Supreme Court Live Audio Becomes Permanent as Judicial Conference Approves First Cameras Pilot in District Courts Since 2015

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will continue to broadcast live audio of its oral arguments, the Court said on Thursday in a two-sentence notice that made permanent a practice it adopted as an emergency measure in May 2020 and has renewed term by term since. The Judicial Conference of the United States, which sets policy for the lower federal courts, went further at its September session, in decisions published this week: live audio of civil proceedings becomes a permanent option for every district judge, and up to twenty district courts will take part in a four-year pilot allowing video of civil proceedings without a jury — the first experiment with cameras in the federal trial courts since one that ended in 2015.

"The public has listened to six years of arguments without the sky falling. The question now is whether it can watch," a law professor who has studied courtroom broadcasting told The Counsel.

What the Supreme Court decided

Before 2020 the Court released audio of each week's arguments on Friday, and same-day audio only in a few cases of exceptional public interest. When the pandemic closed the building, the Court heard arguments by telephone and, for the first time, let the public listen live. It kept the live stream when it returned to the courtroom in October 2021, announcing the arrangement one term at a time. Thursday's notice removes the annual renewal. The Court said nothing about video, which it has never permitted and which the justices have opposed in public remarks for a generation; the notice does not change the practice of releasing opinion announcements as audio only after the term ends.

What the Judicial Conference decided

Measure	Scope	Conditions
Live audio, permanent	Civil proceedings in district courts, including trials, at the judge's discretion	Witness testimony may be excluded; the 2023 policy limiting remote audio to non-trial proceedings is superseded
Cameras pilot	Up to twenty district courts, selected by application; four years from January 2027	Civil proceedings without a jury; consent of all parties; judge's discretion; witnesses may opt out of video; recordings posted after the proceeding; no criminal, sealed or juvenile matters
Evaluation	Federal Judicial Center study	Report to the Conference in year three on effects on witnesses, lawyers, jurors in related cases and public understanding
Courts of appeals	Unchanged	Each court continues to set its own policy; several stream audio, the Ninth Circuit streams video

How the courts got here

The federal judiciary has resisted cameras longer than almost any other American institution. The Conference's 1996 policy barred broadcasting in district courts; Rule 53 of the criminal rules has prohibited photographing or broadcasting criminal proceedings since 1946. A pilot from 2011 to 2015 permitted video of civil proceedings in fourteen districts, with consent; the Conference reviewed it and declined to expand it, citing concerns about witnesses and the cost of equipment. The pandemic changed the facts. The CARES Act of 2020 authorized video and telephone access to criminal proceedings for the duration of the emergency, and civil proceedings moved online almost entirely; the public dialed in to hearings by the thousands, and the Conference, in 2023, adopted a policy allowing judges to provide remote audio of civil non-trial proceedings. This week's decisions build on that policy and on the pilot's unfinished experiment.

The public has listened to six years of arguments without the sky falling. The question now is whether it can watch.

A law professor, to The Counsel

The arguments on each side

• For. Transparency; public understanding of what courts do, at a time when threats against judges are often driven by misinformation about rulings; the experience of state courts, most of which allow cameras; and the absence, in six years of live audio, of the grandstanding by advocates that opponents predicted.
• Against. Witness intimidation and reluctance to testify; the risk that clips circulate out of context; security of judges and jurors; the cost and staffing of recording; and, for the Supreme Court, the concern that video would change how the justices and advocates behave.

The pilot's design — civil cases only, consent required, witnesses able to opt out — is an attempt to test the first set of claims while answering the second.

Legislation

Congress has considered cameras bills in every session for two decades. The Cameras in the Courtroom Act would require the Supreme Court to televise its sessions unless a majority of the justices found a due process risk in a particular case; the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act would give every federal judge discretion to allow cameras. Neither has passed a chamber. The judiciary has opposed mandates and has told Congress that it prefers to generate evidence through pilots; this week's decisions were described by a member of the Conference's court administration committee as intended to do exactly that.

What happens next

District courts have until the end of the year to apply for the pilot; the Conference will announce the participants in January, and recordings should begin to appear by spring. The Supreme Court's audio continues on the first day of the November sitting. For the courts of appeals, nothing changes unless they choose it: the Ninth Circuit's video stream remains the only one.

The Counsel will report the list of pilot districts in January. Litigants in civil cases in those districts should expect their lawyers to ask whether they consent to video before hearings are scheduled.

This report is for general information only and is not legal advice. Readers should consult a licensed attorney about their own circumstances.