Courts are constantly walking a tightrope between transparency and protection. Not every document can be shared, not every statement can be complete, and not every detail should be public. Yet secrecy alone is never enough to sustain trust. What makes the difference is whether people are shown the logic, not just the outcome. When courts clearly explain why certain information is sealed, what standards apply, and how those standards are enforced, the silence stops feeling like a cover-up and starts looking like a boundary.
Over time, this kind of explanation changes the tone of public debate. Instead of chasing shadows and speculating about hidden motives, critics can challenge the fairness of the rules themselves. That shift—from suspicion to scrutiny—is where real accountability lives. Trust is not built on knowing everything, but on knowing how and why something is kept from view, and believing that the same rules apply to everyone.
