Supreme Court Must Televise All Sessions Under New Law: Only Due Process Violations Can Block Cameras

The aptly named Cameras in the Courtroom Act is straightforward: it mandates that the U.S. Supreme Court must allow television cameras into virtually all of its open court sessions. This isn’t a suggestion or a pilot program; it’s a new requirement being written directly into Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which governs the judiciary (SEC. 2).

Essentially, the default setting for the highest court in the land is now ON for cameras. The only way the Court can vote to block coverage for a specific case is if a majority of the justices agree that televising that particular session would violate the due process rights of someone involved in the case (SEC. 2).

The Transparency Flip Switch

For decades, the Supreme Court has resisted cameras, arguing that the presence of media could disrupt proceedings or encourage grandstanding. This bill completely flips that dynamic. Instead of the Court deciding if they want cameras, they now have to justify why not.

This shift is huge for public access. Currently, if you want to see the justices in action, you either have to be one of the few people lucky enough to get a seat in the courtroom or wait for the audio recordings to be released. This bill means that a massive portion of the judicial branch’s work—the oral arguments on the biggest legal questions facing the country—would be available live on your phone, TV, or laptop.

What Does This Mean for the Average Citizen?

If you’re the kind of person who follows major policy debates or cares about how the law shapes your life—say, a landmark case on student loans, environmental regulations, or healthcare—this is a game-changer. You no longer have to rely solely on media interpretations; you get to see the actual questions and arguments unfold in real-time.

Think about it this way: when Congress debates a bill, you can watch it. When a local city council votes on zoning, you can watch it. This bill brings the Supreme Court, often seen as the most opaque branch of government, into the same spotlight. It’s a major win for transparency advocates and anyone who believes in judicial accountability. The potential benefit is a more informed public that better understands the nuances of constitutional law, moving away from soundbites to actual legal arguments.

The Due Process Catch-22

While the mandate for cameras is strong, the exception is where things get interesting. The Court can only block cameras if coverage would “violate the due process rights” of a party (SEC. 2). This is a high legal bar, but it introduces a potential point of friction.

For the litigants—the people actually involved in the case—this exception is vital. If, for example, a high-profile case involves sensitive personal information or testimony that could genuinely prejudice a future proceeding or threaten a person’s safety, the justices have a clear mechanism to protect that individual. However, the term “due process” is broad, and how the nine justices interpret what constitutes a violation sufficient to block the cameras will determine the bill’s true effectiveness. If the justices are inclined to maintain privacy, they could interpret this clause broadly, potentially undermining the bill’s intent to open the court fully. This is the key pressure point where the Court’s historical resistance meets the new legal requirement.