(On Wednesday, November 16, the Radio Television Digital News Association sent the following letter to Chief Justice John Roberts and to the Public Information Officer of the U.S. Supreme Court.)



The Honorable John G. Roberts
Chief Justice of the United States
The Supreme Court
1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC  20543

Dear Mr. Chief Justice:

This week, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments over Congress’ authority to mandate health insurance coverage under President Obama’s health care reforms.  As described by the Associated Press, “the case could become the high court's most significant and political ruling since its 5-4 decision in the Bush v. Gore case nearly 11 years ago.” On behalf of the more than 3,000 members of the Radio Television Digital News Association (“RTDNA”), I am writing to ask the Court for permission to provide pooled television and audio coverage of the oral arguments in this case scheduled for next March.  Health care overhaul has divided the nation since it was signed into law.  The Court’s ruling undoubtedly will shape the 2012 presidential campaign and most certainly will serve to define Congress’ ability to address national issues.  There is no better time than in anticipation of this watershed case for the Supreme Court justices to suspend the ban on cameras in the courtroom and to allow live electronic coverage of this and other proceedings of keen interest and import to the American public.

Public exposure of the processes of government is virtually always in the public’s best interest.  In an era of perceived partisanship, our nation’s citizenship may view the justices’ votes as cast according to their personal and political preferences rather than as objective interpretations of the law.  Permitting broadcast of Supreme Court appeals, on the other hand, will further the interest of justice, enhance public understanding of the judicial system, and maintain a high level of public confidence in the judiciary and in our democratic processes. 

As this Court long has recognized, the physical space limitations of a particular courtroom and geographic and other limitations on the public’s ability to personally attend judicial proceedings validate the media’s claim that it acts as a surrogate for the public in providing access to those proceedings.  While both print and electronic media fulfill that important surrogate role, only the electronic media has the ability to provide the public with a close visual and aural approximation of actually witnessing judicial proceedings without physical attendance.  As Justice Stewart observed, the Constitution requires sensitivity to the “critical role played by the press in American society . . . and to the special needs of the press in performing it effectively.  Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 17 (1978) (Stewart, J., concurring).  Indeed, video is our society’s common language, and eliminating electronic coverage will significantly impact upon the content of the information conveyed about the Court’s decision.  On the other hand, without such coverage of this historic case, the public will be forced once again to depend on second hand accounts filtered by the perceptions of reporters.  Such a result thwarts the intent of our Founding Fathers, who advocated holding trials “before as many people as chuse to attend,” and will inhibit the ability of the public to accept and understand any decision made by the Court. 

Former Judge Kenneth W. Starr recently urged the Court to open its doors to electronic coverage, stating “[d]emocracy’s first principles strongly support the people’s right to know how their government works.”  Kenneth W. Starr, Open Up High Court to Cameras, New York Times, Oct. 3, 2011.  Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Alito recently have expressed openness to the idea.  Indeed, resistance to broadcast seems particularly anachronistic given that the highest courts of 47 of our states, as well as those of Britain and Canada, allow arguments to be televised.  Numerous studies conducted by state and federal jurisdictions to evaluate the effect on the judicial process of the presence of cameras in courtrooms have demonstrated overwhelmingly that televised coverage of court proceedings “does not impede the fair administration of justice, does not compromise the dignity of the court, and does not impair the orderly conduct of judicial proceedings.” Katzman v. Victoria’s Secret Catalogue, 923 F. Supp 580 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).  Certainly, any suggestion that the presence of a silent, unobtrusive television camera in the courtroom while skilled attorneys make their arguments in this highly structured setting would adversely impact the proceedings is not borne out by empirical evidence.

RTDNA respectfully urges you to provide unlimited seating to this historic event by permitting television coverage of the oral arguments in Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, No. 11-393, Florida v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., No. 11, 400, and  U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv. v. Florida, No. 11-398.    In the alternative, we respectfully request that you permit real-time audio broadcast of the proceedings.

Sincerely,

Kevin Benz, RTDNA Chairman