U.S. Supreme Court: Policies and Perspectives on Video and Audio Coverage of Appellate Court Proceedings
Published: 2016-04-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The U.S. Supreme Court—the highest appellate court in the country—hears high-interest cases potentially affecting millions. The Court generally hears oral arguments for these cases, which are open to the public. Seating in the Court is limited and media organizations, as well as members of Congress, have requested video coverage of oral arguments. GAO was asked to review video and audio coverage of proceedings in the U.S. Supreme Court and other appellate courts.
This report addresses (1) the U.S. Supreme Court's policy regarding video and audio coverage of oral arguments and the policies of other selected appellate courts and (2) perspectives of selected stakeholders on the benefits of and concerns with allowing such coverage.
GAO analyzed policies on video and audio coverage of oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court and other selected appellate courts—13 U.S. courts of appeals and the highest appellate courts in the 50 states and the District of Columbia and three foreign countries—chosen because of comparability to the U.S. Supreme Court. GAO obtained information from administrative officials in 8 courts, selected based on video and audio policies, and perspectives on the benefits of and concerns with coverage from (1) 16 judges in 6 of these courts and 9 attorneys in 5 of these courts and (2) the PIO of the U.S. Supreme Court and 4 attorneys who have argued before the Court. Results are not generalizable but provided insights on video and audio coverage of oral arguments. GAO also reviewed studies on this issue.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The U.S. Supreme Court (the Court) posts audio recordings of oral arguments on its website at the end of each argument week, but does not provide video coverage of these arguments. In addition, starting in 2000, the Court began granting requests for access to audio recordings of oral arguments on the same day arguments are heard in selected cases. As of October 4, 2015, the Court had received media requests for access to same-day audio recordings in 58 cases and had granted them in 26 cases.
Other selected appellate courts have varying policies on video and audio coverage of oral arguments. For example,
Two of the 13 U.S. courts of appeals allow media video coverage of oral arguments. Also, 9 of these 13 courts generally post audio recordings of arguments on their websites the same day arguments are heard.
The highest appellate courts in 49 states have written policies that allow media video and audio coverage of oral arguments and almost all of these courts have video or audio of oral arguments available online.
The highest appellate courts in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom have policies that provide video coverage of oral arguments by the court itself.
Stakeholders in selected courts stated that the benefits of video or audio coverage of oral arguments in their courts include educating the public on the judicial system, among others, but also expressed concerns with regard to how the media might use such coverage. For example,
Fourteen of the 16 judges and seven of the nine attorneys GAO interviewed in the selected appellate courts cited public education on the judiciary as a benefit or potential benefit of video or audio coverage of arguments. One judge noted that video coverage is useful for providing a window into how the courts think about the issues in a case.
Five judges and eight attorneys stated that coverage might potentially result in portions of the arguments being distorted by the media. However, four judges and four attorneys said that the court providing coverage itself might help mitigate these concerns. For example, one attorney stated that this allows the court to control and release the coverage as it sees fit.
With regard to the U.S. Supreme Court allowing video coverage of oral arguments, the four attorneys GAO interviewed who have argued before the Court also cited similar educational benefits and concerns regarding the media potentially distorting coverage. Further, three of the four attorneys and the Court's Public Information Officer (PIO) raised concerns that coverage may potentially affect court participants' behavior. The PIO stated that individual Justices have commented that televising proceedings could adversely affect the dynamics of the oral arguments, among other concerns, and have expressed caution about introducing changes that could create misconceptions about the Court.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The U.S. Supreme Court—the highest appellate court in the country— hears high-interest cases potentially affecting millions, such as cases  involving affirmative action, abortion, campaign finance, national  healthcare, voting rights, and same-sex marriage. During the cases it  reviews, the Court generally hears oral arguments, or discussions  between the attorneys and the Justices that focus on the legal issues in  the case. Oral arguments are open to the public and the U.S. Supreme  Court courtroom has approximately 240 seats in the public seating  section. In cases of high public interest, the media has reported that long  lines form to get a seat in the courtroom for oral arguments. Media  organizations, as well as members of Congress, have requested greater  access to video and audio coverage of oral arguments for public  dissemination. Figure 1 shows a line outside of the U.S. Supreme Court  before oral arguments.
