts to Halt Release of Covenant Shooter’s Manifesto

6/13/2023

Originally, the lower court under Davison County Chancellor I’Ashea Myles declined to put the proceedings on hold, but the appellate court’s order took precedence over her ruling. The reason given by the higher court was to ensure all parties’ rights were adequately protected during the appeal process.

Balancing Transparency and Trauma

Attorneys for the families asserted that the release of the shooter’s manifesto could have devastating psychological impacts on the surviving victims and their families.

They argue that this is not merely a policy consideration but a matter of “life and death,” and thus they should be permitted to intervene under Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mourners observe the makeshift memorial at The Covenant School in the Green Hills neighborhood of Nashville on March 31, 2023, four days after six were killed at the school in a shooting. (Chase Smith/The Epoch Times)

“Let me talk about the parents’ interest, because I just cannot emphasize enough, that for the parents, this case is literally a matter of life and death,” Eric Osborne, attorney for the Covenant School families, told the court on Monday.

He said later on that the release of documents would only “aggravate and grow” the psychological harm of the Covenant School children—and that the parents ought to be able to participate in the case as intervenors to make that case.

“The simple fact is that the record that we have presented shows that there is a very real risk that if the shooter’s writings are released, one or more children may harm themselves,” Osborne said. “It has happened time and time in the past from school shootings, and we have a unique opportunity here to try to prevent these writings from coming out to try to protect these children.”

In contrast, legal counsel for media outlets suggests that permitting such intervention would fundamentally alter the “bilateral” nature of TPRA requests and set a troubling precedent.

“The TPRA creates a simple, unique and expeditious process for adjudicating public records disputes,” Paul Krog, the attorney for Star News Digital Media but speaking on behalf of several of the appellees, said. “That process leaves no room for intervention and practically speaking, cannot readily accommodate it. The Court should hold that the TPRA does not permit third party intervention in this nature.”

Krog argued that the appellants have not articulated their interests as a “cognizable legal claim,” thus questioning their standing in the matter.

Complex Legal Landscape

Lora Fox, representing MNPD and Metro Nashville, argued that the TPRA sets up a multilateral, not bilateral, process.

“The appellants are mistaken when they argue that the Tennessee Public Records Act sets up a bilateral process between the requester and the government,” she said. “It sets up an extremely multilateral process.”

Fox noted that hundreds of exceptions in the act exist precisely to protect private individuals and their information.

“The statute envisions that the government would have certainly the first crack at looking at whether there’s exceptions, but we have no case law saying that it is the only crack or that anyone who this exception has purposefully been designed to benefit should not have a voice,” she argued.

Krog earlier stated that by allowing more parties to participate—the suit would become too crowded to ensure a timely appeal be heard in regard to the original public records request denial. He argued this could create a precedent that would go against the TPRA’s intent of speedy public records disputes.

Fox disagreed, stating it is “not going to be a situation where every public records request turns out to become a two-year process,” indicating the length of time she believes this appeal may end up taking.

She emphasized that intervention is not about slowing down the public records process but ensuring that when “such an important interest in protecting private information” is at stake, those persons should have a voice.

The home of the Nashville Christian School shooter sits quietly in its south Nashville neighborhood on March 31, 2023, days after police agencies raided the home following the shooting. (Chase Smith/The Epoch Times)

Fox further stated that Metro and MNPD had a “conflict[ing]” view of the third-party intervenors from the church and school, noting that at the end of the investigation, Metro “believes that under existing case law, the criminal investigation mostly becomes a public record.”

“The families say no, under the exceptions that they assert, and their constitutional rights, they argue that none of the investigation files should become a public record,” she said. “And so not only do I not represent them, but Metro has a different position than the victims in this case.”

She added: “This is an ongoing criminal investigation, but that criminal investigation will end at some point in the relatively near future. The school safety exception has been asserted, the school and the families who are the victims at that school are allowed by law to participate.”

Questions of Jurisdiction and Discretion

The court also delved into issues surrounding trial court discretion under Tennessee court rules and procedures. Attorneys for the families highlighted that trial courts are “gatekeepers” and should continue to have discretion to allow or disallow interventions, especially in cases involving extreme sensitivity.

Krog posited that the court could not depart from the text of the statute to give voices to these families in a way that the legislature has not provided for. He cited similar cases in Michigan, which has a similar statutory standing jurisdiction rule, where the court held that such rule prohibits intervention.

What Comes Next?

The appellate court has adjourned without providing an immediate decision. An appeals court clerk said a decision by the panel could take “days, weeks, or months.”

Should the families keep legal standing to intervene, it may establish a landmark decision concerning TPRA cases, particularly those involving sensitive or traumatic events.

This case has put the spotlight on the perennial tension between the public’s right to know and the psychological and emotional toll on victims and their families—a matter which several of the attorneys alluded to should be discussed as policy ideas by the state legislature.