Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Cameras in Courtrooms

By Mike Dorf

Justice Sotomayor's change of heart regarding the wisdom of televising Supreme Court hearings provided the opportunity for the latest news coverage of the fact that the SCOTUS does not currently permit cameras in the courtroom.  This very good NY Times article by Adam Liptak notes a number of themes that have been noted by others as well, including: 1) That nominees to the Court say they favor cameras but then have a change of heart once they have been Justices for a few years; 2) that other countries (including Canada) follow the opposite pattern from ours, permitting televising of their high court appellate proceedings, but not of trials, where witnesses might be intimidated; and 3) that the usual reasons given for keeping cameras out of the courtroom include the fear that the public wouldn't understand what they are watching and that lawyers and Justices alike would play to the cameras.  Here I'll focus briefly on point 3).

Let me begin by stating the obvious.  The two worries cited would not come close to justifying a ban on video coverage of any other official government proceeding if the burden of persuasion were placed on those who wanted to prevent such coverage rather than, as the Justices seem to assume, placed on those who want to permit such coverage.

Here's an example.  I went over to CSPAN.com and randomly clicked on a House Subcommittee hearing on regulating the domestic use of surveillance drones.  That sounds like it should be interesting, right?  I was bored to tears in seconds.  Okay, not quite tears but I was bored enough to stop watching and click on something else.  This seems to me to be just about all the harm that would be done from having more generally uninformed people watch proceedings in the Supreme Court: More people would discover that they generally find the work of the Court boring.  (To be clear, I don't find the Supreme Court's work boring, but I have honed my interest in the work of the Court over the years.)

What about the worry that lawyers and judges would grandstand?  Here again, I think there is a one-word answer: CSPAN.  If those people are grandstanding, their ordinary state must be hibernation.  And really, would it be so bad for the Court if occasionally a lawyer or Justice injected a bit more drama into the proceedings?  On the evidence, it won't happen anyway. The Justices know that same-day audio of oral arguments is now generally available and that people actually listen to it in very high-profile cases.  It doesn't appear to have made any difference.

But again, in light of the First Amendment, shouldn't the burden be on those who would close the courtroom to cameras?  In the Richmond Newspapers case, the Court held that criminal trials are presumptively open to the public.  Admittedly, however, there are a couple of important distinctions.

First, the majority opinion relied on the history of trials.  If one is a certain kind of originalist about such things, that history may not be fully relevant to appellate proceedings. But the First Amendment doctrine is not narrowly originalist in this way, at least not consistently so.  And surely there are good reasons for opening appellate hearings to the public, no less than trials.  Appellate rulings make law for all of us; they don't just resolve disputes between the parties.  Thus, the public interest in open appellate hearings is arguably greater than in trials.

Second, Richmond Newspapers itself did not involve cameras.  The public already have some access to Supreme Court hearings: Individuals who stand in line can attend in person; the Court makes audio and transcripts available pretty quickly; and the press have access that they use to report on the Court proceedings more broadly.

Although the Court's time, place and manner (TPM) doctrine does not directly apply to restrictions on public access to government proceedings, perhaps it ought to.  It is at least suggestive and it would require that restrictions be content-neutral and reasonable.  Keeping out cameras is content-neutral but is it reasonable?  Partly the answer depends on whether one thinks the alternatives left open are adequate.  It's tempting to say that they are reasonable because, for most of our history, the public had less access to Supreme Court hearings than they do today.  Same-day audio and transcripts are a pretty new development.

But I don't think it makes sense to gauge the reasonableness of a putative TPM regulation by comparing the alternatives to their historical counterparts.  Just as (even content-neutral) censorship on the internet is unconstitutional today even though there was no internet fifty years ago, so too what is reasonable depends in part on what is feasible.  Accordingly, here as in other circumstances, I think the burden should be on the censors.  And I don't see how they can sustain that burden.

I say all of the foregoing knowing that none of it would likely be implemented.  The Court is not about to find itself in violation of the First Amendment and, in fairness, it's not as though the Court is giving itself an advantage that it denies to other government institutions.  Sunshine laws are a great idea but they're statutes; except for special cases like Richmond Newspapers, the First Amendment has not generally been interpreted to require open government.  I think it should be interpreted that way, but until the Justices understand that cameras in their own courtroom would be largely harmless, they will not see the angle in prying open government more generally.

12 comments:

Joe said...

"Grandstanding" seemed to be okay back in the day when oral argument was a social event, in the days of John Marshall, John Adams' argument in the Armistad case, e.g., criticized by some as mostly grandstanding.

I'm not a law professor, but I'm interested in the work of the USSC more than the average person. Still, most oral arguments are pretty boring to me, even merely listening to them while doing something else.

Also, bits can be taken out of context in media reports or news articles. In fact, I repeatedly see just that. This can mislead the under-informed.

And, if justices want to keep the law above it all, they really should stay off 60 Minutes and the Colbert Report.

The NYT article well written, including a cite to an article opposed to televising. It also notes the new UK Supreme Court televises as has for years the highest court in Canada.

Come on. The UK?! If it's okay for those studious sorts, why not us? BTW, it's sad that Sotomayor and Kagan changed their tune once they became justices. It's like Kagan changing her tune regarding questioning nominees. It's not overly surprising. It's sad.

t jones said...

I pretty much agree with your analysis - and I've always enjoyed sitting in the courtroom before my matter is called listening to the other oral arguments. I think your CSPAN example probably means that when the cameras are always there, they're eventually forgotten, and people just go about their (boring?) business.
But I also remember my overwhelming impression from the OJ Simpson trial was that Judge Ito seemed much more concerned about getting to be on TV than he did about maintaining control of the conduct of the trial.

Muhammad Amir said...

I think your CSPAN http://theclearwaterattorney.com example probably means that when the cameras are always there, they're eventually forgotten,

Jeff G. said...

Keeping out cameras is content-neutral but is it reasonable? Partly the answer depends on whether one thinks the alternatives left open are adequate. It's tempting to say that they are reasonable because, for most of our history, the public had less access to Supreme Court hearings than they do today. Same-day audio and transcripts are a pretty new development.buy bas gold | Runescape Gold | blade soul gold

ibaikallw3 said...

Excellent all around. I'm an introvert, probably (to borrow a word from Romney)Iphone 4s case a severe introvert.

qiongzhang55 said...

Was looking for link up! Have a wonderful weekend break! :) My partner and i almost all associated way up. Your enthusiasts are usually invited to come along with link up any moment Fri-Wed Appreciate your welcoming myself naruto cosplay costumes above from OneCreativeMommy

Cicy said...

I'm not a law professor, but I'm interested in the work of the USSC more than the average person. Still, most oral arguments are pretty boring to me, even merely listening to them while doing something else.
buy fifa 14 coins
league of legends elo boost
fifa ut coins

aminos lahragui said...

Very awesome post , i am really impressed with it a lot


فوائد الزنجبيل
فوائد الرمان فوائد الحلبة فوائد البصل فوائد الزعتر فوائد زيت السمسم علاج البواسير فوائد اليانسون فوائد الكركم قصص جحا صور يوم الجمعه علامات الحمل تعريف الحب حياة البرزخ فوائد الزبيب

marly aaran said...

I've just decided to create a blog, which I have been wanting to do for a while. Thanks for this post, it's really useful!
www.denver-travel.org |

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

Abigail Alexandra said...

I like you recommendation. Your recommendation is of well use to people. A great article post, this is something very interesting. I really appreciate your post.
ritualjazz.com |

Julie Wilson said...

This is the first time I visited this blog. Really this is awesome work with the blog.
http://www.gks3-d.org |