It's been 45 years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could allow cameras to record criminal trials without violating a defendant's constitutional rights. In the decades since, most states have permitted video recording and broadcasting of court proceedings, at least to some degree.
But when it comes to their own sessions, the justices have been adamant: no cameras allowed. That ban extends across the entire federal court system, where electronic media coverage was first prohibited in criminal trials back when Harry Truman was president.
Public support for change is strong—70% of voters in one 2022 survey said television coverage would build trust in the Supreme Court's process and rulings, even as the Court's approval ratings have slid in recent years. Now Congress is once again weighing whether to force the issue. Two bills are advancing through the Senate, though—as in past attempts—their odds of becoming law remain far from certain.
Key Takeaways
- Two bipartisan bills—the Cameras in the Courtroom Act and the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act—cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, sponsored by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
- The Supreme Court bill would require televised coverage of open sessions unless a majority of justices vote to suspend it to protect a party's due process rights.
- The federal courts bill would give district and appellate judges discretion to allow cameras, with protections for jurors, off-the-record conferences, and vulnerable witnesses.
- Camera bills have been introduced in a dozen congressional sessions since the late 1990s, with four reaching committee—but none have ever become law.
- The high-profile Utah trial of Charlie Kirk's accused killer, and public comments from Kirk's widow, have added new momentum and public attention to the cause.
- The Judicial Conference and past justices remain firmly opposed, citing fair-trial concerns, witness intimidation, and security risks.
Two Bipartisan Bills Advance in the Senate
In June, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a pair of bipartisan bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
The Cameras in the Courtroom Act, led by Durbin, would require the Supreme Court to permit television coverage of all its open sessions. Justices could suspend coverage in a specific case only if a majority agreed that televising it would violate a party's due process rights.
The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, sponsored by Grassley, would extend camera access further down the federal judiciary—allowing judges on federal appellate and district courts to permit photography, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising of proceedings. As with the Supreme Court bill, judges could shut off coverage if it threatened a party's due process rights.
What the Legislation Would—and Wouldn't—Allow
Grassley's bill includes several built-in restrictions. Jurors could not be recorded or photographed. Off-the-record conferences between clients and their lawyers, or between lawyers and judges, would be off-limits to cameras. Witnesses could ask the court to obscure their identities on camera.
Camera-access decisions would also be final: if a judge permits, denies, or terminates coverage, neither litigants nor media outlets would have a right to appeal. Judges would retain broad discretion to set rules and disciplinary measures governing recording equipment and the use or distribution of any footage captured in their courtrooms.
If enacted, the Judicial Conference of the United States — the federal courts' administrative policy-making body—would have six months to issue mandatory guidelines for obscuring the identities of vulnerable witnesses, including crime victims and their families, minors, cooperating witnesses, undercover law enforcement officers, and individuals in witness protection programs.
A Long History of Failed Attempts
Legislation to televise Supreme Court oral arguments has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee before, most recently in 2021. According to the court reform group Fix the Court, bills mandating cameras at the Court have been introduced in a dozen congressional sessions since the late 1990s, and Bloomberg has reported that four of those bills made it through committee—though none has become law.
During a 2008 push, the committee argued that "despite the Supreme Court's continued reluctance to admit cameras or broadcast radio or television coverage of its public proceedings, many in Congress believe it is time for the Supreme Court to join the other branches of government in allowing television coverage of its public proceedings." That bill died before reaching a final vote.
Whether this year's bills will get a floor vote—let alone pass the House—remains uncertain. Courthouse News Service has reported that the House version of the Cameras in the Courtroom Act currently has no lead sponsor after Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who had championed the bill, died in May.
The Charlie Kirk Trial Is Reviving the Debate
The push for cameras has gained new energy from an unexpected source: publicity surrounding the state trial of Tyler Robinson, the man accused of murdering conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Kirk was shot to death in front of a crowd of thousands at a Utah university on Sept. 10, 2025, and video of the killing briefly circulated on social media. After Robinson's defense team asked the Utah court to bar cameras from the trial, Kirk's widow, Erika Kirk, publicly called for the proceedings to be televised.
"There were cameras all over my husband when he was murdered. There have been cameras all over my friends and family, mourning. There have been cameras all over me," she said in an interview with Fox News. "We deserve to have cameras in there. Why not be transparent? There's nothing to hide."
