Can You Televise Court Proceedings?

Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since 1946. This rule states that, except as otherwise provided by statute or these rules, courts cannot permit courtroom photography or broadcasting of judicial proceedings during such proceedings. In 1972, the Judicial Conference of the United States broadened this prohibition to encompass broadcasting, televising, recording, and photography in courtrooms and adjacent areas for both criminal and civil cases. This ban was included in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

In 1988, Chief Justice Rehnquist formed the Ad Hoc Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom to re-examine this issue. Four years later, in 1990, the Judicial Conference adopted the committee’s report, recommending a pilot program allowing electronic media coverage of civil proceedings in select district and appellate courts. Simultaneously, the existing prohibition in the Code of Conduct was removed and a new policy on cameras was established.

This 1990 policy generally prohibited broadcasting in federal trial courts but permitted it under specific circumstances: presentation of evidence, record perpetuation, security purposes, judicial administration, or approved pilot programs. A three-year pilot program, launched in 1991, involved several district and appellate courts and focused solely on civil proceedings.

However, in 1994, after reviewing the pilot program’s results, the Judicial Conference decided against expanding camera coverage in civil proceedings due to concerns about the potential intimidating effect of cameras on witnesses and jurors. They also rejected a proposed amendment to Criminal Rule 53 that would have permitted cameras in criminal proceedings under specific guidelines.

Despite these setbacks, changes began to occur in appellate courts. In 1996, the Judicial Conference allowed each court of appeals to decide independently on permitting photography and broadcasting of appellate arguments, provided they adhered to existing statutes, rules, and guidelines. Several Courts of Appeals subsequently adopted rules allowing camera coverage and began livestreaming audio of oral arguments.

In 2010, a new three-year pilot project was authorized to evaluate the impact of cameras in district courtrooms for civil cases. Fourteen courts participated in this pilot, which involved recording and publishing video recordings of proceedings with the consent of the presiding judge and parties involved. The recordings were made available online, providing valuable data for study.

The Judicial Conference reviewed the results of the 2010 pilot program in 2016 but opted not to change its existing policy. However, three districts in the Ninth Circuit were allowed to continue the pilot program to gather more long-term data. The policy regarding cameras in trial courts remained unchanged, allowing recordings only under specific conditions like evidence presentation, security, or pilot programs.

More recently, in 2020, a two-year audio streaming pilot project was initiated to evaluate live audio streaming of civil and bankruptcy proceedings deemed to be of public interest. This pilot was extended for an additional year, concluding in 2023. A key finding was that livestreaming presented minimal technical or administrative challenges. Also in 2020, a temporary exception to the camera policy was implemented due to the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing remote audio access to court proceedings when public access to courthouses was restricted.

Finally, in September 2023, the Judicial Conference amended its camera policy, granting judges presiding over civil or bankruptcy non-trial proceedings the discretion to authorize live remote public audio access when witnesses are not testifying. This marked a significant shift towards increased transparency and accessibility in federal court proceedings.