Written By: Nazafat Jarrin
Recent legislation continues to call for transparency in the U.S. Supreme Court, our nation’s highest court that plays a pivotal role in interpreting the Constitution and shaping the law. Due to growing concerns, the “Cameras in the Courtroom Act” has appeared once again before Congress.
I. Reintroducing the Cameras in the Courtroom Act
On March 17, 2021, United States Representative Gerry Connolly, a Democrat from Virginia, introduced the “Cameras in the Courtroom Act.” This bill required the Supreme Court to permit television coverage of all open sessions of the Court, unless by majority vote, the Justices decide that permitting such coverage would violate the due process rights of the parties involved in the case at hand. Four years later, this Act is still being pursued. Every year since its first introduction, Representative Connolly has reintroduced the legislation to demand transparency and accountability in the judicial branch. On March 26, 2025, Representative Connolly has once again reintroduced this legislation. Bipartisan companion legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Senators Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, and Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa.
This bill has been introduced to the Senate over ten times, but has yet to be voted on by the full Senate. Currently, most oral arguments held by the Supreme Court are open to the public on a first come, first basis. Once the arguments are held, the audio and transcripts of the arguments are released later. However, advocates argue that these mediums lack the transparency and engagement that live broadcasts can offer. Televising the proceedings would allow citizens to witness the Court deliberate on issues that impact them firsthand, fostering a deeper
understanding of Supreme Court decisions and binding law. As stated in the American Bar Association’s Publications, “By hiding from cameras, the Court misses the opportunity to build trust and confidence in the judiciary by allowing the public to see it carrying out its duties responsibly and transparently.”
This call for transparency in the Supreme Court is one of great importance in today’s political climate. While allowing cameras in the courtroom would improve the public’s understanding of the Supreme Court’s decisions, there is another important area of the Court that requires transparency: the increasingly influential “shadow docket.”
II. Accountability & the Shadow Docket
Unlike oral arguments, which follows a structured process, the shadow docket enables the Supreme Court to issue significant decisions with little to no explanation, raising concerns through the legal community about accountability and consistency. The shadow docket is a Supreme Court mechanism to rule on procedural matters, such as emergency injunctions. However, the role and use of this docket is seemingly changing and becoming more complex.
In recent years, the shadow docket has been attracting attention from legal scholars as the Supreme Court has increasingly used it to issue significant decisions on controversial issues, like abortion, immigration, environmental regulations, and election laws. The shadow docket has often involved emergency motions like where a litigant seeks to suspend or reverse a lower court order while a case is still in progress. However, this has been controversial because the Supreme Court is granting relief and deciding cases too early in the litigation and with a lack of transparency and participation from affected parties.
Under President Trump’s administration, there has been a notable rise in emergency appeals to the Supreme Court, with the Department of Justice frequently seeking immediate intervention to uphold executive policies. Specifically, instead of impacting the individuals who
brought the lawsuit, the focus is on the use of nationwide injunctions which have the power to block a policy across the entire country. Currently, the Trump administration is using the shadow docket to uphold the birthright citizenship executive order. Instead of asking the Supreme Court to rule directly on the constitutional merits of birthright citizenship, his administrations found it more strategic to litigate the nationwide injunction issue, rather than targeting this long-standing constitutional protection.
Critics argue that using the shadow docket for monumental decisions, as the Supreme Court has done so far, runs counter to the tenets of transparency and the rule of law. By ruling on cases with little to no reasoning, they Court feeds into the perception that their rulings are potentially predicated on political ideology rather than legal precedents and the law itself.
Conclusion
The call for transparency in the Supreme Court is one of great importance as political tensions are on the rise. The Cameras in the Courtroom Act and concerns over the shadow docket highlight a critical issue: the judiciary needs to be checked and balanced as equally as our other two branches of government. The opaque practices of the Supreme Court continue to undermine the judiciary’s impartiality and accountability. Addressing both the need for live broadcasts of oral arguments and greater transparency in shadow docket decisions can reinforce the integrity of the judicial branch.
Sources
Cameras in the Courtroom Act, H.R. 807, 117th Cong. (2021).
Cameras Next? Let’s Hope So, American Bar Association (Aug. 24, 2021).
Gerry Connolly Reintroduces Cameras in the Courtroom Act, Office Of Rep. Gerry Connolly (Mar. 26, 2025).
Harry I. Black & Alicia Bannon, The Supreme Court ‘Shadow Docket’, Brennan Center for Justice (July 19, 2022).
Jordan Rubin, Trump Administration Urges Supreme Court to Take Up Birthright Citizenship Appeal, MSNBC (Mar. 21, 2025).
Lysette Romero Córdova, Will SCOTUS Continue to Livestream Oral Arguments, and Are Cameras Next? Let’s Hope So, American Bar Association (Aug. 24, 2021).
Manny Morotta, Cameras in SCOTUS Bill Again Introduced, Fix the Court (Mar. 26, 2025).
Nadia Dreid, New Bill Would Make Supreme Court Televise Future Sessions, LAW360 (Mar. 26, 2025).