Wednesday, September 22, 2010

How Should the Supreme Court Decide Whether to Permit Cameras in the Courtroom?

By Mike Dorf

In my latest FindLaw column I consider the constitutionality of a bill sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter that would require the Supreme Court to permit television cameras in the court except in those rare instances in which doing so would violate the due process rights of a party.  As I explain in the column, although the bill raises some serious issues of separation of powers, those issues are probably best resolved in favor of the law's validity.  Nonetheless, on grounds of inter-branch comity, I conclude that Congress should not enact the law.  Here I want to address the question of what procedure the Court ought to use to resolve this and related questions of courtroom procedure and etiquette.

As I say in the column, on the merits I think this is a relatively easy question: The Court should open itself to tv camera coverage.  The concern that the dynamic of oral argument would change seems to me overblown and, in any event, outweighed by the public interest.  Audiovisual transmission is the most effective way for the public to find out what happens in the Supreme Court.  Is there a risk that people will get a distorted view of oral arguments from snippets on the evening news?  Sure, but: a) Nobody younger than the Justices even watches the evening news anymore; and b) It's hard to believe that the distorted view would leave people worse informed than the current approach of barring cameras.  In the end, I just don't see the case for keeping tv out, anymore than I see the case for making reporters write their stories about the Court using quill pens.

But presumably the Justices are divided on the matter and so the question arises of how they should decide it.  (One argument for taking the power to decide this issue away from the Justices that I do not discuss in the column raises a concern about self-interest: From the Justices' perspective, perhaps the best reason for keeping cameras out of the Court is that doing so preserves their relative anonymity.  I'll put that aside.)  Here are a few possibilities:

1) Majority vote.  This seems like the easiest way to decide the matter.  With the exception of granting cert--which takes only 4 votes--the Court generally takes action by majority vote.  It could do so with respect to this matter as well.  An analogy might be to the Court's role in approving changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or to its own rules.  Seen as a kind of rule of procedure, whether to have cameras  in the courtroom would be decided by majority.

2) Let the Chief Justice decide.  The Chief makes various administrative decisions for the Court, typically in consultation with the other Justices, but insofar as he has a special administrative role that the others lack, he could tackle this one.  I tend to think that CJ Roberts would not want this task--especially if he favors permitting cameras and one or more colleagues strongly oppose (as they do).  If you're going to override strong opposition, you'd like some cover.

3) Delegate the decision to a single Justice or a Committee.   Like a tiny faculty, the Court parcels up committee work.  It might do so here, but the same factors that lead me to think the CJ wouldn't want to go it alone here lead me to think that no one would want this thankless task.

4) Require unanimity to change the policy.  This may well be the actual rule, even if unofficially so.  Insofar as any individual Justice really doesn't want to be on tv, the others could be deferring to him or her.  But I question the legitimacy of such an approach.  If the holdout is worried about changing the dynamic of oral argument, that is either a worry about his colleagues--in which case the fact that they're not worried should count for a lot more--or a worry about himself--which is peculiar: he should just try to exercise some self-restraint.  I wonder if instead the concern here is that overriding any Justice's wishes to permit cameras in the courtroom feels like an invasion of that Justice's privacy.  This strikes me as misguided--especially if coming from a Court that does not seem to value actual privacy all that much.

5) Require consensus to change the policy.  This is simply a variant on unanimity and should probably be avoided for similar reasons.

So, bottom line: I would favor having the Justices decide this issue by majority vote, with no Justice taking account of the existence or strength of any other Justices' views as such (as opposed to listening respectfully to their arguments).  But I think it's more likely that it will take either unanimity or consensus to change the policy.

5 comments:

andy said...

I'm inclined to think that video cameras will cheapen the court, making it seem almost like Judge Judy. But I can't seem to decide whether this would be a good or bad thing.

Joe said...

In a recent event with Justice Ginsburg, the head of the Canadian Supreme Court noted that they allow cameras and that it has gone on without much of a hitch.

A starting point would be to provide immediate release audio to go with the transcripts. Oyez.com have them but with what seems like around a term delay.

C-SPAN can play the audio with pictures of the speaker as it did for the few cases the Court allowed this to occur. It can also provide background segments and coverage of the press conferences the litigants have, as again, C-SPAN does in various cases.

Joe said...

One more thing. It is true that we have transcripts of oral arguments. But, putting aside tone and other things, they are of limited value as compared to full audio.

For instance, Mike Sacks at his blog F1@1F talked about his experience at an end of term opinion day. Alito provided an excellent summary of the McDonald case (opinion announcements are not provided at the SCOTUS website), Breyer read a powerful dissent from the bench and there was emotional moments given Ginsburg's husband had just died and it was Stevens' last day.

Audio would provide the public with a taste of this even without video. It is as he said a shame that only a few people able to stand in line was able to experience it.

Joe said...

The new audio policy suggests the Supreme Court might be trusted here.

amine lahragui said...


thanks so much for that great blog and thanks also for accepting my links thanks
طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه
thanks so much i like very so much your post
فوائد الحلبة فوائد الزنجبيل فوائد الرمان فوائد زيت السمسم علاج البواسير فوائد البصل فوائد اليانسون فوائد الكركم فوائد الزعتر قصص جحا تعريف الحب علامات الحمل