Nothing in these guidelines shall be construed, however, to limit the powers of the courts to maintain decorum by ordering unruly spectators removed from the courtroom, or by reasonably limiting the number of spectators, or by exercising similar powers of judges at common law, nor shall anything in these guidelines require a judge to exclude the general public from any such proceedings if, after considering such matter, the trial court concludes that permitting the general public to be present will not create a substantial likelihood of injury or damage to the accused's right to a fair hearing. The fact that an accused or other witness may be embarrassed or be subject to public ridicule by reason of the public being present shall not be grounds upon which to close such matters, it being the intention of these guidelines to prescribe extremely limited situations under which courts shall be closed to the general public and otherwise establish a general policy of permitting courts to be open to the general public, consistent with the accused's constitutional rights to a fair hearing.
§ 6-206.Maintain decorum; general considerations.
Article 2: Closing Hearings to the Public · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 22, 2026
In one sentenceSection 6-206 makes clear that the closure guidelines do not limit a court’s ordinary power to keep order in the courtroom, and reminds judges not to close proceedings just because a witness or defendant might feel embarrassed by public presence.
Full Text of § 6-206
Plain-English Summary
Section 6-206 closes out Article 2 with two reminders. First, nothing in the closure guidelines cuts into a court’s traditional authority to keep order — removing unruly spectators, reasonably capping how many people can watch, or exercising whatever decorum powers judges have always had at common law. None of that requires the formal closure procedure the rest of Article 2 describes.
Second, and just as important, the rule tells judges not to close a proceeding just because they can. If, after considering the matter, a court concludes that letting the public attend will not create a substantial likelihood of harm to the defendant’s fair trial right, nothing in these guidelines forces the judge to exclude anyone. And embarrassment alone is never enough: the rule states directly that a defendant or witness facing potential public ridicule is not, by itself, grounds for closure. That reflects the guidelines’ larger purpose — to define narrow, limited situations for closing a courtroom while otherwise keeping Nebraska’s courts open, consistent with a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this rule stop a judge from removing disruptive spectators from a courtroom?
No. It preserves the court’s power to maintain decorum, including ordering unruly spectators removed or reasonably limiting the number of spectators.
Can a proceeding be closed just because a witness might be embarrassed by testifying publicly?
No. The rule states directly that potential embarrassment or public ridicule is not, by itself, a ground for closing a proceeding.
Is a judge ever required to close a hearing under these guidelines?
No. If the court concludes that public presence will not create a substantial likelihood of harm to a fair trial, nothing in the guidelines requires exclusion of the public.
What is the overall intent behind Nebraska’s closure guidelines, according to this rule?
To prescribe extremely limited situations where courts may close, while otherwise keeping courts open to the public, consistent with a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Does maintaining courtroom decorum require the formal closure procedures in the rest of Article 2?
No. Decorum measures like removing a disruptive spectator are treated separately from the closure procedures Article 2 otherwise requires.
Who benefits from the general policy this rule reaffirms?
Both the public, whose access to open courts is preserved except in narrow circumstances, and defendants, whose constitutional right to a fair hearing remains the guidelines’ ultimate concern.
Source & verification. Section text is
reproduced verbatim from the Nebraska Judicial Branch, adopted by the
Supreme Court of Nebraska. Last verified July 22, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: courtroom decorum powers judgeembarrassment not grounds for closurelimiting courtroom spectators nebraskaopen courts policy reminderjudge discretion courtroom order