To increase trust in the Supreme Court, increase transparency

There is a crisis of trust in the federal government. By a 4 to 1 margin (57 percent to 13 percent) voters in recent years have become much less trusting of federal government branches and agencies according to the C-SPAN/Pierrepont national survey released on March 15.    

There is one ray of light amidst the gloom. The Supreme Court permitted same-day oral argument audio beginning two years ago, a sharp shift in court procedure necessitated by COVID as sittings moved online.

Two years on, oral argument audio has become well known to the under-50 voting public in particular. According to the C-SPAN/Pierrepont survey, these mostly Millennial younger voters are much more likely (55 percent to 38 percent) to know audio oral argument exists than voters age 50 and older; more likely (51 percent to 38 percent) to have listened than older voters; and especially likely (58 percent) to say oral argument audio has provided them a more favorable view of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why so favorable? Millennials and those under age 50 are much more likely to rely on social or online media for Supreme Court news in which oral argument audio has become an occasional feature. The online and social media sources Millennials prefer provide many more routes for dissemination.  As a result — likely unexpected by the court — awareness and exposure to oral arguments audio over the last two years are building favorability and trust among Millennials.

By contrast, those 50 and up and Boomers mostly consume Supreme Court news through traditional TV or newspapers. Boomers are much more likely to receive Supreme Court news filtered through commentators such as CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, via late-night TV talk shows or Saturday Night Live mockery or from the president or members of Congress who frame the work of the court for their own ends.

The recent televised Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearings are a perfect example of traditionally filtered Supreme Court news Boomers know best. Both parties have been caught “posturing and [airing] grievances” as NPR’s Nina Totenberg commented. This includes Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) comment that “…the jackassery we often see around here is partly because of people mugging for short-term camera opportunities.” Sasse is stating the obvious when it comes to comments by his colleagues — though it’s not the cameras that make senators appear to be jackasses. It is what some of them say and how they behave in front of cameras.

Oral argument audio is the exact opposite of the last week’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing. What the court does day-to-day during oral arguments is not bad theatrics; it is an appellate hearings process involving Constitutional rights and law that the high court must resolve. Opposing counsel presents their briefs while taking often complex and nuanced questions involving points of law from the justices at any time. As such, oral argument audio is a distinct and refreshing contrast w what the public hears from many members of Congress.

That’s why oral argument audio has become a compelling and trustworthy part of online and social media, including podcasts, concerning issues before the court. And as the C-SPAN/Pierrepont data demonstrates, the words of the justices and the oral argument process itself drive positive views toward the court and build trust in it, especially among Millennials consuming news online and via social media.

  
The positive impact of audio also demonstrates why cameras in the courtroom would be a good thing. What the court does day-to-day during oral arguments is not jackassery nor is it likely to become so. It is better for the court to provide the chief ingredients for content concerning their activities, not just the words, but also the pictures. Letting the public see what happens during oral arguments isn’t the worry; indeed, it is the closest thing the court has to effective and proper direct public communications in addition to the opinions they write.

The communication problem for the court today is that it still mostly outsources public communications to commentators, entertainers, and partisan political figures as we saw all last week during the Jackson confirmation hearings. Now is the time to build long-term trust in the Supreme Court by permitting cameras in the courtroom — words and pictures that would be a permanent rejoinder to the recent Senate hearings.   

Robert Green is the founder of Pierrepont Consulting and Analytics, which provides independent data-driven strategic analysis for clients such as C-SPAN,  the Merchants Payment Coalition, VMLY&R, the Rockefeller Foundation, CalChamber and the Bipartisan Policy Center.