You asked us to review access to video and audio coverage of  proceedings in the U.S. Supreme Court and other appellate courts. This  report addresses (1) the U.S. Supreme Court’s policy regarding access to  video and audio of oral arguments and the policies of other selected  appellate courts and (2) perspectives of selected stakeholders on the  benefits of and concerns with allowing video and audio coverage of oral  arguments in appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
To address these objectives, we compiled and analyzed the policies on  access to video and audio of oral arguments of the U.S. Supreme Court  and other selected appellate courts, specifically the U.S. courts of  appeals for the 13 federal circuits, courts of last resort—the highest courts  in a given jurisdiction—in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and  courts of last resort in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom (U.K.).  We selected these appellate courts because their decisions may be  directly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court under certain circumstances  and/or because they are the highest court in their respective jurisdictions.  We selected foreign courts of last resort based on their countries having a  similar type of legal system as the United States, large populations, and  English as an official language and the language predominantly spoken.  We obtained documentation of the video and audio policies by conducting  searches on court websites and other sources and requesting information  from administrative officials in these courts. We also analyzed available  data on requests for media video and audio coverage, among other  things, from these courts. We have assessed the reliability of these data  and determined them to be reliable for the purposes of this report. This  assessment included comparing these data with other available sources  and obtaining information from the courts on how these data are compiled  and maintained.
In addition, we conducted interviews in-person and on the phone or had  written correspondence with court administrative officials to obtain  information on the implementation of video and audio policies in selected  U.S. courts of appeals, state courts of last resort, and foreign courts of  last resort—the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Ninth, and D.C.  Circuits; the supreme courts in California and Florida; and the High Court  of Australia, Supreme Court of Canada, and U.K. Supreme Court. We  also conducted semi-structured interviews with (1) 16 judges in the  selected U.S. courts of appeals and state courts of last resort, as well as  the U.K. Supreme Court, and (2) nine attorneys who practice in the  selected U.S. courts of appeals and state courts of last resort to discuss  their experiences with video and/or audio coverage of oral arguments and  perspectives on the benefits of and concerns with allowing such coverage  in appellate courts. We selected these courts based on their video and  audio policies, caseloads, and other factors, and interviewed selected  judges and attorneys who have had experience with video or audio  coverage based on recommendations from the courts.
Further, we obtained written responses from the Public Information  Officer of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Court’s policies and  Justices’ perspectives on video coverage of the Court’s oral arguments.  We also conducted semi-structured interviews with four attorneys who  have argued before the U.S. Supreme Court to obtain their perspectives  on such coverage in the Court. We selected these attorneys based on the  number of cases argued from the Court’s 2012 through 2014 terms and  their availability. We also interviewed representatives from selected legal  associations and media organizations—chosen based on our review of  relevant literature and their work in this area, among other things—to  obtain their perspectives on video and audio coverage of oral arguments  in appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
The information collected from these interviews cannot be generalized to  all appellate courts, administrative officials, judges, attorneys, or legal and  media organizations. However, the interviews provided us with valuable  information about stakeholder experiences with and perspectives on a  variety of policies regarding access to video and audio coverage of oral  arguments in appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Further  details on our scope and methodology are contained in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2015 to April 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Overview of Appellate Courts
paragraphs: Generally, an appellate court is a court of law that has the authority to  review a lower court’s decision. Proceedings in appellate courts are  different from those in trial courts. For example, unlike trial courts, which  determine the factual issues in a case, in most situations, appellate courts  determine only whether the lower courts correctly applied the law. There  are no juries or witnesses in appellate courts. Rather, parties file written  briefs and often present oral arguments to a panel of judges focusing on  the questions of law in a case.
Each appellate court has its own policies on video and audio coverage of  oral arguments for public dissemination, and the development of such  policies is determined by the relevant policy-making entity or each court.  For instance, in March 1996, following a federal judiciary pilot program on  cameras in the courtroom, the Judicial Conference—the policy-making  body of the federal judiciary—authorized each circuit court of appeals to  decide for itself whether to allow video and audio broadcasting of  appellate proceedings.
