The Supreme Court of the United States does not allow cameras in the courtroom when the court is in session, a policy which is the subject of much debate. Although the Court has never allowed cameras in its courtroom, it does make audiotapes of oral arguments and opinions available to the public.
Legislative proposals and debate
In 2009, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter and seven co-sponsors introduced a resolution to express the sense of Congress that sessions of the Court should be televised. In 2009, Specter also introduced a bill that would require open sessions of the Court to be televised. Upon introducing his bill to require televising the Supreme Court of the United States proceedings, Arlen Specter announced, "the Supreme Court makes pronouncements on constitutional and federal law that have direct impacts on the rights of Americans. Those rights would be substantially enhanced by televising the oral arguments of the Court so that the public can see and hear the issues presented." Eight U.S. Senators co-sponsored Spector's resolution.
Ted Poe, R-TX2, introduced a related bill in the House of Representatives in January 2009. The only exception to televising the Court under this legislation would be if a majority of justices decided that "allowing such coverage in a particular case would violate the due process rights of any of the parties involved."
Support
Supporters of Specter's proposal reason that other government proceedings are already televised, including sessions of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, covered most frequently by C-SPAN. By televising the Court, they argue that Americans would have more access to the most important institution in the U.S. judiciary, which would result in a more open and transparent government. Bruce Peabody of Fairleigh Dickinson University contends that televising the Supreme Court of the United States proceedings can change the way Americans view public policy by bringing greater attention to the Court. A 2010 New York Times editorial states that public access to the court would give Americans the opportunity to get a closer look at how a powerful branch of government operates. It adds that the televising the Court would hold presidents accountable for the justices they nominate. The editorial reasons, "right now, we see the justices during their confirmation hearings and rarely after that."
During her confirmation hearing in 2009, Justice Sonia Sotomayor indicated that she is open to the idea of televising court proceedings, stating, "I have had positive experiences with cameras. When I have been asked to join experiments of using cameras in the courtroom, I have participated. I have volunteered."
Cameras in the Court has also been supported by advocacy groups including Fix the Court.
Opposition
Opponents of Specter's proposal believe that requiring the proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States to be televised is a threat to judicial independence and, thus, the separation of powers. In addition, several justices of the Court have objected to the proposed legislation, including Justice Anthony Kennedy who argues that the measure would not align with the "etiquette" and "deference" that should "apply between branches." Furthermore, some justices believe televising the proceedings would change the way they act in the courtroom. Justice Clarence Thomas also contends that televising Court proceedings would reduce the level of anonymity that justices now have and could raise security concerns. Opponents also believe that television coverage would also take away from the mystery of the court and cause the public to misinterpret the Court and its processes.
Scholars have also debated the constitutionality of legislatively requiring the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.
Public opinion
In March 2010, Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind Poll found in a national poll that more than 60% of voters think that televising the Supreme Court of the United States proceedings would be "good for democracy." 26% think that televising the proceedings would "undermine the authority of the court."