PD Editorial: Let Americans watch Supreme Court justice in action

When the U.S. Supreme Court opens its new term on Monday, the justices will take up cases involving immigration, gun control, gay rights, abortion and other major issues facing the nation. But there's another perennial topic that should be up for discussion - televising the high court's proceedings.

For decades, the court's majority has resisted calls to allow cameras into the courtroom, despite the fact that many state courts and federal courts have done so. The American people also have repeatedly said they favor letting cameras into the high court. In a poll conducted last summer by C-SPAN and the research firm PSB, 64% of respondents said they favor televising proceedings, and 71% support live audio feeds.

The current justices are divided on permitting cameras in their court, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Samuel Alito in favor and John Roberts and Clarence Thomas opposed. Stephen Breyer and Neil Gorsuch are undecided; the latest addition to the court, Brett Kavanagh, has said he will remain open to the idea, particularly for the reading of decisions.

During a House appropriations subcommittee hearing this spring, Alito said most of the justices fear cameras will cause attorneys to grandstand and “undermine our paramount function, which is to decide cases in the best possible way.”

This fall, a House judiciary subcommittee held hearings on cameras in federal courts, hearing testimony from advocates who questioned whether the court system - including the Supreme Court - is fulfilling its obligation to transparency in modern times.

“The Sixth Amendment mandates ‘public' trials. In the 21st century, the only meaningful definition of ‘public' is one with audio and video access,” attorney and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said in written testimony.

Among the most vocal advocates of televising the high court's proceedings is Maureen O'Connor, the chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, where cameras have been allowed for more than a decade. She says the court's concerns about grandstanding turned out to be unwarranted.

“Attorneys know the only audience they need to convince sits right in front of them, and justices would not allow them to forget that fact,” she has written. “Grandstanding not only fails to help advocates argue their cases, but it may also hurt their stature in the eyes of the court.”

California's Supreme Court has provided live webcasts of its proceedings since 2016.

At various hearings, including confirmation hearings for new justices, members of Congress have pressed for allowing cameras in the U.S. Supreme Court. But ultimately it's up to the justices themselves to change policy.

Currently, the high court allows only the release of delayed audio recordings. As an experiment, the justices should consent to live-streaming oral arguments and the announcement of decisions for one term. If their worst fears aren't realized, they should take the next step of letting C-SPAN install cameras for good.

In a letter to the judiciary subcommittee, O'Conner said, “Live streaming increases trust in judges, in our decisions and in the rule of law.” In our politically divided era, it's hard to imagine the justices wouldn't favor building trust in the rule of law and enhancing public understanding of the value of our institutions. It's certainly worthy of an experiment.

You can send a letter to the editor at letters@pressdemocrat.com.