The Supreme Court has itself to blame for the surreptitious recordings of court proceedings that have surfaced in the past year, some lawmakers say.
The lawmakers, who have advocated for greater court transparency, do not condone the protesters who captured the video but say the court’s strict ban on any legitimate recording during oral arguments has encouraged it.
“I think it underscores the nature of the problem that people are going to try to go underground, and technology increasingly allows that, precisely because of the absence of openness and transparency,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told The Hill.
“If you put cameras in the court, it would obviate the attractiveness of the alternative, which is surreptitious videotaping,” he added.
Protesters with the group 99 Rise have interrupted court proceedings three times in a little more than a year to voice disapproval of a pair of decisions that relaxed campaign finance laws. The latest episode came Wednesday, ending in the arrests of five protesters.
Each time, the group has secretly recorded the outburst and later published it on YouTube.
The group has closely guarded its methods, declining to describe what type of video recorder has been used or how it made it past security.
While the interruptions themselves have made news, the secretly recorded videos caused the biggest stir after the first protest in February 2014, because of the unprecedented nature of the footage.
The court has long prohibited cameras, recorders or any type of electronic device in the courtroom. It releases transcripts of oral arguments and delayed audio recordings, but it does not livestream the proceedings or have its own video equipment set up.
Transparency advocates, news organizations and some lawmakers have long criticized the court for not adapting to a world where this kind of technology is ubiquitous.
Earlier this year, Connolly reintroduced his legislation that would authorize cameras in the courtroom. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) introduced a similar bill in the upper chamber last month.
“These disruptive actions demonstrate why my legislation allowing cameras to broadcast in courtrooms, where a judge can ensure that necessary parameters are in place to protect certain witnesses and juries, is needed,” Grassley said in a statement.
Most of the justices have opposed any move to open up the courts to cameras, fearing it could change the dynamic inside the courtroom, and clips could be misunderstood or taken out of context.
The legislation would allow cameras in all open sessions, unless a majority of justices voted that the coverage could violate the due process rights of a party involved in a particular case, likely a rare occurrence.
Similar bills have been introduced over the years, without success. And Grassley’s office said no hearings are currently scheduled on his bill in the upper chamber.
Connolly countered by noting, many times legislation has a long “gestation” period before it is approved. He said, however, cameras in the court is an idea “whose time has come” — and not in the form of secret recordings.
“I understand the desire, but that’s not my solution,” he said.
“I think the court has no one to blame but itself for that. And that ought not to be the way we handle this,” he added. “Let’s do it in an orderly way in which the Supreme Court concurs in the view that it is accountable in this relatively modest way.”