Nearly 28 men accused of being clients of a high-profile prostitution ring can’t be too happy about the news, but the state’s highest court’s decision to keep court hearings public is good news for both courts and citizens. They become increasingly suspicious, even distrustful, of the institutions they once trusted most.

unanimously on Thursday. Supreme Court decision This was a victory for judicial transparency and the principle that wealth and power cannot be used to protect the identities of potential lawbreakers behind closed courtroom doors; Not when legitimate public interests are at stake.

A little over a year ago US prosecutor’s office announced the indictment Charges were filed against three people for “operating sophisticated high-end brothels” in Cambridge and Watertown, and two people in Eastern Virginia. Acting U.S. Attorney Joshua Levy at the time stated that the alleged buyers of “commercial sex” included “elected officials, high-tech and pharmaceutical executives, doctors, military officials, government contractors with security clearances, professors, lawyers, scientists, and accountants.” among others.

Two men and a woman have since been arrested, accused of running a brothel and pressuring mainly Asian women used in the prostitution scheme. pleaded guilty They have faced federal charges and are awaiting sentencing. But the names of the 28 defendant “Johns” were turned over to Cambridge police, who are accused of filing criminal charges against “purchasers who fuel the commercial sex industry,” Levy’s office said in a press release.

Cambridge District Court Clerk Magistrate Sharon Shelfer Casey made the rightful decision last December that the show would be open to the public for hearings in the case – the initial hearings that will determine whether criminal charges will be filed.

This caused 18 of the 28 defendants to appeal and the hearings were stopped.

“The filing of the complaints and public announcements made by the United States Attorney’s Office received widespread coverage and public attention in both local and national media outlets,” Judge Scott Kafker wrote for the court. “This attention has focused on who the 28 buyers were and whether they will be held accountable, regardless of the positions of power, wealth, or responsibility they allegedly occupied, as the Acting U.S. Attorney has emphasized. That accountability will begin at show-trial hearings in Cambridge District Court, where the Clerk-of-the-magistrate will be held accountable for a possible It will likely end at those hearings if the court finds that cause does not exist or otherwise declines to press charges.”

Imagine for a moment the impact on public confidence if these charges were to disappear altogether – as certainly did the clerk-magistrate and now the SJC justices.

I’m sorry to say this wouldn’t be the first time. Show hearings are routinely closed to the public. And if a disgruntled neighbor sues someone else for the “crime” of chopping down trees, so what?

But this way Globe Spotlight team In 2018, it was revealed that the rich and powerful often benefit from these behind-closed-door transactions. And these crimes were not just minor crimes, but also possible felonies. SJC replied The following year we demanded that all such hearings be recorded, ensuring that there was at least an official record as a backstop against nepotism.

In this case, of course, there was no way to put that genie back in the bottle — the U.S. attorney’s office made that nearly impossible from the start — calling the alleged buyers by their profession, if not by name, and pointing out why that’s not a trivial matter.

News media, including The Boston Globe, reported on the case, then petitioned the court for access to show-cause hearings and key filings for criminal charges filed by police.

As Kafker writes, the U.S. attorney “noted that the defendants include unidentified government officials, corporate executives, and other individuals with power, wealth, and responsibility,” and this “causes public awareness of the potential for favoritism and bias if such hearings are held.” raised concerns “Behind closed doors.”

However, the court disagreed that the underlying complaint filings, which would have identified the John Does in question, should be set aside. They will remain under seal until the first hearings.

The court also sought to streamline the show cause hearing process — going forward — by requiring clerks to alert defendants if there is a request for public access before a decision is made.

There is a way to simplify and demystify the demonstrated cause process, which is actually endemic to Massachusettsand this is to hypothetically make these transactions public. This can of course be done through legislation; has not been successful so far.

This is at least the second time in recent years that the SJC has tried to clean up the process using a lawsuit and its oversight powers. The issue of closed show hearings has already led to several high court fights over access to high-profile cases – the brothel case is only the latest.

We live in an increasingly complex world where mistrust thrives behind closed doors. This victory for transparency was important. But a permanent solution to “secret” hearings is long overdue.

Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. follow us @GlobeOpinion.