Allow cameras into the Supreme Court — visibility and transparency are vital to our democracy

In early 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court announced the most historic and consequential cases in our nation's history, politically and legally, including Colorado's decision to exclude Donald Trump from this year's presidential ballot. Oral arguments will be heard on some of the issues. The court will also hear cases regarding further restrictions on access to reproductive health care, the role and authority of federal agencies, and regulation of social media. And, of course, the court may consider Donald Trump's claims that the president: completely exempted from any criminal liability.

The justices will sit in a calm, marble-columned courtroom and receive a compact audience. There will be about 400 firmly seated spectators, most of them Supreme Court lawyers, guests of the court, a press corps of print reporters and a few members of Congress. Members of the public waited in line outside all night.

The proceedings, the judge's probing and sometimes controversial questions and comments, and the defense's response efforts are audio recorded, but no one outside the courtroom can see them.

There are no real-time broadcasts, visual recordings, or videos. There aren't any cameras.

Closing the courtroom to all cameras seems implausible now that almost every note, and most no notes, is being viewed or recorded. And for Supreme Court arguments, this visual record is more than just significance or curiosity. It is very important not only for the present, but also for history.

Anyone who has argued in a courtroom knows that gestures, raised eyebrows, smiles and frowns, hunches and staring at the ceiling are often just as loud as the statements. I know that. It's often just as important as the content and tone of voice.

After arguing four cases in the Supreme Court and many more in lower courts, I have found that reading the justices' opinions is important to understanding their opinions. This is a view virtually universally shared by Supreme Court advocates.

But federal judges have banned broadcasts and video recordings in all federal courts, not just the nation's highest court, for reasons that are either outdated or completely outlandish.

They cite fear that the lawyer will distract the theater by waving a bloody shirt when they think they are performing to a larger audience. But appellate arguments involve no evidence or juries, and state courts long ago defeated that objection, ruling that few lawyers change their style or strategy just because of the cameras. Their priority is to win cases, and most state courtrooms now have cameras, not a cavalcade of imaginary horrors.

Additionally, there is a clear fear that public misunderstandings or false impressions will jeopardize the public image of judges. But the right response to a lack of public trust, knowledge and understanding is more transparency, not less.

In light of this judicial resistance, a bipartisan legislative effort is underway to open the Supreme Court to cameras and video recording. The bill I co-authored with Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) would require this, with safeguards to prevent abuse. Become.

Judges will act on their own to address concerns by setting limits on the number and placement of cameras and allowing for real-time broadcast of hearings, even if they selectively begin future proceedings. That's easy. At the very least, visual documentation could be allowed so that the complete picture is preserved as history.

If the people's demands beat like a drum, we might be able to convince them that visibility and transparency are essential not only to their own credibility but also to the survival of our democracy. Public cynicism and distrust will always be fought with a sunbeam that disinfects one of the saving strengths of our democracy: openness and access. As we approach the first quarter of the 21st century, courts should enter the 20th century and allow the use of cameras in their proceedings.

Richard Blumenthal is the senior senator from Connecticut. He served as Connecticut Attorney General from 1991 to 2011.