Through the lens of justice: Senate advances bills allowing cameras in federal courtrooms

WASHINGTON (CN) — In an increasingly rare moment of bipartisanship, Senate lawmakers on Thursday unanimously passed legislation that would permit television crews to record proceedings in federal courts and the Supreme Court.

It’s the latest attempt in Congress at relaxing the judiciary’s strict videography rules, which have long prohibited attendees and the media from recording court in session. But both Republicans and Democrats have for years argued that allowing cameras in federal courtrooms would be a salve for public confidence in the federal judiciary.

Speaking during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Thursday morning, chairman and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley said that the proposed Sunshine in the Courtroom Act would grant people with an interest in federal court cases an avenue to view them remotely, addressing what he called a “longstanding need” in the judiciary.

“Denial of access shouldn’t be the default,” said Grassley, who sponsored the proposed measure and its Supreme Court counterpart.

If made law, the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act would give U.S. district and appellate judges authority to permit photography, recording and broadcasting of court proceedings on a case-by-case basis. At the appellate level, the bill allows judges to block video and photography in cases where they determine it would violate due process rights of the parties involved.

U.S. district court judges would be allowed to make similar decisions — witnesses in federal district court cases would also have the right to obscure their faces or voices on broadcast. The proposed measure would further ban media coverage of jurors.

Regulations for permitting photo and video recording of court proceedings would be set by the U.S. Judicial Conference.

The second proposed bill, known as the Cameras in the Courtroom Act, would direct the Supreme Court to allow television cameras in sessions already open to journalists and members of the public. The legislation also permits the justices to block recording of certain open sessions to protect due process rights.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle held up the package of bills as a step forward for judicial transparency.

“People should have the right to see what’s going on when senators are debating the important issues of our time,” said Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar. “The same is true particularly of the Supreme Court.”

Klobuchar compared the push for courtroom cameras to the advent of C-SPAN, arguing that people were “scared” by public access broadcasting of congressional proceedings. “They thought they would look bad on TV,” she said. “Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t, but now it’s a fixture.”

The Minnesota Democrat argued that while the Supreme Court currently provides audio broadcasts of oral arguments, listening to the justices “isn’t the same” as seeing their deliberations on video.

“Many of us have attended these hearings — it’s an extraordinary experience, and you shouldn’t have to come to Washington to be able to do that,” Klobuchar said.

Gabe Roth, director of reform-minded judicial advocacy group Fix the Court, touted the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act as a method to give federal judges the discretion to broadcast proceedings, rather than the judiciary’s national policymaking body.

“There are about 2,400 federal judges across the country doing their jobs, and doing them well for the most part, every day, and I’d trust them to make the right call on broadcast access to their courtrooms more than an out-of-touch policymaking body based in D.C. like the Judicial Conference,” he told Courthouse News in an interview.

Roth added that the Cameras in the Courtroom act would give Americans the opportunity to view the deliberations of the high court’s nine justices, which he believes is “one of the most impressive things our government officials do."

“We may not like the outcomes — and I for one largely do not — but I appreciate that there is a model for how to disagree agreeably, which is something every American should have the opportunity to watch, not just in person but also wherever else they’re getting their news these days,” he said.

Lawmakers for years have tried to pass legislation paving the way for cameras in the courtroom. So far, none of those efforts have succeeded. But in recent months, major court cases across the country have renewed interest in changing the law to give members of the public remote access to judicial proceedings.

Following the September assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, his wife Erika advocated for cameras to be allowed into proceedings for his suspected killer’s case.

“There were cameras all over my husband when he was murdered,” Kirk said at the time. “We deserve to have cameras in there.”

Grassley referenced the Kirk case Thursday as he advocated for the legislation.

“My bill would provide the same transparency that Erika Kirk seeks, but at the federal level,” he said. “In this case, it’s common sense. It’s long overdue.”

The Judiciary Committee ultimately passed both bills on unanimous voice votes, sending them on to final consideration by the full Senate.

“That’s the kind of thing you could capture on video in court cases,” Klobuchar quipped.

Follow @BenjaminSWeiss