section_title: U.S. Supreme Court
paragraphs: The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in the country and  has the power of judicial review, which is the ability to declare legislative  and executive acts unconstitutional. The Court is part of the federal court  system, which also includes U.S. courts of appeals and U.S. district  courts, among others. The Court has original jurisdiction—the authority to  hear a case for the first and only time—over certain cases, and appellate  jurisdiction—the authority to review a lower court’s decision—on most  other cases that involve a question of constitutional or federal law. Most  of the cases the U.S. Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower  courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court has discretion over which appeals it hears and  parties file petitions for writs of certiorari to ask the Court to hear cases.  According to the Court’s website, the Court grants review and hears oral  arguments in about 80 cases from the approximately 7,000 to 8,000  petitions it receives each Court term. The Court only grants a petition for  a writ of certiorari for compelling reasons. U.S. Supreme Court rules state  that such reasons may include, among other things, a U.S. court of  appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another  U.S. court of appeals on the same important matter; a state court of last  resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts  with the decision of another state court of last resort or U.S. court of  appeals; or a state court or U.S. court of appeals has decided an  important question of federal law in a way that conflicts with relevant  decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. If a petition is granted, the case  will be scheduled for oral argument. Oral arguments occur when the  Court is in session on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, with up to  two arguments scheduled per day, and generally last an hour for each  case. The Court’s term begins the first Monday in October and continues  until the first Monday in October the following year. Figure 2 provides  additional information about how cases progress in the U.S. Supreme  Court.
section_title: U.S. Courts of Appeals
paragraphs: The federal courts have jurisdiction in cases in which the United States is  a party, cases involving the U.S. Constitution or federal laws, certain  disputes between citizens of different states, or actions against foreign  governments, among other matters. Sitting below the U.S. Supreme  Court are 13 U.S. courts of appeals, which are lower appellate courts.  These U.S. courts of appeals hear challenges to decisions by U.S. district  courts located within their circuits, as well as appeals of certain federal  administrative agencies’ decisions. Figure 3 shows the geographical  boundaries of the circuits.
Cases in the U.S. courts of appeals can be decided based on written  briefs alone, but many cases are selected for oral argument. Appeals are  generally decided by panels of three judges, but some cases can be  heard before more than three judges, or en banc. Oral arguments  before U.S. courts of appeals usually last about 30 minutes per case.  Most decisions of the U.S. courts of appeals are final, but parties may  petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
section_title: State Courts of Last Resort
paragraphs: Each state and the District of Columbia generally have one court of last  resort and states may also have intermediate appellate courts. State  courts of last resort are generally the final arbiters of state laws and  constitutions, although their decisions can be appealed under certain  circumstances. State court systems vary from state to state. State courts  generally have broad jurisdiction and can hear cases not under the  exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts. However, they may not hear cases  against the United States and those involving certain specific federal  laws. Cases in state courts of last resort that interpret federal law or the  U.S. Constitution may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
section_title: Foreign Courts of Last Resort
paragraphs: The courts of last resort in the selected countries included in our review— Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom—are the final courts of  appeals in their respective countries, and each court’s decisions are  generally binding to all lower courts in that country. Table 1 has  additional information on the courts of last resort in the selected countries,  as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.
section_title: The U.S. Supreme Court Provides Audio of Oral Arguments; Two U.S. Courts of Appeals and Almost All Other Selected Appellate Courts Have Policies that Allow Video Coverage
subsections: section_title: The U.S. Supreme Court Provides Audio Recordings of Oral Arguments and Releases Recordings on the Same Day of Arguments in Selected Cases
paragraphs: The U.S. Supreme Court does not provide or allow video or live-audio  coverage of oral arguments, but provides taped audio coverage of  arguments. Specifically, beginning in the October 2010 term, the Court  has posted audio recordings of all oral arguments on its website at the  end of each argument week. Prior to the 2010 term, the recordings from  one term of Court were not available until the beginning of the next term.  The Court also provides transcripts of oral arguments on its website the  same day arguments are heard and its decisions—the Court’s most  important work, according to the Court’s Public Information Officer  (PIO)—within minutes of their release.
Further, starting with the presidential election cases in 2000, the Court  began granting requests for access to audio recordings of oral arguments  on the same day arguments are heard in selected cases. According to  the PIO, media organizations submit written requests for such access to  the Court’s Public Information Office, which forwards them to the Chief  Justice for consideration. If a request is granted, the office issues a press  release to inform the public in advance that the Court will provide  expedited audio recordings for a given case. The Court’s Marshal, Public  Information Office, and Office of Information Technology jointly make the  arrangements for release of the recordings, which require advanced  preparations for the significant increase in website traffic that may  result.
