As Supreme Court holds first livestreamed arguments, Court Access Amid the Pandemic Act would require it for all federal court arguments during pandemic
Should all federal courts have to livestream their arguments during this period — and perhaps beyond?
Context
The Supreme Court held its first-ever oral arguments by phone in early May. The unusual hearing received mixed reviews from Court analysts and even included an audible toilet flushing in one justice’s home.
The Supreme Court traditionally waits to publicly release audio of their oral arguments until the following Friday. And even that’s speedier than their pre-2010 practice of releasing audio from an entire year in bulk every autumn. Yet the phone arguments were livestreamed for the first time in the Supreme Court’s history.
At least nine of the 13 federal appeals courts have livestreamed oral arguments during the pandemic. So some are asking: during the pandemic, why not make that the practice for all levels of federal courts?
What the bill does
The Court Access Amid the Pandemic Act would mandate any federal circuit court or district court oral arguments be livestreamed, during the duration of the covid-19 national emergency.
Many supporters also want oral arguments livestreamed as a new standard practice even after the national emergency is declared over, but they’re taking things one step at a time.
It was introduced in the House on April 28 as bill number H.R. 6642, by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL5).
What supporters say
Supporters argue the new potential precedent set by the Supreme Court earlier this month is one that should be followed all the way down the hierarchy, allowing for greater access by the masses.
“We need to do everything we can to ensure press and public access to judicial proceedings continues during this outbreak,” Rep. Quigley said in a press release.
“While the Supreme Court took a step in the right direction by allowing oral arguments to be heard via telephone conference, we can do more to develop and adopt new technologies to preserve the transparency of our federal courts while practicing safe social distancing,” Rep. Quigley continued. “After this pandemic ends, I will work with the judiciary to continue using these newly implemented technologies to keep the judiciary accessible.”
What opponents say
Opponents counter that such focus on publicizing oral arguments — whether for debates about possibly livestreaming audio or televising video — put too much emphasis on a relatively unimportant part of the process.
“The oral argument is 5 percent of the case, 3 percent of the case,” Justice Breyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee, when equivocating about whether to allow televising Supreme Court oral arguments. “It is really done in writing, and they [the public] do not see that.”
“You can make people look good or you can make them look bad, depending on what 30 seconds you take. It is already cult and personality, and let us not make it worse,” Breyer continued. “We wear black robes because we are speaking for the law, not for ourselves as individuals, and that is a good thing.”
Odds of passage
The bill has attracted two House cosponsors, both Democrats. It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.
While the sponsorship and cosponsorship may lend the impression that this is a strictly Democratic bill, the divide on the much longer-discussed issue of televising oral arguments is less “Democrats vs. Republicans” and more “legislative branch vs. judicial branch.”
This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.
Like our analyses? Want more? Support our work!
