Should Cameras Be Allowed Inside the Supreme Court? Experts Disagree

On June 1, 2024, reporters filed into the chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States to hear Chief Justice John Roberts give the majority opinion in Trump v. United States. For such a consequential case and decision, every news organization wanted someone inside to hear the opinion and report on it first. However, journalists have long faced additional barriers to covering the Supreme Court compared to other institutions. 

It wasn’t until the 1950s that Chief Justice Earl Warren issued regular press passes to journalists and improved the opinion release schedule, but Chief Justices Warren Burger and William Rehnquist were resistant to expanding press access further from the late 1960s until the early 2000s. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court took notable steps toward modernization, including the release of weekly audio and transcripts of oral arguments and the creation of a formal press credentialing system, which began in 2015. 

Despite those improvements, questions remain about whether the Court is transparent enough for the public to understand its work. The rise of the so-called “shadow docket” has intensified those concerns. The term refers to the Court’s expedited handling of emergency matters, often with limited explanation, few details about justices’ reasoning, and, at times, unclear vote breakdowns. For journalists, that lack of information makes it harder to explain the Court’s decisions to the public and to serve as an effective link between the judiciary and the people affected by its rulings.

As concerns about transparency grow, legal scholars, political scientists and the public remain divided on how far the Court should go in expanding access, particularly regarding the introduction of cameras into the courtroom. 

Brian R. Downing, J.D., an assistant professor of law at the University of Mississippi, is a strong supporter of allowing both recorded and live video access to Supreme Court arguments. 

“[The press] receive the very basics. But there is little transparency over things like recusals (judges removing themselves from cases for conflicts of interest), judges’ plans for retirement, and the ability to access oral arguments, opinion announcements, and other case-related materials. The Court doesn’t generally go the extra mile for them; it does more like the bare minimum,” Downing said.

Downing is currently researching the use of generative artificial intelligence to recreate video of Supreme Court hearings using the audio and transcripts posted by the Court. 

“Generated video cannot fully capture reality. But artificial oral arguments need not have a negative impact long-term. In the end, the Court will be better off by simply offering the real thing,” argues Downing in his working paper. 

Distinguished Professor of Law RonNell Andersen Jones at the University of Utah is a former reporter who also supports allowing cameras into the courtroom. 

“The highest courts of many of our closest peer countries in the world have long allowed cameras as a tool for making the Court accessible to researchers, reporters, students, and the broader public,” Andersen Jones said.

She said we’ve already seen how the weekly release of audio recordings has helped the Court become more accessible.

“Hearing the Justices’ own voices lends authenticity, precision, and transparency to reports about the Court’s work. In a number of high-profile cases in the last decade and a half, the country has come to understand the Court and its role in society by listening to the justices do their actual work at oral arguments,” she said. 

If this is true of audio, then it is only logical that video would expand that benefit? Dr. Miles Armaly, an associate professor of political science at the University of Mississippi, said no.

“I do not believe courts should allow video. I think audio accomplishes the goals of transparency and accessibility, and video might undermine this,” he said. 

Armaly went on to say that video coverage could distract from the Court’s reasoning by encouraging journalists and audiences to focus on body language instead of legal arguments. For example, viewers might read too much into one justice leaning forward or another sitting back with eyes closed, even though those actions have no bearing on the law. He also warned that cameras could make participants more guarded or cause them to perform for the cameras, potentially pushing more discussion behind closed doors.

“We focus on oral arguments and transparency because they’re the only part of the process that is transparent. Most of the rest happens behind closed doors,” Armaly said.

For example, the press and public typically do not see the internal memos between justices, conversations and letters, briefs from private parties, etc., that dramatically weigh into decisions, unless a justice releases them after their death. 

But what does the public think about press and camera access in the Supreme Court? In a 2026 survey conducted by the Haley Barbour Center for the Study of American Politics, 754 respondents answered the question, “Do you think the U.S. Supreme Court should permit live video of its oral arguments?” Sixty-six percent of respondents said yes, 14% indicated no, and 20% were not sure.

These respondents also answered the question, “How much do you trust the U.S. Supreme Court to make decisions that are fair?” For this question, 12% said a great deal, 38% said somewhat, 30% indicated not much, 15% said not at all, with 4% not sure.

This gap between public support for increased access and only moderate levels of institutional trust suggests that while transparency reforms may improve perceptions, they are unlikely to fully resolve deeper concerns about the Court’s legitimacy.