The PIO stated that the Court has made audio recordings of oral  arguments available on the same day as the argument in rare cases,  generally in response to extraordinarily high interest among the public  and the media. From the 2000 through 2014 terms, the Court received  media requests for access to same-day audio recordings of oral  arguments in 58 cases. At its discretion, the Court granted these  requests in 26 cases and declined them in 32 cases. Figure 4 shows U.S.  Supreme Court decisions on media requests for access to same-day  audio of oral arguments.
As figure 4 illustrates, since October 2010, when the Court began its  current practice of posting audio recordings of oral arguments at the end  of each argument week, the Court has received media requests for same- day access to recordings in fewer cases—8 cases from the 2010 through  2014 terms, compared to 37 cases from the 2005 through 2009 terms.  According to the General Counsel of C-SPAN, which has requested  access to video or same-day audio of oral arguments in almost all of the  58 cases in which same-day audio access was requested, the network  has made requests more sparingly since the Court began posting  recordings of oral arguments at the end of each argument week and has  limited requests to very prominent high-profile cases. See appendix III for  a list of cases in which media organizations requested access to same- day audio of oral arguments and whether the Court granted or declined  requests.
section_title: Two of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals Allow Video Coverage of Oral Arguments; 10 Post Audio of Oral Arguments on Their Websites
paragraphs: Two of the 13 U.S. courts of appeals—the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the  Second and the Ninth Circuits—allow media video coverage of oral  arguments. In addition, 10 of the 13 U.S. courts of appeals regularly  post audio recordings of oral arguments on their websites. Officials from 9  of these 10 courts stated that their court generally posts audio recordings  on the same day arguments are heard. Table 2 summarizes the video  and audio coverage and oral argument recording policies and practices in  the U.S. courts of appeals for the 13 circuits.
The policies and practices of these U.S. courts of appeals differ because,  as discussed earlier in the report, each court has discretion to determine  whether to allow video and audio coverage of appellate proceedings and  how to do so. Among the courts we visited—the U.S. Courts of Appeals  for the Second, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits—the policies and practices  ranged from allowing media video and audio coverage of oral arguments  conducted in open court upon request and streaming live video of  arguments using the court’s own equipment (in the Ninth Circuit) to  providing audio recordings of oral arguments on the court’s website (in  the D.C. Circuit). The information below illustrates the range of policies  and practices in these courts.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court’s  guidelines allow media video and audio coverage of oral arguments  conducted in open court, except for criminal matters. The guidelines  state that the panel of judges assigned to hear oral argument has sole  discretion to prohibit coverage of any proceeding, and will normally  exercise this authority upon the request of any member of the panel.  In practice, according to the court’s Clerk, the media is required to  submit a request for video or audio coverage and the panel of judges  must affirmatively grant permission to allow coverage. From its 2010  through 2014 terms, the court received requests for video coverage of  oral arguments in 15 cases. Of these cases, 6 were granted and 9  were denied based on judicial discretion. The court does not post oral  argument recordings on its website but provides CDs of audio  recordings upon request for a $30 fee. According to the Clerk, the  court’s video and audio policies require minimal resources to  implement and there have been no implementation challenges.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court’s guidelines  allow media video and audio coverage of oral arguments conducted in  open court. According to court officials, such coverage is allowed for  both criminal and civil cases. The guidelines require media  organizations to submit a request for coverage and state that the  panel of judges assigned to hear oral argument has sole discretion to  grant or prohibit video or audio coverage of any proceeding. Court  officials stated that the court requires a majority of the judges on the  panel to grant or deny coverage. From January 1, 2010, through  August 30, 2015, the court received requests for video coverage of  oral arguments in 92 cases and granted them in 66 cases.
The court also posts archived video recordings of arguments on its  website and on YouTube.com, and in January 2015, began streaming  live video of all oral arguments using its own equipment. According  to the 2014 Ninth Circuit Annual Report and court officials, there were  some initial technical challenges with providing live coverage, such as  assembling and installing the video production systems and finding a  reliable and cost-effective means to stream the arguments, but  officials stated that implementation has generally been smooth. In  addition, the officials said that live streaming oral arguments has  decreased the number of media requests for video coverage. This has  reduced the time and resources that the clerk’s office expends  processing these requests, including reviewing the request forms and  contacting the judges on the panel to decide upon requests. Figure 5  shows images of a courtroom camera in the U.S. Court of Appeals for  the Ninth Circuit’s San Francisco courthouse, laptop controlling  cameras, and oral argument video produced by the court.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court does not allow  media video or audio coverage of oral arguments, but, beginning in  September 2013, has provided audio recordings of arguments on its  website using the court’s own equipment. Arguments are to be posted  by 2 p.m. the same day they are heard by the court. Court officials  stated that providing such audio coverage requires minimal resources  and there have been no implementation challenges.
