Might the veil one day be lifted from Supreme Court?

PROVIDED he makes it through the Senate confirmation process, Judge Brett Kavanaugh will advance to the U.S. Supreme Court where he’ll return to a public life of relative anonymity. This is because the court’s proceedings are seen only by those inside the courtroom.

The high court, which began a new term Monday, does not allow cameras in the chamber. Written transcripts of proceedings are released every day, and the court provides audio recordings of arguments — each Friday.

Will that veil ever be lifted? The president of the American Bar Association is among those who believe it should be.

In a commentary for InsideSources.com, ABA president Bob Carlson argues that our democracy “depends on public understanding and trust of our institutions, including our courts” but that members of the public — unless they’re in the courtroom in Washington, D.C. — can only follow the high court indirectly.

The debate over televising the court has been around for years. In 2005, Carlson noted, the late Justice Antonin Scalia voiced concerns about how the media would use video of the court, producing snippets that “will be uncharacteristic of what the court does.” Just last year, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she had concerns about justices potentially playing to the cameras.

Carlson noted that while most states have allowed video cameras for years, most federal courts ban them. An exception is the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has provided video of oral arguments since 2010.

In Oklahoma, the decision on whether to allow cameras in court during civil trials is left to district court judges, who generally refrain. However, a Cleveland County judge decided recently that news cameras will be permitted to cover the state’s 2019 trial against pharmaceutical companies.

Oklahomans also have been provided the chance, on occasion, to follow Oklahoma Supreme Court proceedings online.

In August 2017, the court live streamed arguments regarding a cigarette “fee” that had been approved by the Legislature that year. The court ultimately struck down the fee, saying it was a tax.

Later that year, the court streamed arguments challenging the constitutionality of a law involving driving under the influence and loss of a person’s driver’s license. Three times in 2018 the court has made arguments available online, including the challenge to a referendum petition that sought to repeal the funding mechanism for a teacher pay raise.

Each of these cases, unlike many that wind up before the court, were deemed by Chief Justice Douglas Combs to have statewide interest and impact. Jari Askins, chief administrative officer of the state’s court system, said the online access also is a way to show that the court is “not just hiding behind green curtains somewhere making decisions.”

The more transparency, the better. As Carlson noted, making this change with the U.S. Supreme Court “would enhance respect for the judiciary and the rule of law at a time when both are subject to frequent attacks.” It’s a solid argument. Perhaps one day the court will be swayed by it.