Sadly, too many Michigan citizens have dealt with courts withholding documents; interfering in accountability, denying voters insight on elected leaders’ actions.
But Dr. Samantha Hallman? She’s doing something about it.
With help from the ACLU of Michigan, she is joining the fight for transparency and accountability in Michigan Courts.
For me, saying Michigan lacks transparency and leaves much to be desired, is being kind.
Michigan’s restrictive policies on public access to courtroom recordings involves several key legal principles, centering around constitutional rights, judicial transparency, and the balance between public access and administrative discretion.
Key Legal Principles
1. First Amendment Rights
Dr. Hallman’s lawsuit asserts that Michigan’s policies violate the First Amendment by denying public access to courtroom recordings.
The First Amendment guarantees the right to access and disseminate information, which historically includes court records and proceedings. Open courts are considered a cornerstone of democracy, ensuring public oversight of the judiciary and fostering civic engagement. The argument is that modern access to audio and video recordings is an essential analog to historical public attendance at court trials.
Michigan Judicial Tenure Complaints are often private, entirely hidden from the public eye, leaving voters at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to making informed voting choices.
Want to change the system? Report Michigan Judicial Misconduct here. It’s fast, free, and ensures accountability and transparency.
2. Public Accountability and Transparency
The principle of judicial transparency is central to this case. Courts are taxpayer-funded institutions, and the recordings of proceedings are created using public resources. Denying access to these recordings undermines public trust in the judiciary and suppresses informed civic engagement, including voter education about judicial conduct and demeanor.
3. Michigan Court Rules and Administrative Discretion
Michigan’s court rules delegate decisions regarding access to courtroom recordings to individual courts, creating a patchwork of policies across the state. Michigan Court Rule 8.119(F) designates court recordings as court records but leaves it to each court to establish its own policy under Model Local Administrative Order 8.
This decentralized approach has led some courts, such as the 52nd District Court, and in my case, the 5th Circuit Court, to adopt highly restrictive policies that completely prohibit public access.
Like all positions holding tremendous power and receiving funding from taxpayers, courts NEED oversight; not the ability to police themselves.
4. Comparisons with Other States
Dr. Hallman highlights that Michigan is an outlier, as other states like Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee generally provide public access to courtroom recordings through statutes, court rules, or established practices. This disparity raises questions about whether Michigan’s policies even align with broader constitutional standards for transparency in judicial systems.
Proverbially, the Fox is watching the henhouse.
5. Legal Remedies Sought
Dr. Hallman seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related statutes, arguing that Michigan’s policies unlawfully suppress her ability to inform voters and advocate for judicial reform.
She contends that these restrictions constitute an unconstitutional barrier to her civic engagement efforts.
I hope to join her soon with an amicus brief.
Conclusion
The legal principles in this case revolve around fundamental constitutional rights, particularly the First Amendment, and the broader issue of judicial accountability in a democratic society.
I can tell you from first hand experience, many Michigan courts are far more worried about maintaining a false image of fairness rather than upholding and enforcing it.
Dr. Hallman’s challenge underscores the tension between administrative discretion in court policies and the public’s right to access taxpayer-funded judicial records.
