Utah Judge Closes Courtroom Doors to the Public: What’s Being Hidden Behind Locked Doors and Shady Rules?
"Utah Judge Locks Out Public: Justice or Just Hiding?"
Bit’s article regarding the Court Commissioner in Utah that has closed his courtroom to the public and attorneys if they are not a party in the case being heard. This court and commissioner have basically become a Star Chamber, where there is no transparency, and it is an affront to jurisprudence and the United States justice system . This is part one of multiple blog postings I am sure Bits will be posting. Roo….
Closed Doors, Closed Justice: Why We All Deserve Open Courtrooms
In the United States, open courts aren’t just a nice idea—they’re the cornerstone of our legal system. Letting the public see what happens in courtrooms ensures fairness, keeps judges accountable, and builds trust in the system. When those doors close, we all lose. And in one Utah Commissioner’s Court, a local rule is slamming those doors shut. It’s bad, it’s unconstitutional, and frankly, it reeks of arrogance.
Here’s the situation: unless you’re directly involved in the case, you’re not allowed in. No curious public, no reporters, and not even attorneys stopping by to observe. Seriously, what’s this judge hiding? Justice isn’t some private VIP club—it’s supposed to be for everyone. This rule tramples one of the most basic tenets of justice: it’s not enough for justice to be done; it must be seen to be done.
Utah’s Promise of Open Courts
Utah has always been serious about keeping its courts open. It’s right there in the Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 11:
“All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, which shall be administered without denial or unnecessary delay…” (Utah Const. art. I, § 11).
This isn’t just legalese—it’s a promise. Utah’s courts are supposed to stay open and accessible. Shutting the doors to the public isn’t just a bad look; it’s a direct violation of that promise. It undermines the very foundation of public trust in our justice system.
Courts Have Always Backed Openness
Utah’s legal tradition has consistently emphasized transparency. Take Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Hornak (1985), where the Utah Court of Appeals reaffirmed that courtrooms should be open, with only narrow exceptions like certain juvenile cases. Public access, the court said, is crucial for transparency, accountability, and trust.
Even the Utah Supreme Court has been crystal clear on this. Public oversight ensures fairness, prevents judicial misconduct, and boosts confidence in the system (Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 1980). After all, it’s a lot harder to make questionable decisions when the public is watching.
Utah’s courts have even gone the extra mile to make proceedings accessible. Tools like the XChange System allow the public to view court records, and the Utah State Archives preserves judicial documents for posterity. Yet somehow, this Commissioner’s Court decided to ignore all that and operate like a secret club. Bold move.
Why Closing Courtroom Doors is a Huge Mistake
Let’s break down why this rule is not just bad but actively harmful:
Behind Closed Doors: Utah Judge Turns Courtroom Into a Secret Society—What Are They Hiding From Justice?
No Accountability: Without public eyes on the process, there’s no one to catch errors or bias. And let’s be honest, isn’t that exactly why some judges prefer it this way? Transparency in courtrooms is essential for fairness, accountability, and public trust in the justice system.
Destroys Trust: Closed courtrooms create suspicion and erode public faith in justice. When people can’t see fairness in action, they start to doubt it exists. Trust in the legal system isn’t built on secrecy; it’s built on openness.
Stifles Professional Growth: Attorneys often learn from observing court proceedings. By barring them, this rule robs the legal community of valuable opportunities to grow. It’s shortsighted and petty.
Sure, maintaining order in the courtroom is important, but locking out the public? That’s overkill. There are plenty of ways to manage disruptions without throwing transparency out the window. Assigned seating, decorum rules—take your pick. Shutting the doors entirely just screams insecurity.
The Bigger Picture: A Slippery Slope
This isn’t just about one courtroom or one judge. If this kind of rule spreads, it sets a dangerous precedent for the entire judiciary. Today, it’s one courtroom in Utah; tomorrow, it could be widespread secrecy across the system. That’s not just a slippery slope—it’s a nosedive into authoritarianism.
Imagine a world where court cases proceed in total secrecy. Decisions are made without oversight, and public trust in the judiciary crumbles. Is that the future we want? If this Commissioner’s Court thinks so, maybe they need a refresher on why courts exist in the first place.
Keeping the Legacy of Open Courts Alive
Utah’s courts have a proud history of transparency. Shutting people out goes against everything the justice system stands for. As Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” (Brandeis, 1914). The public has a right to see what happens in courtrooms. It’s not a privilege; it’s a cornerstone of democracy.
To the judges and commissioners of Utah: this isn’t just a procedural issue—it’s a constitutional one. Justice must be open so it can be trusted, respected, and understood. Closing the doors betrays your duty to the public and undermines the entire system. If you ARE the one who decided to enforce this rule, ask yourself: are you protecting justice, or just protecting yourself?
A Call to Action: Fight for Transparent and Open Courts
Public access to courtrooms isn’t just a tradition; it’s a right. If you are a citizen of Utah—or anywhere else—don’t let this slide. Write to your representatives, raise your voice, and demand accountability. Justice thrives on transparency, and we can’t afford to let secrecy take root. The doors of justice must stay open—for everyone.
References
Brandeis, L. D. (1914). Other People’s Money and How the Bankers Use It. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company.
Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Hornak, 696 P.2d 1280 (Utah Ct. App. 1985).
Utah Const. art. I, § 11.
Utah State Courts. (n.d.). Court records. Utah State Courts. Retrieved from https://www.utcourts.gov
Utah Supreme Court. (1980). Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555.
What do you think about Courts having blanket rules that keep the ordinary citizen from observing the courts and their behaviors? Is this something that we should tolerate in the United States?
Comment down below. Roo.