Many States require a hearing on the relevance of a rape victim's prior sexual conduct before this evidence may be admitted. Often such statutes further require that such hearings be closed to the press and the public. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision apparently casts doubt on the power of a legislative body to require a blanket restriction on access to a particular type of proceeding. This note first traces the origins of the rape shield laws and the development of the first amendment right of public access to criminal proceedings. It then determines whether the same constitutional rationale underlying the public right to attend criminal proceedings extends to the rape shield hearing and, if so, to what extent the first amendment offers protection. The analysis then balances the interests supporting an open rape shield proceeding against those interests which favor a restriction on public access. Determining that the interests in closure are sufficiently compelling to override the first amendment interest in an open rape shield hearing, the note argues that the unvarying nature of the closure interest makes case-by-case judicial determination unnecessary. 189 footnotes.