 | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a full view of the subject.(April 2016) |
The Supreme Court of the United States does not allow cameras in the courtroom when the court is in session, a policy which is the subject of much debate. [1] Although the Court has never allowed cameras in its courtroom, it does make audiotapes of oral arguments and opinions available to the public. [2]
In 2009, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter and seven co-sponsors introduced a resolution to express the sense of Congress that sessions of the Court should be televised. [3] In 2009, Specter also introduced a bill that would require open sessions of the Court to be televised. [4] Upon introducing his bill to require televising the Supreme Court of the United States proceedings, Arlen Specter announced, "the Supreme Court makes pronouncements on constitutional and federal law that have direct impacts on the rights of Americans. Those rights would be substantially enhanced by televising the oral arguments of the Court so that the public can see and hear the issues presented." [5] Eight U.S. Senators co-sponsored Spector's resolution. [3]
Ted Poe, R-TX2, introduced a related bill in the House of Representatives in January 2009. [6] The only exception to televising the Court under this legislation would be if a majority of justices decided that "allowing such coverage in a particular case would violate the due process rights of any of the parties involved." [4]
Supporters of Specter's proposal reason that other government proceedings are already televised, including sessions of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, covered most frequently by C-SPAN. [7] By televising the Court, they argue that Americans would have more access to the most important institution in the U.S. judiciary, which would result in a more open and transparent government. [2] Bruce Peabody of Fairleigh Dickinson University contends that televising the Supreme Court of the United States proceedings can change the way Americans view public policy by bringing greater attention to the Court. [8] A 2010 New York Times editorial states that public access to the court would give Americans the opportunity to get a closer look at how a powerful branch of government operates. It adds that the televising the Court would hold presidents accountable for the justices they nominate. The editorial reasons, "right now, we see the justices during their confirmation hearings and rarely after that." [9]
During her confirmation hearing in 2009, Justice Sonia Sotomayor indicated that she is open to the idea of televising court proceedings, stating, "I have had positive experiences with cameras. When I have been asked to join experiments of using cameras in the courtroom, I have participated. I have volunteered." [10]
Cameras in the Court has also been supported by advocacy groups including Fix the Court. [11]
Opponents of Specter's proposal believe that requiring the proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States to be televised is a threat to judicial independence and, thus, the separation of powers. In addition, several justices of the Court have objected to the proposed legislation, including Justice Anthony Kennedy who argues that the measure would not align with the "etiquette" and "deference" that should "apply between branches." [12] Furthermore, some justices believe televising the proceedings would change the way they act in the courtroom. Justice Clarence Thomas also contends that televising Court proceedings would reduce the level of anonymity that justices now have and could raise security concerns. [2] Opponents also believe that television coverage would also take away from the mystery of the court and cause the public to misinterpret the Court and its processes. [2]
Scholars have also debated the constitutionality of legislatively requiring the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. [8] [12] [13] [14]
In March 2010, Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind Poll found in a national poll that more than 60% of voters think that televising the Supreme Court of the United States proceedings would be "good for democracy." [15] [16] 26% think that televising the proceedings would "undermine the authority of the court." [9]
Voters have mixed opinions on the effect of television coverage on court decisions. While 45% say that televising Court's proceedings would be good "because the judges would consider public opinion more" in making decisions, 31% say TV would be bad because justices would consider public opinion too much. 25% say are not sure or say that televising the Court would have no effect on its legal decisions. [7] While a majority of voters presently watch government proceedings infrequently if at all, half of voters (50%) say they would watch the Supreme Court of the United States' proceedings sometimes or regularly if they were televised. Only 10% say they’d never watch the court. [7]
Dr. Peter Woolley, director of the FDU poll, said, “Voters are certainly curious about the court, which is both powerful and largely out of the public eye. After the novelty wears off, the primary audience might be lawyers and lobbyists, rather than any broad swath of voters. Most voters will only see it when commercial media select the most controversial bits and pieces.” [7] But Peabody disagreed, “The rationale for televising the court is not to guarantee the public will watch it, but to give democracy’s citizens more opportunities to educate themselves. It is unlikely people will know more about the court by seeing it less.” [7]
Noting the FDU poll, the editors of The New York Times subsequently opined that televising the Court "would allow Americans to see for themselves how an extremely powerful part of their government works" and "allow voters to hold presidents accountable for the quality of justices they nominate. [9]
The Supreme Court began making audio recordings of its sessions in 1955, for storage at the National Archives and Records Administration. Starting in 1993, these were released to the public for the first time by the court itself, after the end of each term. In 2010, Chief Justice John Roberts began the practice of posting the recordings online [17] at the end of each week. Occasionally these would be released same-day for cases of particular interest. [18] The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States forced the court to hear arguments by teleconference, and for the first time it allowed the public beyond the courtroom to listen in real time on May 4, 2020. [19]
Notwithstanding the prohibition on cameras, there have been instances of unauthorized use of cameras to photograph the courtroom while the court was in session. In 1932, Erich Salomon caught a single photograph of a session of the Hughes Court, which was published in Fortune magazine. [20] In 1937, two more photographs of the Hughes Court in session were taken by unnamed photographers; the first was published in Time magazine, the second on the front page of the New York Daily News . [20] In 2014, a short video recording of the Roberts Court in session was published on YouTube by 99Rise, a progressive social movement organization. [21]
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point of U.S. constitutional or federal law. It also has original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, specifically "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party." The court holds the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution. It is also able to strike down presidential directives for violating either the Constitution or statutory law. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The court may decide cases having political overtones, but has ruled that it does not have power to decide non-justiciable political questions.
