In an age of advanced technology and a public desire for government transparency, the U.S. Supreme Court is somewhat of an outlier. All state courts now offer some form of camera access, while many federal courts are currently experimenting with camera usage. Internationally, the Supreme Courts of both Great Britain and Canada have allowed their proceedings to be broadcast for years. Despite the Court’s intransigence on this issue, the public seems poised for change. A recently released poll indicates that around three-quarters of Americans favor allowing camera access to the Supreme Court.
The relative isolation of the Supreme Court is truly staggering. Consider the difficulty that the average citizen faces in attempting to witness the actual operation of our nation’s highest court. At the very least, travel to the nation’s capital would be required, as would a considerable wait in line at the courthouse itself. With a (very) prompt arrival, one might be able to secure one of the 250 seats available for the general public; for cases in which there is broad public interest, arrival at least a day prior would be necessary. For the average citizen, it should thus come as no surprise that the workings of the Supreme Court remain shrouded in an opaque cloud.
Before 2010, even recordings of oral arguments were not readily accessible to the public. Though the Court has collected recordings since the 1950s, access to such recordings was previously limited to certain individuals, specifically researchers and other scholars who wished to use the tapes for educational or research purposes. The current push for increased transparency began in earnest with Bush v. Gore. After denying numerous requests from cable networks to broadcast the case, the Court decided to release audiotapes to the public upon the conclusion of the case. Since 2010, the Court has made audio recordings of oral arguments available free to the public on its website, usually at the end of an argument week. Such broad access has served as an invaluable educational tool, one that has expanded the common understanding of the Court in ways not previously contemplated. On paper, a case can sometimes seem uninspiring; hearing the case argued can bring the issues to life in dramatic fashion. Just think what seeing the case argued would add to the equation. At a time when new media sources are gaining increased importance, access to video of the Court’s proceedings may encourage more people to study the intricacy of the arguments.
Though free and immediate public access to audio recordings of oral arguments was relatively unheard of as recently as 15 years ago, the Supreme Court continues to maintain a course of categorical resistance to camera access. Though the justices rightly fear any influence on their behavior, television cameras are unlikely to cause them to forget their honor. In fact, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley MacLachlin, has remarked that the Court’s “experience with television and webcasting has been positive.” The additional worry that citizens will not explore the complexity of the arguments, thus limiting what could be gained from video access, both underestimates the people themselves and suggests that only those intelligent enough to understand the Court’s proceedings should be allowed to witness them. Making sense of a Supreme Court argument without considerable preparation is certainly challenging. When the Court hears arguments on issues affecting many Americans, however, many people are interested and deserve to see how the argument transpires.
Though the justices have raised various concerns, their resistance stems from a deeply held feeling that the Court is exceptional — that its global influence sets it apart from any other public institution. To an extent, this is true. The degree to which foreign courts look to the Supreme Court for direction elevates the Court to a preeminent international position. The potential debasing effect of media coverage is a reasonable concern in this regard. If that argument were followed, however, it could be used to ban cameras from any kind of government proceeding. Modern notions of government transparency and openness make the Court’s stance seem somewhat anachronistic.
The justices’ various objections demonstrate general fear of the unknown. Seemingly, the real motivation for concealment concerns the very atmosphere of the Court itself. The justices correctly appreciate the Court’s proceedings as sanctified, and there is some truth to the fear that, with cameras trained on every gesture and word, the justices might feel they are on display or debased in some way. Though these fears should be respected, they are not necessarily cause to deny access.
Whether an individual were to watch the Court’s proceedings gavel to gavel or observe a short segment of the arguments, the educational value would be immeasurable. At a time when public perception of the Court focuses on the partisan predilections of the justices, airing oral arguments would shed light on the complexity of the issues and the character of the justices themselves. The desire to simplify the issues, seen all too often in Congress, is an objective unbecoming of our political system; if the public wishes to see a place where reasoned debate prevails, it need only witness the Supreme Court in action.
Connor Kelly is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. His columns run Tuesdays.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 6 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | April 15, 2024Amid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
