The Virginian-Pilot on openness from the high court (May 10):

The leak of a draft opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court may not be without precedent, but it is rare. The court takes pains to shield its internal discussions from public view, making this leak a breach of institutional protocol and, already, the subject of investigation.

It’s reasonable to conclude that whomever released the document will face professional consequences and, if laws were broken, criminal prosecution. But it is also reasonable to believe that the court would better serve its mission and the public by pulling back the shroud of secrecy surrounding its operations.

The Supreme Court occupies a singular space in the federal landscape. Using the power of judicial review, it determines the constitutionality of laws and therefore wields considerable influence over legislative and executive authority and the rights of the public under federal authority.

That it largely conducts its operations removed from public view, even as its decisions affect hundreds of millions of Americans, seems incongruent with such an important role in our nation. And the court has made few concessions to transparency in its storied history.

In 2000, as the justices heard arguments in the landmark Bush v. Gore case regarding that closely contested presidential election, the court released audio tapes shortly after those arguments concluded. That gave the public rare insight into the court’s deliberations in a case that ultimately decided the presidency.

At the time, the court typically released audio recordings at the conclusion of a term, typically in July. But recognizing the gravity of the subject and the importance of transparency, then-Chief Justice William

Rehnquist ensured the swift release of the audio tapes, though he dismissed calls to allow video recording.

Ten years later, the court pivoted again and began posting audio of oral arguments at the end of the week they occurred. This was progress and had the effect of ushering in more openness across the judiciary; supreme courts in many states follow the high court’s lead and now post arguments weekly.

But this is far from ideal. While the weekly release is more timely than before, it still means that arguments in high-profile cases are available days after they happen. And Americans still cannot see the justices themselves — nine of the nation’s most influential public officials — execute their duties.

The reasons for denying citizens a window into the high court are flimsy and familiar.

Justices have argued that cameras in the courtroom will change how lawyers and even the justices behave, leading to grandstanding and affecting the solemnity of the proceedings. The same arguments have been made against broadcasting city council or school board meetings, but the benefit to the public is demonstrable.

A more informed and knowledgeable public, one engaged about the decisions before officials, should be our common goal. Cameras in the Supreme Court should be viewed similarly, and it can only strengthen our civic bonds to have the nation’s most difficult and contentious issues argued thoughtfully and passionately before the court.

Justices have also expressed fear that images and arguments will be twisted and taken out of context in sinister or cynical ways that could undermine confidence in the court. There’s no question that’s a risk, but one endemic in public life. Again, the benefits outweigh the potential liabilities.

Interestingly, every justice who sits on the court voiced support for greater transparency during their confirmation hearings. And, tellingly, there are bills in Congress with bipartisan support that would mandate television coverage in open sessions of the court, showing that openness isn’t a Republican or Democratic issue.

Following the COVID pandemic, which halted in-person arguments, the court allowed live audio streaming, which it continued as restrictions eased. The court was right to embrace technology and transparency, and should continue to do so.