โ€œGrantedโ€… But Gagged

In theory, public access to court proceedings is a cornerstone of democracy. Itโ€™s how we hold power accountable, scrutinize judicial decisions, and expose misconduct when the system fails. But in Allegan County, Michigan, two separate judges – Judge Margaret Zuzich Bakker and Judge Matthew Antkoviak – have found a way to render that right entirely meaningless.

The orders above tell the story.

Requests for courtroom DVD recordings, which should be straightforward public records, are technically โ€œgranted.โ€ But thereโ€™s a catch so large it swallows the right whole: the orders explicitly prohibit recipients from copying, sharing, publishing, or even discussing the footage in any meaningful way.

? Granted โ€” but
? You canโ€™t reproduce it.
? You canโ€™t release it to anyone else.
? You canโ€™t publish it on the internet, even for journalism or advocacy.

In other words: you can have the evidenceโ€ฆ you just canโ€™t use it anywhere.

Here’s a copy of the blank form.


Allegan County DVD Request Form detailing conditions for access and restrictions on copying or sharing recordings.

Weaponizing Access to Hide Misconduct

This isnโ€™t about protecting sensitive information. This is about control. Itโ€™s about keeping the public from seeing how courts actually function and about shielding judges, prosecutors, and probation officers from scrutiny when they donโ€™t.

These DVD orders have become a bureaucratic workaround to Michiganโ€™s already weak transparency laws. They allow courts to claim theyโ€™re โ€œgranting accessโ€ while simultaneously gagging the very people who requested the records.

Itโ€™s an especially insidious tactic when recordings could reveal judicial bias, ex parte communications, unlawful orders, or violations of defendantsโ€™ rights. What good is evidence of misconduct if the public is forbidden from seeing it?

The Stakes: Democracy Depends on Public Courtrooms

The United States Supreme Court has made it clear for decades: court proceedings are presumptively open to the public. That openness isnโ€™t a privilege; itโ€™s a constitutional safeguard. Itโ€™s how we ensure judges donโ€™t operate behind closed doors and that justice isnโ€™t twisted into something secret and selective.

But orders like these dismantle that principle. They treat the public not as a participant in democracy, but as a threat to be managed. They send a chilling message to journalists, advocates, and even defendants: Weโ€™ll let you watch, but weโ€™ll punish you if you speak.

Why Michigan Needs Courtroom Transparency Reform. Now.

Michiganโ€™s courts have long resisted meaningful transparency. Public records are difficult to obtain. And now, even when recordings are technically accessible, theyโ€™re functionally useless.

Itโ€™s no wonder thereโ€™s an ongoing lawsuit challenging the stateโ€™s aversion to courtroom transparency and accountability (read more here). Whatโ€™s at stake isnโ€™t just the ability to share a DVD; itโ€™s the publicโ€™s right to know what happens in their taxpayer-funded courtrooms.

Call to Action: Sunshine Is the Best Disinfectant

Itโ€™s time to stop treating transparency like a privilege. We need:

  • Statewide legislation guaranteeing public access to courtroom recordings.
  • Clear judicial accountability standards for withholding or restricting court records.
  • Journalists, advocates, and citizens to keep demanding access and challenging unconstitutional gag orders when they appear.

The courts belong to the people. And if the people canโ€™t see whatโ€™s happening inside them, they canโ€™t trust the system that claims to serve them.

Clutch is in the early stages of exploring a Political Action Committee. Stay tuned.


One-Time
Monthly

?ย  Love what we do? Support clutch.

Make a monthly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated, keeping us independent and fearless.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthly