All corners of government are feeling pressure to increase transparency, and lawmakers at a Dec. 6 Senate subcommittee hearing said the Supreme Court should no longer be isolated from the citizens who feel the consequences of its rulings. The implication that the Supreme Court is currently inaccessible was also debated during a hearing on the merits and potential risks of televising public sessions in the Supreme Court.

"There are other avenues of receiving the information through the written press that satisfies the First Amendment. The question [is] whether [Congress] has the legislative power, nonetheless to enact such a law and in your own view say, 'Well, there's a real First Amendment value here,'" said Thomas Goldstein, a partner at Washington, D.C.-based law firm Goldstein & Russell. Goldstein testified before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on administrative oversight and the courts.

Transcripts of oral arguments heard by the Court are posted the same day as the session on its website, and have been since October 2006. And since October 2010 the Court has posted audio recordings of its complete proceedings at the end of each week.

"Whether or not Congress can constitutionally direct a court to have cameras or not, it seems to me that we should take very seriously [justices'] views about it and respect it," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). "It's their domain. They don't tell us how to run our offices."

Legislating a requirement that the Supreme Court video broadcast all public sessions--unless a majority of justices vote that cameras would prevent a party from receiving due process of the law--could be deemed unconstitutional, said Maureen Mahoney, counsel of Washington, D.C.-based Latham & Watkins.

Goldstein disagreed saying, "with no promises, I think that it ultimately the legislation would be upheld." Lawmakers hoping to pass such legislation may be better served with a less forceful approach, he added.

"One compelling thing that this body could do would be to pass a unanimous resolution urging the court to do it, to give them a sense of, as the senators pointed to, the great public interest in televised proceedings."

For more:
- go to the hearing page (includes prepared testimony and an archived webcast)

Related Articles:
Paper calls for post-terrorist attack Supreme Court continuity plan
ACLU calls for sweeping changes to federal secrecy rules