A bill that would generally allow electronic media coverage of U.S. Supreme Court proceedings passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 29.
The bill, S. 446, provides:
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 1 or more of the parties before the Court.
The bill as currently drafted would presumptively allow electronic media coverage of Supreme Court proceedings unless five justices decide that permitting the coverage would violate one or the other party’s Fifth Amendment due process rights. The Supreme Court has never allowed electronic media coverage of its proceedings, so enactment of the bill (if it happens) would be a major step forward for cameras-in-the-courtroom advocates.
Although many state courts do allow cameras in the courtroom, the federal judiciary has been more reluctant to do so. Under current federal law, cameras are generally prohibited in federal district court proceedings. In fact, some federal district courts, by local rule, forbid the public and courtroom participants (lawyers and parties) from bringing smart phones with camera capabilities inside the federal courthouse. And, although the U.S. Courts of Appeals are allowed to permit electronic media coverage of their proceedings, they generally do not. For an excellent summary of the history of cameras in federal courts as of 2006, see the CRS Report to Congress on this topic.
S. 446 was introduced by Sen. Arlen Specter and has seven additional co-sponsors. With Thursday’s vote, the bill was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and now moves to the full Senate floor.
Companion legislation, H.R. 429, was introduced in the House in January 2009 and was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it is still pending.
In related action on April 29, the Senate Judiciary Committee took the somewhat unusual step of adopting a Senate Resolution, S. Res. 339, voicing support for the cameras in the Supreme Court bill. The resolution states:
It is the sense of the Senate that the Supreme Court should permit live 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 1 or more of the parties before the Court.
We'll continue to follow Congressional action on cameras in the U.S. Supreme Court and report on important developments.
Add a comment
Archives
- January 2022
- June 2021
- March 2020
- August 2019
- March 2019
- October 2018
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- February 2016
- November 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- March 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2006
- February 2006
Recent Posts
- Rethinking Your Cyber Insurance Needs as Your Workplace Evolves
- Data Breach Defense for Educational Institutions
- COVID-19 and the Increased Cybersecurity Risk in a Work-From-Home World
- Like Incorporating Facebook into your Website? EU Decision Raises New Issues
- Lessons Learned: Key Takeaways for Every Business from the Capital One Data Breach
- Will Quick Talks to WRAL About Privacy Issues Related to Doorbell Cameras
- About Us
- Not in My House - California to Regulate IoT Device Security
- Ninth Circuit Says You’re Going to Jail for Visiting That Website without Permission
- Ninth Circuit Interprets “Without Authorization” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Topics
- Data Security
- Data Breach
- Privacy
- Defamation
- Public Records
- Cyberattack
- FCC Matters
- Reporters Privilege
- Political Advertising
- Newsroom Subpoenas
- Shield Laws
- Internet
- Miscellaneous
- Digital Media and Data Privacy Law
- Indecency
- First Amendment
- Anti-SLAPP Statutes
- Fair Report Privilege
- Prior Restraints
- Wiretapping
- Education
- Access to Courtrooms
- FOIA
- HIPAA
- Drone Law
- Access to Court Dockets
- Access to Search Warrants
- Intrusion
- First Amendment Retaliation
- Mobile Privacy
- Newsroom Search Warrants
- About This Blog
- Disclaimer
- Services