See appendix IV for additional details on the video and audio policies and  procedures, coverage requests and online views, and policy  implementation for the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Ninth, and  D.C. Circuits.
section_title: The Policies of the Courts of Last Resort in 49 States Allow Media Video and Audio Coverage of Oral Arguments, Though Policies and Procedures Vary
paragraphs: Courts of last resort in 49 states have written policies that allow media  video and audio coverage of oral arguments and almost all of these  courts have video or audio of oral arguments available online. The D.C.  Court of Appeals—the District of Columbia’s court of last resort—has no  written policies on media video or audio coverage of oral arguments, and  according to the court’s Clerk, does not allow such media coverage.  However, the court itself streams live audio of all oral arguments on its  website and, according to the Clerk, streams live video of some  arguments. Although the written policies of the courts in 49 states allow  media video and audio coverage, the features of these policies vary. For  instance, some state policies prohibit coverage of oral arguments in  certain types of cases, such as juvenile proceedings, or unless parties  affirmatively consent to it, which may limit coverage, while policies in  other states require that judges make an on-the-record finding in order to  prohibit coverage, which indicates that there is a strong presumption that  coverage is allowed. Table 3 summarizes media video and audio policy  features and availability of oral arguments online of state and D.C. courts  of last resort. See appendix V for information on the courts of last resort in  each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
While courts of last resort in 49 states have written policies that allow  media video and audio coverage of oral arguments, the procedures they  follow to do so vary. For instance, the Supreme Court of California, which  we visited, both allows media organizations to use their own cameras in  the court and provides a live video feed that media organizations can  access upon request, while the Florida Supreme Court, which we also  visited, partners with a local public broadcasting station to provide video  coverage. The information that follows further illustrates variations in the  policies and procedures of these two courts.
Supreme Court of California. The court’s rules allow video and  audio coverage of oral arguments by the media upon request and list  18 factors for judges to consider when deciding whether to grant or  prohibit coverage, such as the importance of promoting public access  to the judicial system and the privacy rights of all participants in the  proceeding. The court permanently began allowing coverage in  1984. From 2010 through 2014, the court received requests for media  video coverage in 17 cases and granted all of them.
According to court officials, if the media has missed the deadline to  request coverage, or based on other extenuating circumstances, the  court also has the discretion to provide access to its live closed-circuit  video feed of oral arguments, which the court records using its own  equipment. Media organizations must obtain permission from the  court’s Public Information Office to access this feed through a mult  box—a box that allows multiple individuals to directly connect to a  video and audio source—in the press rooms of each of the court’s  locations. The officials noted that they prefer that media  organizations use the court’s feed, rather than bring in their own  cameras, to reduce the likelihood of any distractions or other effects  on proceedings, but may still receive requests for media coverage of  high-profile cases.
In addition, the court periodically posts archived audio recordings and  a small number of video recordings of oral arguments for selected  high-profile cases on its website. According to court officials, the court  also conducts annual special oral argument sessions for students,  usually in October, where live video of arguments are broadcast on  The California Channel, a public broadcasting station, and streamed  on the channel’s website. Archived recordings of some of these  arguments are also available on The California Channel’s website and  other hosting sites, such as the CaliforniaCourts channel on  Youtube.com. Court officials stated that there have been no  challenges with implementing the court’s policies. In March 2016, the  court announced that it plans to begin live streaming video of oral  arguments on its website in May. Figure 6 shows pictures of the  Supreme Court of California’s cameras in its San Francisco courtroom  and mult box in the press room.
Florida Supreme Court. The court’s rules allow media video and  audio coverage of oral arguments, and Florida case law establishes a  presumption that coverage is allowed and requires judges to make an  on-the-record finding to prohibit coverage. Coverage was  permanently allowed in 1979 and, according to the court’s Public  Information Officer, the court has never prohibited coverage of oral  argument in a case.
