It may come as a surprise that nearly half of Southern Nevada’s district courts are located within the judicial beehive of Clark County Family Court.

With more than two dozen judges, it’s a branch of the system that covers a large swath of proceedings that include divorce, annulment, child custody and support, adoption, and abuse and neglect cases. In many cases, parties act as their own counsel with the court offering assistance through its Family Law Self-Help Center.

Being a family court judge takes not only a knowledge of a dynamic area of the law, but also the right temperament on the bench. Obviously, the wrong judge can turn a difficult time into a nightmare.

With so much going on in family court on a given day, it might also surprise you that it receives almost no scrutiny from the press. It’s been that way since the court’s inception in the early 1990s. Whether due to a lack of personnel or an abundance of important breaking news, with some high-profile exceptions, traditionally the family court system has received a pass from the media.

I suspect that lack of scrutiny only emboldened renegade Family Court Judge Steven Jones in the years leading up to his ouster. Over nearly two decades on the bench, Jones developed a reputation for intimidation and vindictiveness around the court system. It took years before the bell of justice tolled for Jones.

That finally ended after his connection to a Mexico land scam was revealed. He pleaded guilty in 2015 in U.S. District Court in connection with a multimillion-dollar investment fraud. Jones used his position to help sell the scam and at times met with prospective investors in his chambers.

Other reports originating in family court have been less scandalous. Many stories are heartening. But without full access to the proceedings conducted by elected judges, it’s safe to say at least some of those worthy stories will never be told.

That’s part of what makes the recent litigation filed by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada on behalf of Alexander Falconi’s diminutive Our Nevada Judges reporting effort so important. The filing seeks to have the high court toss the recent decision by the Eighth Judicial District Court to allow judges to close court proceedings without cause.

Access to the courts by the press is protected by the First Amendment, and ACLU attorneys Sophia Romero and Christopher Peterson argue that Our Nevada Judges is a “private, independent, and neutral entity” that thanks to Falconi is playing an important role in bridging “the gap between the public and the judiciary” despite a lack of corporate status.

Our Nevada Judges, according to the filing, conducts statistical analysis on the courts, provides electronic coverage, reports on judicial proceedings, and conducts interviews. At a time when news outlets are understaffed, its lawyers contend Our Nevada Judges is providing a meaningful, needed and constitutionally protected service.

“Allowing what amounts to a blanket closure of the family courts will cause irreparable injury to Our Nevada Judges by denying it, and all others their First Amendment right of access to the courts, a right to which they are entitled as a matter of law,” they write.

In a statement, Romero added, “This new rule violates the First Amendment and undercuts confidence in an already frail family court system.”

In addition to their clarion call for transparency, they also note incidents of judges conducting themselves unprofessionally in cases involving domestic violence survivors and children. Although most judges take their work seriously and bring the right tools to the job, others generate complaints that often go unreported.

Closing the courtroom without having to balance the public’s interest or demonstrate cause only stokes suspicion about the fairness and honesty of the system in place.

“Open and transparent courts provide for a fair judiciary. In a court proceeding where one party holds all the cards and the other party is struggling to get by, and with no right to counsel in traditional family court proceedings, the probability of injustice rises,” ACLU of Nevada Executive Director Athar Haseebullah said in a statement. “It is essential that family court proceedings remain open and transparent.”

Some will argue that many matters that wind up in family court are highly sensitive and deserve privacy. Others will contend that Our Nevada Judges isn’t really journalism and shouldn’t enjoy the same protections.

But whether it’s The New York Times or a one-man band, it’s providing a valuable community service at a time. And it’s not as if other reporting outfits are trying to elbow it out of the way.

Elected judges who can shut out the public without stating their reason do a disservice to the justice system they’ve sworn an oath to represent professionally.