S-1146-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 445.
Sponsored by Richard Durbin (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would amend federal law (Title 28, U.S. Code) to require the Supreme Court to allow television coverage of all its open sessions. The Court could vote, by a majority of justices, to block cameras in a specific case only if it determines that coverage would violate the due process rights of one or more parties in that case. The bill would not affect closed sessions or private deliberations.
Who benefits
The general public, who would gain direct visual access to the Court's oral arguments. Journalists and broadcast media organizations, who would be able to televise proceedings. Civics educators and students, who would have richer material for teaching about the judiciary. Legal scholars and court-watchers who currently rely on audio recordings and written transcripts. Litigants and advocacy groups whose cases are heard, whose arguments would reach a broader audience. Disability advocates, as visual access may improve accessibility for some audiences.
Who is hurt
Supreme Court justices, who would lose unilateral control over their own courtroom's media policy. Attorneys arguing before the Court, who may face increased public scrutiny and pressure. Parties in high-profile or sensitive cases (e.g., involving minors, national security, or private individuals) who could face unwanted public exposure, even with the due process safety valve. Court reporters and sketch artists, whose specialized role could be diminished. Justices or legal observers who argue that cameras alter courtroom behavior and the quality of oral argument.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Supreme Court is the only federal court that does not permit any form of video coverage, creating a transparency gap for the nation's most consequential legal body. They contend that C-SPAN has broadcast Congress for decades and that audio recordings of oral arguments are already publicly released, demonstrating no principled basis for excluding cameras. Supporters further argue that public trust in institutions depends on visibility, and that polling consistently shows strong bipartisan public support for televising the Court.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Congress mandating camera access to the Supreme Court raises a serious separation of powers question — specifically, whether the legislative branch can dictate the internal operating procedures of a co-equal branch of government. They contend that cameras may distort oral argument, incentivizing justices and attorneys to perform for public audiences rather than engage in genuine legal dialogue, a concern several sitting justices have raised directly. Opponents further argue that the due process safety valve is narrow and may be insufficient to protect parties in sensitive cases from harmful public exposure.
Constitutional context
The bill raises a separation of powers question not directly addressed by the provided civil rights cases: whether Congress has authority under Article III or its general legislative powers to regulate the internal procedures of the Supreme Court. The Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses (14th Amendment) are tangentially relevant, as the bill's only opt-out mechanism is a due process finding by the Court itself. No Supreme Court case in the provided context directly resolves Congress's power to mandate camera access to the Court.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to set media access policy for the Supreme Court; the Court retains a limited check by majority vote to exclude cameras in specific cases on due process grounds, but would lose its current absolute discretion over its own proceedings.
Historical precedent
Similar legislation — including the Cameras in the Courtroom Act and the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act — has been introduced in multiple prior Congresses dating back to the 1990s but has never been enacted into law.