Damian Lillard‘s divorce drama has hit another legal roadblock, and the public will have to keep guessing. The Oregon Supreme Court has denied a petition seeking greater public access to records in the divorce case involving the Portland Trail Blazers star and his ex-wife, Kay’La Hanson.
Apparently, not every celebrity divorce comes with a front-row seat for curious fans. The court’s latest decision means the unusual legal battle over access to the couple’s records is far from over.
The ruling came Thursday and marked another development in a case that has attracted attention because of the fight over secrecy. A retired judge wanted greater access to the divorce records. However, the state’s highest court declined to grant that request.
And just like that, the public’s hopes of getting a closer look at the legal paperwork took another hit.
James Hargreaves, a retired Lane County judge, argued that the public has a right to access court records and that judges should not be allowed to seal entire cases without sufficient justification.
In a brief order issued Thursday, the Oregon Supreme Court denied Hargreaves’ petition. The court did not explain its reasoning. The decision leaves in place lower court orders that opened portions of the divorce case while allowing other records to remain sealed or redacted.
Lillard filed for divorce in Clackamas County Circuit Court in October 2023. The breakup, involving one of Portland’s most recognizable athletes, attracted widespread media attention.
About six months later, a judge ordered the entire divorce case sealed, effectively removing it from public view. Hargreaves, who has no personal connection to Lillard or Hanson, became interested in the case because of the decision to seal the records. In June 2025, he filed a motion asking to intervene in the divorce proceedings for the limited purpose of challenging the sealing orders.
In an interview with KGW, Hargreaves said his concern was not about Lillard’s personal life but about the public’s ability to examine court proceedings.
“I really believe in the court being open. And the court operating the same for everybody,” Hargreaves said.
In October 2025, Clackamas County Circuit Judge Michael Wetzel granted Hargreaves’ request to intervene and partially granted his motion to unseal the case.
Wetzel ordered the public court file reopened but allowed lawyers for Lillard and Hanson to identify specific documents or information they wanted to remain confidential. The judge said those requests could involve sensitive information about the couple’s children or financial matters.
After reviewing the records, Wetzel issued another order in April 2026 allowing some documents to be released while permitting others to remain sealed or redacted. Wetzel also rejected requests to conceal certain court entries involving money judgments, finding that those records needed to remain public.
Hargreaves argued that the remaining restrictions were too broad. He petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court, asking it to require greater access to the records and to make unsealed documents available through the state’s electronic court records system.
Lillard’s attorneys opposed Hargreaves’ efforts, arguing that the divorce involved sensitive financial and family information that deserved protection.
In court filings, they described Lillard as a prominent professional athlete and public figure whose family could face additional risks if confidential information became public. They argued that releasing certain records could create safety concerns for Lillard, Hanson and their children.
Two of Lillard’s attorneys did not respond to KGW’s request for an interview. An attorney representing Hanson said she was not authorized to comment.
Hargreaves said his effort was never intended to expose personal details about Lillard or his family.
“I don’t really have any interest in his history or his family’s history or anything else,” Hargreaves said.
Instead, he argued that the dispute raised questions about whether courts apply the same standards to everyone, regardless of their wealth or fame.
“You know, it could have been Joe Schmo, and I’d be fighting the same fight,” he said.
The dispute also raises broader questions about the public’s ability to examine court proceedings in Oregon. More than half a million cases are filed in Oregon courts annually. Most are accessible to the public, although certain information and proceedings may be kept confidential.
Data shared with KGW identified nearly two dozen Oregon court cases sealed in their entirety from 2020 through 2025. The cases included divorces, estate matters and lawsuits. The data did not provide the names of the parties or explain why the cases were sealed.
Let’s be honest. Celebrity relationships can turn into public entertainment faster than a basketball player can launch a three-pointer.
Fans follow the romances, celebrate the weddings, and watch closely when things fall apart. Add a famous NBA star to the mix, and suddenly, everyone wants to know what happened behind closed doors.
But the court’s decision serves as a reminder that fame does not automatically make every personal document public property.
Although the Supreme Court denied Hargreaves’ petition, his challenge resulted in portions of Lillard’s divorce case being reopened to the public.
Hargreaves believes the dispute has implications beyond one celebrity divorce, raising questions about when judges can restrict public access to court proceedings.
Asked why he was willing to devote so much time to a case involving a star athlete he doesn’t know and a sport he doesn’t follow, Hargreaves offered a simple explanation.
“I’m retired. I’ve got lots of time,” he said.
For now, Lillard and Hanson can keep their divorce records out of the wider public spotlight, at least following this latest ruling.
