Could ACB finally allow cameras in the Supreme Court? SCOTUS nominee says she has 'open mind' about televising hearings - which other justices have ruled out

Judge Amy Coney Barrett said she would keep an 'open mind' to allowing cameras in the Supreme Court, a move news organizations and public interest groups have been advocating for years.

Under questioning from Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, one of the oldest members of the Judiciary panel, Barrett said she would consider the issue, which sitting judges on the high court oppose.

'I probably at 87 years of age won't live long enough to see done, but I've discussed cameras in the courtroom,' Grassley said to her during his time to question the nominee. 

'I would certainly keep an open mind about allowing cameras in the Supreme Court,' Barrett noted during day two of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

'Many of us believe that allowing cameras in the courtroom would open the courts to the public and bring a better understanding of the judiciary,' Grassley said. 

Judge Amy Comey Barrett said she would keep an 'open mind' to allowing cameras in the Supreme Court

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has long advocated for there to be cameras in the Supreme Court

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, another longtime member of the Judiciary committee, indicated there's bipartisan agreement.

'I agree with him on that,' he said of Grassley's position.

But Republican Senator Ben Sasse argued against cameras in the court, saying 'we'd get a lot more Michael Avenatti nonsense' in reference to the lawyer who represented porn star Stormy Daniels until she fired him and was convicted of a felony for trying to extort millions from Nike.

'More cameras in the court is a bad idea,' Sasse said, adding what is needed is 'more justices before the public, explaining the structure of our constitutional system.'

Advocates say cameras in the court room would make the judiciary branch more transparent and give Americans an eye into how the high court makes its rulings. 

But opponents, including the sitting justices on the Supreme Court, say it would transform the way justices ask questions and inform their opinions, which leads to the final ruling.

The Iowa senator has advocated for cameras in the Supreme Court for at least 15 years and has introduced legislation that would allow video coverage of court proceedings. 

Some state and local courts allow cameras, but federal courts largely do not. 

The Supreme Court does not allow cameras in the courtroom when the court is in session, a policy which is the subject of much debate, particularly given that the House of Representatives and Senate allow cameras when they are in session.

Both recording devices and still cameras are banned from the highest court in the nation.

For court proceedings, transcripts of oral arguments are available later the day and audio recordings are available at the end of the week.

The Supreme Court does not allow cameras in the courtroom when the court is in session - and that includes both recording devices and still cameras; the above sketch is from an April 2004 hearing before the high court

The Supreme Court's no-camera policy also has given rise to a uniquely Washington D.C. tradition – the running of the interns as seen above in June 2019

And there's no indication that will change any time soon. While several justices, as nominees, said they would consider cameras in the court, they have disagreed with the idea once they made the bench. 

Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Samuel Alito, when they testified before a House committee on the court's budget needs in March of 2019, were both against it.

'I think we would filter ourselves in ways that would be unfortunate,' Kagan said.

Alito agreed arguments should stay off camera.

'Allowing the arguments to be televised would undermine their value to us as a step in the decision-making process,' he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts also has made his opposition clear.

'Television changes a lot,' he told a judicial conference in June 2018. 'Changing something as dramatically as televising the proceedings I think would be harmful.'

During his 2005 confirmation hearing, Roberts indicated a more open position, saying he didn't have a 'set view' on the matter.

'I don't have a set view on that. I do think it's something that I would want to listen to the views of - if I were confirmed - to my colleagues,' he said at the time. 

But the coronavirus pandemic nudged the court toward a more open policy.

In May, the Supreme Court conducted oral arguments via telephone and allowed the public to listen via a feed, providing real-time audio of oral arguments for the first time in its history.

The court's no-camera policy also has given rise to a uniquely Washington D.C. tradition – the running of the interns.

When the Supreme Court announces a decision on a major case, it is printed out in the clerk's office and distributed to the waiting interns of various news organizations, who then run them to the on-camera correspondents waiting outside.