EDITORIAL: New Family Court rule is an affront to justice

Justice is supposed to blind, but it ceases to be justice if nobody can see it. The folks at Clark County District Court need a reminder of their obligations under the Bill of Rights and the importance of transparency.

Last week, the Nevada chapter of the ACLU asked the Nevada Supreme Court to overturn a new rule that limits public access to Family Court proceedings in Clark County. “The new rule violates the First Amendment,” Sophia Romero, an ACLU attorney, said in a release, “and undercuts confidence in an already frail Family Court system.”

Under the reformed guidelines — approved by the high court in April at the request of a petition filed by District Court Chief Judge Linda Bell and District Judge Joseph Hardy — judges may close Family Court proceedings whenever they please. Previously, only divorce case hearings could be conducted privately without cause.

The legal underpinnings for even that exception are shaky. But a carte blanche to shut out the public from any and all Family Court matters? That’s dangerous and an invitation for Star Chamber justice.

The edict is apparently a colossal overreaction aimed at hampering Alexander Falconi, who created the Our Nevada Judges website, which follows various Family Court proceedings and includes videos of hearings and other details. Mr. Falconi, who took up his hobby after experiencing the court firsthand while defending himself in a child custody case, said he redacts names and blurs faces when necessary.

But while Mr. Falconi’s scrutiny may be uncomfortable for some judges, lawyers and litigants, that is no justification for this response.

Family Court — which deals with cases involving divorce, annulment, child custody, spousal support, community property division, adoption and abuse and neglect — is a hotbed of controversy and raw emotion. The vast majority of grievances about judicial outcomes stem from Family Court disputes. Increased secrecy will only exacerbate the bitterness and further fuel complaints about bias and fairness.

In addition, making it more difficult for watchdogs and taxpayers to determine whether this system operates in an efficient, acceptable fashion and whether judges are up to the task is a recipe for weakening public confidence in Family Court. Occasional efforts to shield young children involved in court matters may be appropriate, but the default setting in any judicial proceeding in a free nation must be openness rather than secrecy.

Injustice flourishes absent transparency and accountability. The new rule is an affront to both. The Supreme Court must reverse course to ensure that — barring extraordinary circumstances — the public has access to these proceedings.