Courts weigh allowing live video coverage

By Jessica Turner 22/06/2026 3 min read 7 views

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation this week requiring the U.S. Supreme Court to permit cameras in its courtroom. The measure, backed by bipartisan support, would mandate video coverage unless a majority of justices decide it would infringe on due process rights. Previous versions of the bill passed the committee four times but never advanced to a full Senate vote, leaving the court’s policy intact.

The proposal responds to increasing criticism of the court’s refusal to allow live broadcasts. While lower federal courts and many state supreme courts stream proceedings, the Supreme Court has never televised arguments, providing only audio recordings and transcripts. Justices have raised concerns about grandstanding, misrepresentation, and the risk of edited or decontextualized footage.

Transparency advocates contend the restriction hinders public access to a powerful institution. The bill’s future remains unclear, with no certainty it will reach the Senate floor this session.

The court has taken small steps toward openness, such as releasing same-day audio during the pandemic and posting opinions online immediately after announcement.

In United States v. Hemani, the court ruled this week that the federal government cannot prosecute individuals for gun possession based solely on illegal drug use. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, noting that early American firearm restrictions applied to different groups than modern laws. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented sharply, arguing the decision weakened federal firearms regulations. Legal analysts said the case may influence future Second Amendment challenges, particularly as courts interpret gun rights after Heller.

The court also returned Hunter v. United States to a lower court, deciding 8-1 that defendants may appeal convictions or sentences even after waiving that right in some cases. The ruling involved a Texas man contesting a supervised release condition and clarifies when such waivers hold up, resolving a long-standing split among federal circuits.

In another case, the justices limited federal courts’ ability to review state-court judgments. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s 5-4 majority opinion in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp. held that a state-court decision’s finality does not determine whether federal intervention is allowed. This narrows the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which restricts federal oversight of state rulings.

Upcoming opinion release dates were announced for Tuesday at 10 a.m. EDT and the following Thursday. The court has indicated that it will next release opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m. EDT. We will be live blogging that morning beginning at 9:30. The court has also identified next Thursday as an opinion day. We will be live blogging that morning, as well.

The justices will meet privately next week to discuss pending petitions and vote on cases for next term. Orders from Thursday’s conference will be released Monday at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

The court is weighing whether to hear an appeal from Richard Hershey, a Louisiana man who claims police violated his First Amendment rights by stopping him from distributing leaflets at a Christian rock concert. The 5th Circuit ruled officers were protected by qualified immunity, which shields government officials unless they break clearly established law. Hershey’s legal team, including former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, argues public evangelism is a core constitutional right.

Courts have long grappled with sentencing condition challenges, as seen in similar disputes.