The Nevada Superior Court hearing today could be the first public window involving a secret legal dispute that will control Rupert Murdoch’s powerful media empire after his death.

The case of the Murdoch Family Trust has been working behind closed doors in the Reno, Nevada court. However, the lawsuit is still sealed, and Nevada courts have hardly admitted that the legal action even exists.

Media including CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post are now asking the Nevada Supreme Court to unravel the case and make future hearings public. The court plans to hear the debate in the afternoon in the capital Carson City.

In September, news agencies applied to the district court for access, believing that confidentiality infringes on constitutional rights.

"The public has a great interest in Murdoch's child taking over him," the news media said in the petition. "Inheritance will affect thousands of jobs, millions of global media consumers and the American political landscape."

The store argued: "The courts in Nevada are responsible to the public, and the public has the right to know whether they comply with the law. Of course, even if all parties to the lawsuit agree, the entire matter cannot be sealed so much that its existence is not a public record."

But the District Court denied the claim and the lawsuit remained private.

Now, Rupert Murdoch's challenge to change trust is to keep one of his sons Lachlan, responsible for and make sure Fox News maintains its conservative editorial tendency, appearance and media organization challenges to open up litigation.

In December, it was revealed that Nevada's probate court rejected the challenge of media tycoons, ruling that Murdoch's four adult children remain equal and shared control over their father's media empire after their death.

Nevada Commissioner Edmund Gorman concluded that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch had acted in “malice” capacity to try to change the terms of trust.

According to the Times, Gorman accused the elder Murdoch of organizing a "well-crafted Charade" to "permanently consolidate Lachlan Murdoch's administrative role", and within the internal empire "what affects the family or beneficiaries, regardless of the impact of such control on the company or beneficiaries."

"We welcome Commissioner Gorman's decision and hope we can go beyond this lawsuit to focus on strengthening and rebuilding the relationship between all family members," James, Elisabeth and Prudence told the Times in a statement.

Rupert Murdoch's attorney Adam Streisand told the newspaper at the time they were disappointed with the ruling and the intention to appeal. Another proof hearing for the month is scheduled for this month.

The Associated Press contributed to this report