Cameras for the High Court?

In hopes of giving Americans clearer insight into how the U.S. Supreme Court functions, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has proposed legislation that would televise the proceedings of the nation’s highest court.

“The Supreme Court makes pronouncements on constitutional and federal law that have direct impact on the rights of Americans,” Specter said. “The public would have insight into key issues and be better equipped to understand the impact of and reasons for the court’s decisions.”

The cable network C-SPAN launched in 1979, bringing non-stop coverage of proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives to the homes of millions of Americans. The Senate began allowing televised coverage in 1986.

As C-SPAN has informed citizens about the realities of Congress throughout its nearly 30 years of existence, Specter believes that televising Supreme Court proceedings would similarly raise public awareness of the judiciary, which tends be the least-familiar branch of government.

While media outlets have aired audio from Supreme Court hearings, televised proceedings would be an unprecedented change for the court.

To counter arguments that the justices should perform their work in virtual anonymity, Specter listed recent television appearances by the justices as he introduced the measure (Senate Bill 344).

"So there has been very extensive participation by court members, which totally undercuts one of the arguments [against the proposal], that the notoriety would imperil the security of Supreme Court justices,” Specter said.

But critics of Specter’s proposal say that televising high court proceedings could lead to grandstanding by attorneys, create a more confrontational atmosphere and oversimplify what are complex legal questions. 

Some opponents of the plan also express concern at Congress mandating cameras in the Supreme Court, saying that out of respect for the separation of powers, the decision ought to rest with the court.

Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed that sentiment last year when he said before a congressional committee, "We feel strongly that [the justices] have intimate knowledge of the dynamics and the needs of the court, and we think that proposals mandating and directing television in our court are inconsistent with the deference and etiquette that should apply between the branches."

The current legislation proposed by Specter allows cameras to be removed in certain cases, if a majority of justices decide that televising the proceedings would violate the due process rights of one or more litigants.

Specter is not alone in his desire to see cameras in the courtroom. The Associated Press reported that at a recent meeting of the American Bar Association, several federal judges expressed support for televising court proceedings.

"Legitimately, I can't for the life of me see why you wouldn't televise an appellate argument," said Judge Rosemary Barkett of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Though none of the current members of the Supreme Court have championed televised coverage of their proceedings, some have been mildly open to the proposition, including Chief Justice John Roberts.

Several others, however, have been adamantly opposed, including Justice David Souter, seen as the court member most averse to public attention. Souter told members of Congress a decade ago that, “The day you see a camera come into our courtroom it’s going to roll over my dead body.”