The Case for Cameras in the Supreme Court

Cameras are everywhere today: In convenience stores, at intersections, the workplace, your computer, your cellphone, ATM machines. There's even been a camera in news anchor Katie Couric.

Yet there's one place cameras have never been allowed: The U.S. Supreme Court. Just what are Supreme Court justices hiding beneath their robes that they continue to say no to cameras in their courtroom?

For decades the White House and Congress have opened their public business to television cameras, but the judicial branch has remained staunchly against the practice. As C-SPAN's Brian Lamb tells Reason.tv, the justices have rebuffed every attempt to videotape the oral arguments phase of Supreme Court proceedings. On this, an often-divided court remains unanimous, even if the arguments offered up Justices Scalia, Breyer, Thomas, Kennedy, and others remain even weaker than the majority's logic in their awful Kelo decision, which legitimated eminent domain abuse.

Both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan have spoken in favor of cameras in the Supreme Court. Can a new batch of justices, more attune to the benefits of transparency, finally change things for the better?

"The Case for Cameras in The Supreme Court" is written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts.

Approximately 3.40 minutes.

Go to for iPod, HD, and audio versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.