Last week, the nation pulled itself away from election news long enough to watch President Barack Obama nominate Merrick B. Garland to be the 113th Supreme Court justice. While the confirmation process — if and when it takes place — will be broadcast for citizens to view from their homes, the court itself remains hidden from public view. Currently, cameras of any kind are not allowed in the courtroom. Despite strong public support for the broadcasting of Supreme Court proceedings, it is unlikely to be allowed in the near future. This leaves citizens and legislators without a mechanism to participate or engage with the highest court in the nation.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 bars the broadcast of Supreme Court (and other federal courts’) oral arguments. It states, “Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.” The first and only video footage recorded of an oral argument is a roughly two-minute clip smuggled out of 2014’s McCutcheon v. F.E.C. case by campaign finance protesters. With that exception, a commissioned painting is the best viewing option available to the majority of citizens in 2016.
Studies have found a great deal of public support for a televised Supreme Court. In a 2015 Penn Schoen Berland study prepared for CSPAN, 76 percent of the participants said oral arguments should be televised. Likewise, in a 2014 McLaughlin & Associates survey, 74.1 percent of respondents said they support television cameras in the Courtroom.
The citizens in these studies aren’t alone; legislators regularly (and, so far, unsuccessfully) draft bipartisan bills giving the Supreme Court justices a mechanism to allow cameras into their oral arguments. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is one such legislative effort. Its summary states that the bill “authorizes the presiding judge of a U.S. appellate court (including the Supreme Court) or U.S. district court to permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising to the public of court proceedings over which that judge presides, except when such action would constitute a violation of the due process rights of any party.”
Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who introduced the House version of the act, told a 2014 Judiciary Subcommittee that “It was a significant maneuver” for him to get a seat in the courthouse during the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case. “Something like Bush v. Gore can be decided in the Supreme Court with a relative handful of people having almost exclusive access to get in to hear a cases like that.”
Opponents have several concerns
Most Supreme Court justices want their bench to remain a strictly camera-free affair. Retired Justice David Souter was vehemently opposed to television broadcast, telling a judiciary committee, “The day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it’s going to roll over my dead body.”
The opposition brings a well-worn list of potential issues. They claim cameras will be obtrusive or they will change the dynamic of the court. However, starting in 2011 and ending in 2015, 14 district courts nationwide volunteered to participate in a program where their hearings were filmed. The resulting footage fails to show any change in courtroom behavior. No judicial Armageddon, just judges and lawyers doing their jobs in front of an interested public.
In 2007, Justice Anthony Kennedy told the House Appropriations Subcommittee that he feared his colleagues would play to the cameras: “If you introduce cameras, it is human nature for me to suspect that one of my colleagues is saying something for a soundbite.”
Corrupted by cameras? Really?
If our highest court can be corrupted by the mere addition of cameras, then why should we trust it to make legally sound decisions in the first place? Moreover, the stakes in a Supreme Court case can be incredibly high. Millions are affected by a decision like 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges. Is the court so irresponsible that it would botch such a case for the sake of a TV news clip?
Put simply, the Supreme Court is a remarkably powerful and unelected body. Its decisions affect millions. The public should be able to watch what it does.
Kevin Miller is a freelance writer in the Twin Cities, and the editor of The Metropolitan, the student newspaper at Metropolitan State University.
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, email Susan Albright at salbright@minnpost.com.)
Scotus blog
The Court offers no compelling reason to continue barring cameras from oral arguments, well other than a little discomfort. But really, how many people would watch anyway.
Ask 100 people on the street to name a single Justice, let alone all 8; are those folks going to watch pedantic lawyers go back and forth with even more pedantic Justices. I think not.
Interesting talk by Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick at ScotusBlog regarding this issue. Worth the watch if you have the time.
http://www.scotusblog.com/media/scotusblog-on-camera-dahlia-lithwick/
Well…
Try C-SPAN. Or the SCOTUS radio feed. Live without voice overs, interpretation or editing. Better than sitting there looking between shoulders and around necks.
The ACA arguments/interrogatories were there for all who really wanted unedited real-time reinforcement.
As for “public support”…really?
Street interview test:
“Can you tell me what SCOTUS is hearing this week?”
“What’s SCOTUS?”
“What the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing?”
“Well..no, is it important?”
“Are you very interested in what they’re discussing?”
“Not really, I’m pretty busy these days.”
“OK, then, do you think those sessions should be broadcast on TV?”
“Of course!”