The court does not allow freestanding video cameras in the courtroom  during oral arguments, but partners with WFSU-Television (WFSU- TV)—a public broadcasting station—to record, broadcast, live stream  online, and archive video of arguments. The court and WFSU-TV  have an annual interagency agreement that details the services  WFSU-TV is to provide, the court’s responsibilities, and the monthly  payment the court is to make to WFSU-TV for its services. WFSU-TV  staff operate the courtroom cameras and produce the videos of oral  arguments. The agreement states that WFSU-TV is to be responsible  for the purchase and maintenance of all equipment necessary,  including the courtroom cameras, to fulfill the terms of the agreement.  In addition, The Florida Channel, which is produced and operated by  WFSU-TV, televises live and tape-delayed video of oral arguments.  Per the agreement, The Florida Channel is required to show all  broadcasts of oral arguments in their entirety and is not permitted to  show only partial segments of arguments. Arguments that are  broadcast on The Florida Channel are also transmitted to all  interested parties via a satellite feed, which media and other  organizations can access without going to the court. Further, live and  archived video of all oral arguments are also available on the Florida  Supreme Court Gavel to Gavel website, which is maintained by  WFSU-TV. WFSU-TV officials stated that archived video is generally  posted within 48 hours of arguments.
According to the Public Information Officer, the close partnership  between the court and WFSU-TV is key to providing access to video  coverage of oral arguments. He stated that the partnership allows the  court to leverage WFSU-TV staff, technical expertise, and production  capabilities. For example, the court would not be able to devote the  same number of staff to broadcasting oral arguments as WFSU does.  In addition, WFSU has more advanced technology than the court  would have been able to purchase. Figure 7 shows pictures of the  Florida Supreme Court’s cameras, the court’s video and audio control  room, and WFSU-TV’s production room.
See appendix VI for additional details about the Supreme Court of  California’s and Florida Supreme Court’s video and audio policies and  procedures, coverage requests and online views, and policy  implementation.
section_title: The Policies of the Courts of Last Resort in Three Countries Provide Video Coverage of Oral Arguments, Though Procedures and Allowable Use of Footage Vary
paragraphs: The courts of last resort in the three countries included in our review— Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom—have policies that provide  video coverage of oral arguments by the court itself and do not allow  media organizations to record oral arguments using their own equipment.  These courts have varying procedures for providing coverage and  mechanisms to help control who can use the footage and how the footage  can be used. For example:
High Court of Australia. Beginning in October 2013, the court has  posted on its website video recordings of oral arguments heard before  the full court—at least five of the court’s seven justices—in its  Canberra courthouse. The court’s 2014-2015 Annual Report states  that recordings are generally available at the end of each sitting day.  According to the court’s Senior Executive Deputy Registrar,  recordings may be posted on the next business day following  arguments for some cases because they require editing to remove  sensitive information, such as the names of victims in sexual assault  cases. He said that this is one benefit of providing recordings of oral  arguments instead of live coverage. He also stated that the court  already had the technical capacity in place to record and post video of  oral arguments and the costs are minimal for the court to provide such  coverage. In addition, he noted that having the court use its own  equipment and maintain control of the video recording process helped  justices acclimate to the court’s providing video coverage and  alleviate concerns about cameras being a distraction.
The terms of use for the video recordings state that viewers may not  modify, reproduce, publish, broadcast, or use the video of  proceedings in any other way without prior written approval of the  court. However, schools and universities may use video of  proceedings in a classroom setting for educational purposes without  prior approval. The Senior Executive Deputy Registrar stated that the  court receives about 10 to 15 requests to use video recordings in a  given calendar year and has approved all of them.
Supreme Court of Canada. The court records video of oral  arguments using its own equipment and, since February 2009, has  streamed live video of arguments on its website. According to court  officials, the court has never prohibited video coverage of a public  proceeding. The court also has an agreement with the Canadian  Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) which allows CPAC to televise and live  stream arguments. The agreement states that CPAC will broadcast  arguments in their entirety, but may use clips, sound bites, or excerpts  for its programming, provided that they are balanced and fair to the  parties and all concerned in the appeal. In addition, CPAC is  authorized and has agreed to make broadcast feeds of oral  arguments available to other broadcast members of the Canadian  Parliamentary Press Gallery at a central node for news and public  affairs broadcasts only. The court and CPAC also provide archived  video recordings of oral arguments on their websites.
