A group of attorneys who are members of the Supreme Court bar signed an open letter to Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday, petitioning to extend the online livestreaming of oral arguments that was adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic permanently, while also pushing further for video access.
Nearly two years ago in April 2020, the Supreme Court allowed for the first time the audio live streaming of oral arguments as justices heard cases remotely, allowing access to both journalists and members of the public. Justices returned to in-person hearings in October 2021 as livestreams have continued into 2022, a practice that dozens of attorneys are pushing to remain in place.
“Tens of thousands of Americans have come to understand the seriousness and the care with which you and your colleagues treat each case and each advocate who comes before the Court,” the letter read, which was signed by 40 attorneys who have argued before the high court.
WILL BIDEN’S SUPREME COURT PICK SUPPORT CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM?
While the justices agreed to stream audio for arguments throughout March, they have not said whether they plan to continue livestreaming permanently.
Attorneys who signed the letter have cumulatively argued more than 460 cases at the Supreme Court. Some of the signatories include prominent figures such as Harvard University’s Laurence Tribe and SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein.
The letter also suggests the Supreme Court should eventually consider allowing video access to live hearings and proposed for justices to livestream the announcement of opinions, though it notes “neither of these issues appears to be before the Court at the moment.”
Lawmakers have already proposed a bill in Congress that, if passed, would allow camera recordings during oral arguments in the Supreme Court. The bill, known as the Cameras in the Courtroom Act, recently cleared through the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In years past, then-Judges Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh expressed an openness to allowing cameras in the high court. During then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in 2020, she also said she would “keep an open mind” about allowing video access to Supreme Court arguments.
Despite the proposed legislation and an apparent openness to cameras by some of the more recent associate justices, political commentators remain divided over whether the Supreme Court should follow the same path as Congress, which first allowed televised broadcasts in the House in 1947 and later in the Senate in 1986.
Gabe Roth, an executive director of the nonprofit group Fix the Court and a proponent of camera access to the Supreme Court, claimed that “arguments against cameras in the court assume the worst from our justices and the attorneys who argue before them,” according to a Monday op-ed in SCOTUSblog.
Roth said that most arguments against cameras suppose “if court proceedings were filmed, these legal giants would turn either into toddlers, unable to resist the opportunity to throw a tantrum, or politicians on the campaign trail, playing for an applause line. That would not happen.”
But Jeffrey A. Rosen, a former deputy attorney general for the United States and acting attorney general, argued in a separate post that video footage from within the court “would be a mistake.”
“Because Congress is meant to represent the voters’ will, the American people require ways to assess if their duly elected representatives are doing so,” Rosen said in defense of media access in the legislative branch.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
During a 2018 interview, Roberts signaled at the time that he would not be in favor of courtroom cameras. “Our job is to carry out our role under the Constitution to interpret the Constitution and laws according to the rule of law, and I think that having cameras in the courtroom would impede that process,” the chief justice said.
For now, transparency proponents simply want the court to continue its ease of access to oral arguments online.