Grassley praised Kirk's stance in remarks on the Senate floor, arguing that federal courts allow few Americans the chance to see them in action despite their "massive impact on our daily lives and the lives of generations to come." He added: "Cameras would boost transparency and [help] Americans grow in confidence and understanding of the judiciary if we had cameras in the federal courtroom. When pivotal moments in history happen, we shouldn't be timid in calling for greater transparency that history demands in the federal courts."
Fair Trial Rights vs. Public Transparency
Robinson's defense lawyers argue that courtroom video could jeopardize his right to a fair trial by fueling bias among potential jurors and the public. News organizations, prosecutors, and Erika Kirk counter that cameras would help curb misinformation and conspiracy theories surrounding the case.
"They can hear and see it for themselves, and then they can dispel these conspiracy theories and inflammatory commentary about what happened," Jeffrey Hunt, a partner at Salt Lake City's Parr Brown Gee & Loveless and a news media attorney, told the Utah News Dispatch. "I think the judge recognized in his latest order that the benefit of electronic media coverage is that you can show the public exactly what transpired in the courtroom."
Judge Tony Graf of Utah's Fourth District Court has so far allowed news photography and live streaming of preliminary hearings, while banning reporters and the public from bringing laptops or phones into the courtroom. Graf previously barred the media from photographing Robinson in shackles, saying he was trying to balance transparency with "Mr. Robinson's right to a fair proceeding."
Why the Federal Judiciary Keeps Saying No
Fair-trial concerns sit at the center of federal resistance to cameras as well. In a June 3 letter to Grassley, the Judicial Conference said it has "consistently expressed the view that camera coverage can do irreparable harm to a citizen's right to a fair and impartial trial." The conference warned that camera coverage can have an "intimidating effect" on litigants, witnesses, and jurors, with a "profoundly negative impact on the trial process."
"In both civil and criminal cases, cameras can intimidate defendants who, regardless of the merits of the case, might prefer to settle or plead guilty rather than risk damaging accusations in a televised trial," the Judicial Conference wrote. The letter also raised security and privacy concerns for litigants, judges, court staff, and U.S. marshals, adding that this is "of particular concern due to increasing threats to federal judges."
The Supreme Court has voiced similar objections for years. Individual justices have argued that the public would struggle to understand complex arguments without context, expressed concern about losing personal privacy if recorded during public sessions, and worried that lawyers might play to the cameras while justices self-censor their questions.
Former Justice David Souter put it most memorably, telling Congress that the case against cameras "is so strong that I can tell you the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body."
Will Chief Justice Roberts Ever Bend?
The Court has, however, slowly embraced greater transparency in other ways. For most of its history, oral arguments were only accessible in person, on a first-come, first-served basis—anyone unable to get a seat had to rely on secondhand media accounts or wait days or months for transcripts and audio recordings to become available.
That changed in May 2020, when Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. authorized same-day audio access to public proceedings for the first time, a pandemic-era shift that has stuck.
Cameras, though, appear to be a different matter. As Roberts told C-SPAN in a 2018 interview, "Television changes a lot. I ask people, which public institution has been improved by being televised… I know a lot that have been harmed by it." Absent a change of heart—or a change forced by legislation—that skepticism suggests the Supreme Court's cameras ban may outlast this latest congressional push, too.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are cameras currently allowed in the U.S. Supreme Court? No. The Supreme Court has never permitted cameras during its proceedings, and the ban extends across the entire federal court system.
What would the Cameras in the Courtroom Act do? It would require the Supreme Court to allow television coverage of its open sessions, with an exception if a majority of justices vote to suspend coverage to protect a party's due process rights in a specific case.
What would the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act do? It would give federal appellate and district court judges discretion to permit photography, recording, or broadcasting of proceedings, with safeguards for jurors, off-the-record conferences, and vulnerable witnesses.
Why do Supreme Court justices oppose cameras? Justices and the Judicial Conference have cited concerns about fair trial rights, witness and juror intimidation, personal privacy, security threats, and the risk that lawyers or judges would alter their behavior on camera.
Has Congress tried this before? Yes. Camera-access bills have been introduced in a dozen congressional sessions since the late 1990s, and four have made it through committee—but none has ever passed into law.
---
David L. Brown is a legal affairs writer and consultant, who has served as head of editorial at ALM Media, editor-in-chief of The National Law Journal and Legal Times, and executive editor of The American Lawyer. He consults on thought leadership strategy and creates in-depth content for legal industry clients and works closely with Best Law Firms as senior content consultant.