Open window to federal courtrooms

Cameras in Iowa's courtrooms are no big deal anymore. Our state has been allowing them for nearly 30 years, with only a few minor problems. Virtually all states allow some form of audio-video coverage in their courtrooms.

Yet our federal courts do not. It's high time that changed. Americans deserve to see what goes on at every level of our judiciary.

A bill co-sponsored by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa aims to bring such transparency. S. 657, the latest version of the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, gained Senate Judiciary Committee approval on May 7. It would authorize “the presiding judge of a U.S. appellate court or U.S. district court to permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising to the public of court proceedings over which that judge presides, except when such action would constitute a violation of the due process rights of any party,” including protection of witnesses who do not want to be recognized on camera.

The Senate bill gives judges discretion. You can't just show up with a camera. In Iowa, regional media coordinators apply when journalists want to take a camera or recording device into the courtroom. The system has worked well.

Supporters of cameras in federal courtrooms include U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett, who serves the Northern District of Iowa. The federal ban in federal appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, especially is “virtually indefensible,” because there are no witnesses who testify or juries in those appeals courts, Bennett told a Gazette reporter. “No citizen should have to go to the expense of traveling to Washington, D.C.,” to be able to watch important business of the nation's highest court.

Bennett argues that expanded media coverage would actually promote public understanding and increase the public's faith in the integrity of our federal courts. We agree.

Iowa's long track record supports his argument. In 1979, a study committee headed by Iowa Supreme Court Justice Jerry Larson recommended a one-year trial period for EMC. In 1981, the Iowa Supreme Court made it permanent. Larson, who retired from the court last year, said EMC has been highly successful and good for the people of Iowa.

Interestingly, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1981 held that states are free to develop their own rules for broadcasting trials. From 1991 to 1994, federal courts experimented with courtroom cameras, and findings were positive. Resistance persisted, even though objections about unfair effects on trials and more burdens for the courts have been widely disproved in studies by court administrators and social scientists.

Congress should support more transparency in our federal courts. Access to our highest courtrooms would allow more public scrutiny and enhance understanding of how they work.