Federal Courtrooms Open for Cameras Under 'Sunshine Act,' But Trial Access Expires in 3 Years

The “Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2025” is straightforward: it grants the presiding judge in federal courtrooms—from District Courts (trial courts) up to the Supreme Court—the power to allow cameras, recording, and broadcasting of proceedings. This is a big deal because, right now, most federal courtrooms are strictly off-limits to media recording. The core idea is transparency, letting the public see how justice is delivered, but the bill builds in some serious guardrails and limitations.

The Judge’s New Power and the Due Process Line

Under this Act, the judge running the show gets the final say on whether the media is allowed in. They can override existing rules, unless they determine that allowing cameras would violate someone’s constitutional right to due process. This is the main gatekeeper provision. On the appellate side (Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court), this power is essentially permanent. For the District Courts (where the trials with witnesses and juries happen), this authority is only temporary, set to expire three years after the Act becomes law. Think of it as a three-year pilot program for federal trials.

Protecting Witnesses and Jurors: The Hard Limits

While the goal is openness, the bill is crystal clear about protecting key people. First, jurors are completely off-limits. Section 2 explicitly states that you cannot photograph, record, or broadcast any juror or the jury selection process—ever. This is a crucial privacy shield, ensuring jurors aren't intimidated or harassed outside the courtroom. Second, the bill creates a mandatory protection for witnesses. If a witness who is not a party to the case asks for it, the court must obscure their face and voice in the broadcast. The judge even has to inform all witnesses of this right. This means if you’re called to testify about, say, a workplace incident or a contract dispute, you can request anonymity from the viewing public. Judges also retain the power to obscure identities if there’s a threat to safety, security, or ongoing law enforcement operations—a necessary tool for sensitive cases.

The Practical Reality: Who Pays and Who Decides

For those worried about court budgets, the bill requires that any setup needed for media equipment must happen without costing the public any money. This likely means media organizations will bear the full cost of installation and operation. Furthermore, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which manages the federal courts, has six months to create mandatory guidelines, especially on how to protect vulnerable witnesses like crime victims or minors under 18. This is where the rubber meets the road: the quality of these mandatory rules will determine how effectively privacy is protected in practice.

Why This Matters for the Real World

For the average person, this bill means that high-profile federal cases—from major corporate lawsuits to significant civil rights trials—could become viewable from your living room. Increased transparency is the benefit. However, the implementation challenges are real. If you’re a small business owner involved in litigation, you might now face the added pressure of public scrutiny, even if the judge ultimately denies cameras. And because a judge's decision to allow or deny media coverage cannot be immediately appealed while the case is ongoing, their initial ruling stands until the case is over. This concentrates a lot of power in the hands of that one presiding judge, making their interpretation of “due process” the critical factor in courtroom access.