The chance to watch the U.S. Supreme Court in action on television continues to elude Americans, due to the fact that the justices have refused to allow video coverage of proceedings.

This lack of transparency contrasts with the openness of several other democracies, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and Brazil.

In a controversial ruling in January 2010, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to prohibit live broadcast of a federal district court trial relating to California’s anti-gay marriage law.

Before they were confirmed, at least four members of the high court indicated that they favored or were open to TV cameras in the courtroom. Since then, however, Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan have changed their minds and now reject video coverage.

Sotomayor told Charlie Rose “I don’t think most viewers take the time to actually delve into either the briefs or the legal arguments to appreciate what the court is doing. They speculate about, oh, the judge favors this point rather than that point. Very few of them understand what the process is, which is to play devil’s advocate.”

At her confirmation hearing on June 29, 2010, Kagan said, “I have said that I think it would be a terrific thing to have cameras in the courtroom...I think it would be a great thing for the institution, and more important, I think it would be a great thing for the American people.” Two years later, she worried “that people might play to the camera”

Justice Clarence Thomas also spoke in favor of cameras at his confirmation hearing in 1991, stating, “I have no objection beyond a concern that the cameras be as unobtrusive as possible...It's good for the American public to see what's going on in there.” Fifteen years later, he told the House Appropriations subcommittee, “It runs the risk of undermining the manner in which we consider the cases. Certainly it will change our proceedings. And I don't think for the better.”

In 1990, Justice Antonin Scalia said, “When I first came on the court, I was in favor of having cameras in the court. I am less and less so...I don't want it to become show biz.”

Cameras are commonly found in state trial and appeals courts, and even some federal courts have allowed them on a limited basis. According to Kyu Ho Youm, writing in the Brigham Young University Law Review, “By August 2012, forty-four states allowed television coverage of trials and appellate proceedings, while the rest of the states—Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, New York, and Utah—limited courtroom coverage to appellate arguments, which are heard solely by judges.”

But for now the Supreme Court is adamant about banning them.

-David Wallechinsky, Noel Brinkerhoff

To Learn More:

Bucking a Trend, Supreme Court Justices Reject Video Coverage (by Adam Liptak, New York Times)

Cameras in the Court (C-Span)

Cameras in the Courtroom in the Twenty-First Century: The U.S. Supreme Court Learning From Abroad? (by Kyu Ho Youm, Brigham Young University Law Review) (pdf)

The Conundrum of Cameras in the Courtroom (by Nancy S. Marder, Chicago-Kent College of Law)

Supreme Court Enters 20th Century; 21st Will Have to Wait (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)