Mandatory Compliance: Ohio Supreme Court Affirms Municipal-Court Judges’ Authority over Elected Clerks in Record-Access Matters

Introduction

On 18 June 2025 the Supreme Court of Ohio delivered its decision in State ex rel. Parikh v. Berkowitz, 2025-Ohio-2117. The dispute centered on whether Pavan V. Parikh, the elected Hamilton County Clerk of Courts, could unilaterally limit remote (online) public access to residential-eviction records that were more than three years old, despite objections from the judges of the Hamilton County Municipal Court.

Two original actions were before the Court:

Mandamus: Municipal-court judges sought to compel Parikh to rescind his 2022 policy that removed older eviction cases from the clerk’s website.
Prohibition: Parikh attempted to block the judges from enforcing their administrative order and from holding him in contempt.

In affirming the First District Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court unanimously held that:

Under R.C. 1901.31(E) a municipal-court clerk has a clear legal duty to follow judges’ administrative directives concerning court records.
A contempt proceeding is an adequate legal remedy for the clerk; therefore prohibition does not lie.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court (Kennedy, C.J., and Fischer, DeWine, Brunner, Deters, Hawkins & Shanahan, JJ.) ruled per curiam that:

Mandamus Granted: Parikh must rescind his May 2022 policy and comply with Administrative Order 23-45, restoring full online access to all eviction records.
Prohibition Denied: The judges do not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to hold Parikh in contempt for failure to comply, and an appeal from any contempt order provides an adequate remedy at law.
Oral Argument Denied: Complexity and public-interest factors did not warrant oral argument.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Court relied on a tapestry of precedent to support its conclusions:

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons, 2014-Ohio-2354 & State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Bloom, 2024-Ohio-5029 – affirming the presumption of public access to court records under Article I, § 16 (Ohio Constitution) and Sup.R. 45.
State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. Second Dist. Ct. of Appeals, 65 Ohio St.3d 378 (1992) – “least restrictive means” standard when limiting public access.
State ex rel. Andrews v. Lake Cty. C.P., 2022-Ohio-4189 – scope of discretion of elected clerks v. inherent judicial authority.
State ex rel. Wellington v. Kobly, 2006-Ohio-6571 – contempt jurisdiction over non-party elected officials (county sheriff) in matters related to cases before the court.
State ex rel. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Lorain Cty. C.P., 2015-Ohio-3704 – limits of contempt where the order is unrelated to any case before the court (distinguished).
State ex rel. Mason v. Burnside, 2007-Ohio-6754; State ex rel. Mancino v. Campbell, 1993-Ohio-68 – adequacy of appeal in contempt situations.

The Court treated these precedents as demonstrating a consistent doctrine: judges possess primary authority over the management of records in their courts, and contempt is an established enforcement mechanism.

B. Legal Reasoning

Statutory Mandate (R.C. 1901.31(E))
• The statute imposes two categories of duties on municipal-court clerks: (i) creation and maintenance of dockets & indices, and (ii) “all other duties that the judges of the court may prescribe.” Administrative Order 23-45 falls squarely within the latter.
Sup.R. 45 & Loc.R. 9.16 Framework
• Records are “presumed open.”
• Courts may remove remote access, but only after a case-specific, least-restrictive, judicial finding. Parikh’s blanket removal usurped that function.
Judicial v. Ministerial Functions
• Decision to weigh privacy interests against public access is judicial. • Clerk’s role is ministerial; executing judges’ decisions, not formulating policy.
Contempt Jurisdiction
• R.C. 1901.13(A)(1) grants municipal courts contempt power “in any action or proceeding” within their jurisdiction; eviction cases undisputedly qualify.
• Parikh’s refusal directly impacts pending and closed proceedings, so contempt power attaches.
Adequate Remedy & Due-Process Concerns
• Appeal of a contempt order is a robust avenue for challenging constitutionality, ensuring procedural fairness (citing Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517 (1925), but noting Ohio long upholds same-court contempt hearings).

C. Likely Impact of the Decision

The ruling reverberates across several dimensions:

Administrative Control: Solidifies judges’ supervisory grip over record-keeping in municipal courts, even where the clerk is independently elected.
Uniform Public Access: Discourages clerks statewide from carving out policy-based access restrictions without judicial approval.
Guidance on Sup.R. 45: Clarifies that while remote access is permissive, its withdrawal is tantamount to restricting public access and therefore triggers the rule’s protective procedures.
Separation-of-Powers Doctrine (Local Level): Reconciles autonomy of elected clerks with the judiciary’s inherent and statutory powers, likely influencing future inter-branch skirmishes (e.g., budget, HR, technology).
Contempt as Enforcement Tool: Affirms contempt as an available and appropriate remedy to enforce administrative orders against non-party public officials.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus: A court order commanding a public official to perform a duty that the law requires. Think of it as a legal “execute” button.
Prohibition: The inverse writ—used to stop a court or official from doing something that exceeds its jurisdiction.
Direct vs. Remote Access: • Direct access = in-person courthouse viewing or copying. • Remote access = online portals and electronic viewing.
Patent and Unambiguous Lack of Jurisdiction: A very clear absence of power. If a court plainly has no authority over a matter, prohibition will issue immediately.
Least Restrictive Means: When limiting public access, courts must choose the narrowest option—e.g., redacting personal data rather than sealing an entire file.
R.C. 1901.31(E): Ohio statute obligating municipal-court clerks to perform duties ordered by judges—effectively a “follow the judge’s instructions” clause.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Parikh v. Berkowitz delivers a decisive statement: elected municipal-court clerks cannot implement unilateral policies that curtail online access to court records when such policies intrude upon judicial prerogatives. R.C. 1901.31(E) converts judges’ administrative directives into mandatory duties for clerks, enforceable by contempt.

Beyond Hamilton County, the decision provides a blueprint for resolving similar disputes statewide and underscores that transparency in court proceedings remains the default. Courts retain ultimate authority to calibrate the openness of their records, and clerks serve as the operational conduit—not the policymaker—of that transparency.