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 require the Supreme Court to permit television coverage of all its open sessions. The Court could vote by majority to block coverage in a specific case if it determines coverage would violate a party's due process rights.
Who benefits
The general public and journalists seeking direct access to oral arguments and opinion announcements without relying on transcripts or audio delays. Educators, students, and legal researchers who could use video for teaching. Advocacy groups and media organizations that could broadcast proceedings live.
Who is hurt
The Supreme Court's institutional control over its own courtroom procedures would be constrained. Attorneys arguing before the Court and litigants who may be uncomfortable with televised proceedings could face added public scrutiny. Some justices who have expressed concern about media clips being taken out of context could see their preferred practices overridden.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Supreme Court decisions affect all Americans, yet most citizens never see oral arguments and rely on secondhand reporting. They contend cameras would increase transparency and public understanding of the judicial process, noting that many state supreme courts and even lower federal courts already allow camera access without documented harm to proceedings.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Congress lacks authority to dictate the internal operating procedures of a coequal branch, and that the Supreme Court's own rulemaking power over its proceedings should not be subject to statutory mandate. They contend that several justices have warned cameras could distort public perception through selective clips and encourage grandstanding by attorneys, undermining the deliberative character of oral argument.
Constitutional context
This bill raises separation-of-powers questions under Article III, since the Constitution vests "the judicial Power" in the Supreme Court and courts have historically treated control over courtroom procedure as inherent to that judicial power; no landmark case directly resolves whether Congress can mandate camera access, though the doctrine draws on general separation-of-powers precedents like Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952).
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to dictate a specific procedural practice of the judicial branch, while the bill preserves a check by letting the Court itself vote to exempt individual cases on due process grounds.
Historical precedent
Similar cameras-in-the-courtroom bills have been introduced in Congress repeatedly since the 1990s without enactment, and the Judicial Conference has permitted limited camera pilot programs in some federal appellate and district courts.