Cameras in the Courtroom: An Ill-Advised Policy

• Author: Nancy S. Marder
• Pages: 18-21

Published in Litigation, Volume 47, Number 3, Spring 2021. © 2021 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be

copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. 18

Cameras in

the Courtroom

An Ill-Advised Policy

NANCY S. MARDER

The author is professor of law and director of the Justice John Paul Stevens Jury Center at the

Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law.

There is an ongoing debate about whether federal courts in the

United States should permit cameras in the courtroom. All 50

states now permit them at some level of their state court system.

The media have long advocated for them, and they have gained

the support of some members of Congress, various academics, and

even a few federal judges.

In spite of that pressure, no federal district courts permit camer-

as in the courtroom, and only the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits

permit cameras during oral arguments. Although the U.S. Supreme

Court has been the primary focus of the pressure, the justices still

prohibit cameras.

There are simply better ways than cameras to enhance court-

room openness, particularly in federal district courts and the U.S.

Supreme Court. Federal judges should always strive toward greater

openness and transparency, but they can do that through incre-

mental steps that do not pose a danger to the fairness of trials, the

dignity of courtroom proceedings, or the respect in which federal

courts are held.

The power of images—whether on television or on the internet—

is that they can distract viewers from the substance of the argu-

ments, blur the distinction between court proceedings and enter-

tainment, and lead to unintended consequences. Incremental steps,

such as making transcripts and audio recordings of courtroom

proceedings immediately available online, do not run those risks.

Existi ng Transparency

Proponents of cameras in the courtroom suggest that the public

needs to see court proceedings for courts to be transparent, but

there are several significant ways in which courts are already

open and transparent. At every level of the federal system, court-

room proceedings are open to the public and press. At every level,

judges—including the justices at the Supreme Court—explain

their decisions in signed written opinions. Outside the court-

room, judges also explain the work they do in their speeches,

talks, and books.

In district court, anyone can observe jury or bench trials,

watch motions being argued, or attend an arraignment or sen-

tencing. And in most cases, all the court filings are publicly avail-

able. In fact, whereas in the past one had to go to the clerk’s office

to request a particular case file, now almost everything can be

accessed online.

At the appellate level, the public can attend oral argument.

In addition, when members of the press attend proceedings in

any of those courtrooms, they report on them and provide the

public with another way of learning about the work that takes

place there.

Perhaps the most significant way in which federal courts are

open and transparent about the work they do is that judges write