Should the Supreme Court Be Televised? 

Television cameras have followed the president for as long as there’s been TV news. And Americans have been able to watch live coverage of congressional hearings for decades. 

But the third branch of the federal government, the Supreme Court, remains a camera-free zone. In fact, the Court doesn’t even allow still photos to be taken during oral arguments. (That’s when the nine justices hear cases and question lawyers representing each side.) 

In a world where just about everything is documented on video, some people are wondering whether it’s time for the nation’s highest court to allow cameras. They say watching the Court in action would help Americans be more engaged citizens. Plus, they point out, every U.S. state and many other countries, including Canada and Brazil, already televise their top courts.

But opponents say allowing cameras in the courtroom would make the justices’ jobs harder. They say cameras would cause judges and attorneys to worry about how they appear to a TV audience instead of focusing on the substance of their arguments. In addition, critics say, if Americans want to learn about the workings of the Court, they can listen to audio recordings or read transcripts of the proceedings online.

Should the Supreme Court be televised? Two law professors weigh in.

The current Supreme Court term could be one of the most important ever. The justices heard cases involving voting rights and religious freedom. Both of these cases were of great interest to the American people. But because the Court won’t allow cameras in its courtroom, it was impossible for most Americans to watch the debate. This video ban is shameful and deeply problematic. 

The justices are public officials whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers. The only times the justices appear regularly in public performing their official duties are during oral arguments and when they announce their decisions. Televising these proceedings would allow Americans to see the Court at work. It would also allow the public to see the justices tackle key issues while remaining civil and polite—a positive example in such a partisan era. 

Professors could use videos of Court proceedings as teaching tools. Museums could display recordings of key arguments for historical purposes.  

Every state and many other countries now allow cameras in their courtrooms. And there’s no evidence that it leads lawyers and judges to showboat, as some people worry. Some justices have voiced concerns about their safety if they were to appear on TV. But considering how much information about the justices is already available online, it’s unlikely that TV would cause additional security risks.

Not televising the Court reinforces the myth that its deliberations are beyond the understanding of ordinary Americans. Allowing cameras in the courtroom, on the other hand, would provide an opportunity for the American people to be engaged citizens. 

It’s well past time to put cameras in the Court.    

—Eric J. Segall
Professor, Georgia State University College of Law

Polls show that many Americans have lost faith in Congress and the president but not in the Supreme Court. The Court continues to command respect by focusing on legal arguments—not on politics—during oral arguments and in written opinions. Unlike the other two branches, it has been slow to adopt new forms of communication, such as cameras or social media. The Court is wise to be cautious about new forms of communication, especially those that encourage style over substance. 

Cameras pose several dangers to the functioning of the Court. For one, cameras change behavior. Lawyers and justices would think about how they appear, and commentators would focus on their mistakes. We live in a digital age, and once images appear, they can go viral and be replayed forever.

Perhaps the most serious danger is that oral arguments would become entertainment. During oral arguments, lawyers appear before the justices and answer questions about their cases. These proceedings are open to the public and the press, but their main purpose is for the justices to get answers to their questions. The justices need to ask their questions and lawyers need to answer them without concern for how this exchange might appear to a TV audience.

Supporters of cameras in the courtroom argue that the only way for people to learn about the Court is to watch oral arguments on TV. But that’s not true. The public can listen to the audio of the arguments or read a transcript of them on the Court’s website. They can even attend oral arguments in person.  

Bringing cameras into the Supreme Court would make the justices’ jobs harder without making their work better. We shouldn’t do it.   

—Nancy S. Marder
Professor, Chicago-Kent College of Law