National Law Journal: Legislators Make Another Run at Cameras in the Supreme Court

The following article was posted on National Law Journal on October 9, 2015. A link to the article can be found here.

A bipartisan group of members of Congress on Thursday introduced the latest bill aimed at requiring the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal appeals courts to allow broadcast and video coverage of their proceedings.

The representatives acknowledged that numerous similar efforts have failed in the past, but they insisted that the time has come to respond to growing public demands for transparency in government.

"How is it possible that we can keep up with the Kardashians, but we cannot keep up with the Supreme Court?" Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, asked at a press conference on the sidewalk in front of the court.

The sponsors of the bill, titled "Eyes on the Courts Act of 2015," also dismissed concerns that the legislation would violate separation of powers by dictating how the judiciary should operate.
"How much they get paid, a lot of court procedures, are all enacted by Congress," said Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Virginia, asserting that requiring broadcast access is well within Congress' legislative authority. "This building does not house the Oracle of Delphi."

"We're not expecting from them any more than what we ourselves do," added Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, chairman of the transparency caucus. He also said he is confident that "this is the year we change the Supreme Court" on camera access, which the justices have steadfastly resisted for decades.

"It is time we use every tool possible" to force the issue," Quigley said. "I'm optimistic. I'm a Cubs fan." Previous bills requiring cameras have never gotten farther than endorsement from the House or Senate Judiciary committees.

The new bill differs somewhat from past legislative efforts because it lumps federal appeals courts together with the Supreme Court. Several appeals courts have already experimented with broadcast access, and the Second and Ninth Circuits have adopted rules that let cameras in routinely.

The bill would allow the chief justice of the United States and the chief judges of the appeals courts to close particular proceedings to cameras if broadcast would "violate the due process rights of a party to the proceeding or is otherwise not in the interests of justice." But the reasoning for closure would have to be put in writing by the judge at least 72 hours before the proceeding begins.

Also at the press conference were Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, which advocates for more Supreme Court transparence, and Gregg Leslie, legal defense director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

They addressed the concerns about cameras expressed by justices, including the fear that lawyers or justices would grandstand, or that the court would be thrust into the political spotlight by frequent inclusion on broadcast news programs.

Leslie said that "endless studies" show that cameras do not appreciably affect the participants in oral argument. Roth also said that far from further politicizing the court, broadcast access would reveal to the public a conscientious court that "takes its job seriously."

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, another co-sponsor of the bill, did not attend the press conference. In a written statement, the former Houston criminal court judge said, "I know cameras can be placed in a courtroom without disruption because I was one of the first judges in Texas to allow cameras to film criminal cases." He added, "The American people deserve an all-access pass to watch the high court rule on the law of the land.”