Momentum is building in the new Congress to push a technology-wary Supreme Court to allow cameras inside its courtroom, as many lawmakers are eager to end the longstanding prohibition.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who sponsored a failed bill last Congress aimed at televising Supreme Court proceedings, plans to bring up the bill again in the House Judiciary Committee.
And Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a longtime advocate for cameras in courtrooms, this month assumed the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, amping up speculation of a Capitol Hill vs. Supreme Court showdown over the issue.
“It feels rights this time,” King said of the prospect of his bill passing. “Sunlight’s always been a good thing for government, and the courts are always late coming on to technology and those kind of changes, and so a little nudging along the way can be helpful.”
While several bills proposed in recent years aimed at bringing cameras into federal courtrooms, including the Supreme Court, have failed, a one-two King-Grassley punch has given supporters hope that a bill finally will be able to clear both chambers of Congress.
“It’s one of those issues that really is noncontroversial with the public — I don’t know anyone out there in the public that says I don’t want to know what’s going on in the courtroom,” King said. “Our Founding Fathers envision us to have the maximum amount of public access for public trials, and public means something a little different today than it did then.”
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts admitted in his 2014 year-end report released on New Year’s Eve that courts traditionally are slow to respond to technological advances, saying that they “will always be prudent whenever it comes to embracing the ‘next big thing.’”
The report, which didn’t specifically discuss cameras, spurred Grassley and others to call for the high court to embrace 20th century technology.
“In his year-end report, Chief Justice Roberts rightly promotes how the courts have embraced new technology,” the senator said. “Unfortunately, though, the courts have yet to embrace the one technology that the founders would likely have advocated for — cameras in the courtroom.
“The founders intended for trials to be held in front of all people who wished to attend.”
Grassley and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the committee’s top Democrat, who both previously sponsored legislation to allow cameras in federal courtrooms, are expected to try again this Congress.
“Our democracy works best when our citizens have access to their government and can evaluate for themselves the quality of justice in this country,” Leahy said in response to Roberts’ report. “I will continue to support efforts to make all three branches of our federal government more accessible and accountable.”
The public agrees, polling shows. A survey conducted for Fox News in 2013 showed that 77 percent of voters think it’s a good idea to allow television coverage of Supreme Court sessions. That was up from 69 percent in 2010, and up from a previous high of 70 percent in 2006.
Written transcripts of Supreme Court oral arguments are released with two or three hours, and audio of the proceeds are available days later. But the court never has allowed TV cameras to broadcast oral arguments or rulings of cases.
The public can attend proceedings of the high court in person, but the public gallery fills up quickly during high-profile cases.
In contrast, every second of official business in the House and Senate chambers is telecast live on C-SPAN and on the Internet, as well as a daily litany of news conferences, committee hearings and other events around the Capitol.
But Roberts, while not specifically mentioning cameras, said technological advances in courtrooms can discriminate against people who don’t have access to such technology.
“Unlike commercial enterprises, the courts cannot decide to serve only the most technically capable or well-equipped segments of the public,” he wrote in his year-end report. “The courts must remain open for those who do not have access to personal computers.”
Roberts added that the court technology poses security concerns “that must be satisfied before new systems go live.”
King disagrees.
“I don’t know of a good argument against it,” he said. “We’ve heard people say that, well, the witnesses would [act] different, the attorneys will [act] different — they’ll play to the cameras. But mostly it will increase the level of professionalism.”
Yet even if King’s proposal becomes law, it would only allow — not require — federal judges to bring cameras into their courts. And given Roberts’ reluctance to embrace technology, it’s uncertain if he would allow them.
King joked that maybe he will lobby Roberts directly when he makes his scheduled appearance in the House chamber next week for President Obama’s State of the Union address.
I’ll see if I can borrow [Supreme Court Justice Samuel] Alito’s seat — it might be open,” he said, laughing, referring to the justice’s vows to skip the event.
