This week, two Congressmen introduced legislation allowing certain Supreme Court procedures to be recorded on camera. Representatives Gerry Connelly, a Democrat from Virginia, and Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas, have re-introduced the Cameras in the Courtroom Act. The bill was first introduced on January 6, 2015.

The text of the rule provides that “the Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation of the due process rights of one or more of the parties before the Court.”

The Supreme Court currently does not allow cameras to be brought into the courtroom, as it follows the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which state that “

[e]xcept as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.” The Court does publish its opinions on the Supreme Court website, as well as transcripts and audio recordings of oral arguments. The Court’s current policy is to publish transcripts of oral arguments the same day as the argument is held, and to release the audio recordings of arguments at the end of the argument week.

The Justices themselves appear to have varying views on the issue. From comments made over the years, the Justices that oppose allowing the broadcast of court proceedings have cited concerns such as the potential for the Justices or attorneys to play to the camera and focus on creating catchy soundbites; the fear that introducing cameras would change the Court as an institution; or that the media may misrepresent the Court’s process through editing. The Justices in favor note generally that they feel it would benefit the public to learn more about how the Court operates and be able to visualize the process, and have had positive experiences with allowing cameras into the lower courts. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, while both initially demonstrating a positive opinion towards broadcasting Court proceedings, have since changed their minds, noting that the public may not be interested in the legal arguments and technical aspects of oral arguments, and again citing a concern that people would focus on playing to the camera rather than being an advocate for their client and focusing on the legal issues.

There have been numerous attempts by Congress to force the Supreme Court to open its doors to cameras and video recording. As with previous attempts to legislate this issue, the Cameras in the Courtroom Act is not expected to succeed. But the Court is slowly embracing technology, as seen in its utilization of its website to publish opinions and recordings of oral arguments, so the idea that we may one day get a glimpse into Supreme Court procedure is perhaps not so far-fetched.