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide recount of all undervotes, over 61,000 ballots that the vote tabulation machines had missed. The Bush campaign immediately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the decision and halt the recount. Justice Antonin Scalia, convinced that all the manual recounts being performed in Florida's counties were illegitimate, urged his colleagues to grant the stay immediately. On December 9, the five conservative justices on the Court granted the stay, with Scalia citing "irreparable harm" that could befall Bush, as the recounts would cast "a needless and unjustified cloud" over Bush's legitimacy. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that "counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm." Oral arguments were scheduled for December 11.
Jonathan Stevens "Jon" Corzine is an American financial executive and retired politician who served as a United States Senator from New Jersey from 2001 to 2006, and the 54th governor of New Jersey from 2006 to 2010. Corzine ran for a second term as governor but lost to Republican Chris Christie. A member of the Democratic Party, he previously worked at Goldman Sachs; after leaving politics, he was CEO of MF Global from 2010 until its collapse in 2011.
Arlen Specter was an American lawyer, author and politician who served as a United States Senator from Pennsylvania from 1981 to 2011. Specter was a Democrat from 1951 to 1965, then a Republican from 1965 until 2009, when he switched back to the Democratic Party. First elected in 1980, he was the longest-serving senator from Pennsylvania, having represented the state for 30 years.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prevented the conviction of Paul Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket displaying "Fuck the Draft" in the public corridors of a California courthouse.
Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, was impeached by the United States House of Representatives of the 105th United States Congress on December 19, 1998, for "high crimes and misdemeanors". The House adopted two articles of impeachment against Clinton, with the specific charges against Clinton being lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Two other articles had been considered but were rejected by the House vote.
Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court overturned the fraud conviction of petitioner Billy Sol Estes, holding that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights had been violated by the publicity associated with the pretrial hearing, which had been carried live on both television and radio. News photography was permitted throughout the trial and parts of it were broadcast as well.
A courtroom is the enclosed space in which courts of law are held in front of a judge. A number of courtrooms, which may also be known as "courts", may be housed in a courthouse. In recent years, courtrooms have been equipped with audiovisual technology to permit everyone present to clearly hear testimony and see exhibits.
The Supreme Court Building houses the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. The building serves as the official workplace of the chief justice of the United States and the eight associate justices of the Supreme Court. It is located at 1 First Street in Northeast Washington, D.C. It is one block immediately east of the United States Capitol and north of the Library of Congress.
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that Virginia's poll tax was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, eleven southern states established poll taxes as part of their disenfranchisement of most blacks and many poor whites. The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1964) prohibited poll taxes in federal elections; five states continued to require poll taxes for voters in state elections. By this ruling, the Supreme Court banned the use of poll taxes in state elections.
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, appealed a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, whose ruling had the same effect as that of the Eighth Circuit.
A courtroom sketch is an artistic depiction of the proceedings in a court of law. In many jurisdictions, the use of cameras in courtrooms is generally prohibited in order to prevent distractions and preserve privacy. This requires news media to rely on sketch artists for illustrations of the proceedings.
Landmark Communications v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case that was argued on January 11, 1978 and decided on May 1, 1978.
Courtroom photographing, videotaping and broadcasting is restricted in many jurisdictions. The law varies from limited film and electronic media coverage in some countries, to a complete ban in others.
The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is a bill to allow the broadcasting of U.S. District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals proceedings. The name of the bill is an apparent reference to Louis Brandeis' remark that "sunshine is the best disinfectant" for ill-doings. The proposed act relates to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53, which states, "Except 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."
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving taxpayer standing under Article Three of the United States Constitution.
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), is a 2012-term United States Supreme Court case revolving around Arizona's unique voter registration requirements, including the necessity of providing documentary proof of citizenship. In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Arizona's registration requirements were unlawful because they were preempted by federal voting laws.
The impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, began in the U.S. Senate on January 7, 1999, and concluded with his acquittal on February 12. After an inquiry between October and December 1998, President Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on December 19, 1998; the articles of impeachment charged him with perjury and obstruction of justice. It was the second impeachment trial of a U.S. president, preceded by that of Andrew Johnson.
Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case involving issues of privacy in correspondence with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the freedom of the press, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. After a murder case ended in three mistrials, the judge closed the fourth trial to the public and the press. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled the closing to be in violation of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment asserting that the First Amendment implicitly guarantees the press access to public trials.
The sentencing of Ben Oliver, a 25-year-old man convicted of the manslaughter of his grandfather, was the culmination of a Crown Court case in England and Wales, and the sentencing was the first criminal court proceeding in England and Wales to be televised. Oliver was convicted of killing his 74-year-old bedbound grandfather, David Oliver, of Mottingham, South East London, following a trial at the Old Bailey, where he had pleaded not guilty to murder. At the televised hearing, which took place in Court Two of the Old Bailey at 10 am on 28 July 2022, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of ten years by Her Honour Judge Sarah Munro.
| The court |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Procedures | ||
| Current members | ||
| Retired justices | ||
| History |
| |
| Lists of justices and nominees | ||
| Statutes affecting court size | ||
| Functionaries | ||
| Location | ||
| Related | ||
