New GAO Report Highlights Value of Broadcasting Supreme Court and Appellate Court Proceedings
Co-authors of bipartisan bill to require broadcast of high court proceedings requested study
WASHINGTON — U.S. Representative Mike Quigley (IL-05), Co-Chair of the Transparency Caucus, and U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) released the following statement on a newly released Government Accountability Office report on video and audio coverage of Supreme Court and other appellate court proceedings. The report cites stakeholders who state that the benefits of such coverage include enhancing public access to the courts, educating the public on the judiciary, and providing a useful window into how courts think about the issues in a case. Some of the stakeholders interviewed for the report also raised concerns that coverage of portions of a court’s proceedings may be distorted by the media.
“The Supreme Court is the final decision maker on many of the most important issues of our time, yet all but a select few Americans will ever see the court in action,” said Rep. Quigley and Senator Durbin. “While people may certainly disagree on the outcomes of court rulings, the American people deserve the opportunity to see the public proceedings of our highest court. That’s why we called for this report—its findings provide support for the principle of our bill, which would require that the Supreme Court's public proceedings be televised, just like Congress. Moreover, the chief concern raised by the report, that court proceedings could potentially be distorted by the media, further underscores the need to let the American people see these proceedings for themselves.”
You can read the full report here:
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-437
The bipartisan Cameras in the Courtroom Act, sponsored by Durbin and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in the Senate and Quigley in the House, only applies to open sessions of the Supreme Court—sessions where members of the public are already invited to observe in person, but often cannot because there are a very limited number of unreserved seats in the courtroom. The bill would allow public scrutiny of Supreme Court proceedings in order to produce greater accountability, transparency, and understanding of our judicial system.
In 2012, the bill was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote of 11-7, and in 2010 on a bipartisan vote of 13-6.
Rep. Quigley has been advocating for a more open and transparent Supreme Court since his arrival in Washington in 2009. Most recently, Rep. Quigley introduced the bipartisan Eyes on the Courts Act, which would require cameras to be permitted in the Supreme Court and at all federal appellate courts. He also authored a piece in the Chicago Sun-Times congratulating the Illinois Supreme Court for declaring a pilot program designating cameras in state courtrooms and calling for a similar national program. Rep. Quigley led a bipartisan, bicameral letter with Senator Durbin to Chief Justice Roberts urging the Supreme Court allow live audio in the chamber. Around the same time, he held a briefing with Rep. Issa on the importance of Supreme Court Justices disclosing to the public their financial interests in a more open, consistent and timely manner. Last year, Rep. Quigley led a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts urging the Supreme Court to allow video and live audio in the chamber in light of the upcoming same-sex marriage cases. He also introduced the Cameras in the Courtroom Act, requiring the Supreme Court to permit television coverage of all open sessions of the Court with Rep. Connolly. He authored an opinion piece in the Chicago Sun-Times arguing for real time – live audio recordings during Supreme Court hearings. Rep. Quigley is the author of the landmark Transparency in Government Act, a wide-ranging good government reform bill that would bring unprecedented access and accountability to the federal government including cameras in the courtroom. In 2013, Rep. Quigley raised the issue of permitting video transmission of SCOTUS’ public argument sessions directly with two Supreme Court justices during a House Appropriations Committee hearing.