Source: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/a-open-the-meeting/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:06:38+00:00

Document:
If the meeting has not already occurred, but closure has been threatened prospectively, the court can certainly order that the meeting be conducted in accordance with the open meetings law.
If the suit is filed prior to the meeting, the court may order the governing body to hold an open session or issue a declaratory judgment that a closed meeting would violate the FOIA. See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-107(c).
The court has the discretion to order a meeting to be open if it does not fit within one of the exemptions specifically authorized by the relevant Act. The court may also require the body to tape record its future closed sessions and preserve the recordings if past violations of closed session requirements are found. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 11130(b) (Bagley-Keene Act); 54960(b) (Brown Act). The tapes will then be subject to discovery procedures, although only under those procedures outlined by the Acts. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 11130(c)(2) (Bagley-Keene Act); 54960 (Brown Act)(c)(2).
Injunctive relief is authorized by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-6-402(9) to order that meetings be open, and that all future meetings be open.
If the court finds that an official action was taken in violation of the Open Meetings Act, it may require the public body to open the meeting. D.C. Code Ann. § 2-579(c)(1).
The court may grant an injunction or other equitable relief to enforce compliance with the Act, including requiring that a meeting be open. O.C.G.A. § 50-14-5(a).
A court may open the meeting via declaratory relief. See Ind. Code § 5-14-1.5-7(a)(1); see also Marion-Adams Sch. Corp. v. Boone, 840 N.E.2d 462, 468 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (granting declaratory judgment to prevent violation of Open Door Law).
Generally, a court order instructing the agency to open its meeting is not available unless the party is aware the meeting will be closed far in advance of the meeting.
Yes; writ of mandamus or injunctive relief is available. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 42:26.
"[I]f a public body is not complying with [the OMA], the attorney general, prosecuting attorney of the county in which the public body serves, or person may commence a civil action to compel compliance or enjoin further noncompliance with [the Act]." Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.271 (1). Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy which issues only when justice requires and there is no adequate remedy at law, and when there is real and imminent danger of irreparable injury. Wexford County Prosecuting Attorney, supra, 268 N.W.2d at 348; see also Booth Newspapers Inc. v . University of Michigan Board of Regents, supra, 507 N.W.2d at 431 (enjoining university board of regents from future use of subquorum committees to reach decision or hiring new university president). A person commencing an action for injunctive relief is not required to post security as a condition for obtaining a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 15.271(2).
A court may order that the minutes of an improperly closed meeting be subject to disclosure. The Detroit News v. City of Detroit, supra, 460 N.W.2d at 315-316.
Although there is no specific statutory authority, it is possible that a party may be able to obtain a temporary restraining order against a contemplated violation of Open Meetings Act.
A court could require a meeting be open.
The courts have the ability to render mandatory injunctive relief to enjoin a continuing violation of the Open Meetings Law. G.S. § 143-318.16.
The court may award declaratory relief, an injunction, or a writ of probation or mandamus against the public entity, which could include opening the meeting. See N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2(1).
The court will order the meeting at issue to be open. Ohio Rev. Code § 121.22(I)(1).
No cases have been reported concerning the opening of a meeting.
A court might order future meetings to be open.
The court may issue injunctive relief. R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-46-8(d).
The court could order a meeting opened.
Through a proper request, the Court may order that the meeting be open. See id.
A court may compel compliance with the Open Meetings Act. Utah Code § 52-4-303(3)(a).
In practice, interested persons — e.g., news reporters — try to make their concerns known to the public body as loudly and as early as possible, in the hopes that logic, or more likely political acumen, will influence the body’s decision not to go into a questionably legitimate executive session. The reality is that almost all such situations are likely to have already occurred, especially where local boards typically meet in the evening hours, before there is even an opportunity to pursue judicial relief. There are no reported cases of a court ordering that a meeting be opened prior to the meeting having already been held. The most common relief ordered for a violation of the Open Meeting Law is to invalidate the decision and order that the public body hold a new meeting that complies with the requirements of the statute. See, e.g., Moorcroft v. Town of Brookfield, No. 147-7-10, 2011 Vt. Super. LEXIS 81, *8 (Vt. Super. Orange County Nov. 8, 2011); Kevan v. Town of Randolph Selectboard, No. 137-7-05 2006 Vt. Super. LEXIS 7, *12 (Vt. Super. Orange County July 31, 2006).
Although mandamus and injunctive relief are available, this remedy often is not available given that closure of a meeting has already taken place.
Citizens may seek injunctive relief to prevent a body from meeting in secret. See concurrence of Justice Marilyn Kite in Cheyenne Newspapers v. City of Cheyenne Building Code Board of Appeals.

References: § 25
 § 24
 § 2
 § 50
 § 5
 v. 
 § 42
 § 15
 § 15
 v. 
 § 143
 § 44
 § 121
 § 42
 § 52
 v. 
 v. 
 v.