Parties and individuals who are not members of the news media must  submit a request to the court to obtain permission to use oral  argument recordings. Requests are made using an electronic form on  the court’s website, which requires information such as a description  of the video or webcast requested, how it will be used, and the  medium in which it will be used (e.g., Internet, video, film, DVD). If  approval is granted, the requester is required to sign an agreement  detailing the terms of use. Agreements may include provisions to, for  example, use footage in a context that presents the case and the  positions of the litigants in a fair and balanced way and does not harm  the reputation of the court or of the counsel or justices appearing in  the footage.
The U.K. Supreme Court. The court records video of oral arguments  using its own equipment and, in October 2014, began streaming live  video of oral arguments on its website. In addition, Sky News, a U.K.  broadcasting organization, has streamed the court’s live video of oral  arguments on its website since May 2011. According to the court’s  Head of Communications, media organizations can access the court’s  video feed in a nearby broadcast studio. He stated that the court’s  recording of its own video allows it to control what is filmed and  interrupt or terminate coverage if necessary. The court also began  making archived video recordings of oral arguments available on its  website in May 2015. According to the court’s press release, footage  is uploaded the next working day after an argument is heard and is  available until about a year after the date of the argument.
The court has established rules for how videos of oral arguments can  be used by broadcasters. For example, the rules only allow use in  news, current affairs, and educational programs and prohibit use in  light entertainment, satirical, and other types of programs. In addition,  the rules state that any stills produced from the video must be used in  a way that has regard to the dignity of the court and its functions as a  working body. According to the Head of Communications, all of the  U.K.’s main media broadcasting organizations have agreed to these  rules. He stated that the court enforces its policy to the best of its  ability with limited resources and that, to his knowledge, there have  not been any violations of the rules.
See appendix VII for additional details about the video policies and  procedures, online video views, and policy implementation of these  foreign courts of last resort.
section_title: Stakeholders Cited Educational Benefits and Media Distortion, Among Others, as Potential Effects of Video or Audio Coverage in Appellate Courts, Including the U.S. Supreme Court
subsections: section_title: Judges and Attorneys in Selected Appellate Courts Stated that Enhanced Access and Education Were Among Key Benefits of Video or Audio Coverage of Oral Arguments
paragraphs: The judges and attorneys we interviewed in selected appellate courts who  have experience with video and audio coverage of oral arguments cited  several benefits of such coverage, including greater public access to the  courts and educating the public on the judicial system, among others.  Administrative officials in selected courts also provided additional  examples of these benefits.
Public access. Fifteen of the 16 judges and all nine attorneys stated that  they believed that coverage has enhanced or could potentially enhance  the public’s access to the courts, particularly as the public relies more  heavily on television as a principal source of information. For instance,  one attorney and one judge said that, in high-profile cases or those of  interest to the public, the public could be more informed about both the  process and the issues in the case through video coverage. Further, the  one attorney noted that providing greater access to the court through  video or audio coverage is valuable because, as more information about  court proceedings is available to the public, more people will understand  the courts and the judicial system. In addition, two judges with whom we  spoke said that a benefit of same-day audio coverage is that attorneys or  other interested persons do not have to physically go to the court to hear  an oral argument, but instead could access same-day audio recordings of  the argument on the court’s website. Two attorneys who practice in the  same court voiced some of the same benefits, stating that they believed  that same-day audio coverage has provided more access to the court,  information about what happens in the court, and is useful for persons  who are not able to attend the oral argument. Moreover, another attorney  with whom we spoke stated that he believed video or audio coverage of  oral arguments increases the information available to the public and the  media, which could also result in a more complete and neutral  representation of oral arguments by the media.
Administrative officials in selected courts also described instances in  which they believed that video or audio coverage of arguments in their  courts had enhanced public access. For example, according to a U.K.  Supreme Court official, one of the main reasons the court provides video  coverage of its proceedings is to ensure that the country’s citizens are  able to watch the proceedings in their highest court and hear important  points related to principles in the development of common law. In  addition, an official in the High Court of Australia said that providing video  recordings of proceedings allows more of the public to view proceedings  because Australia is a large country and most of its population does not  reside in Canberra, where the court is located. Moreover, according to  officials from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, live  streaming oral arguments has increased public access to the court,  particularly in cases of high public interest. For example, in November  2014, the court heard arguments in a case regarding an incident in which  a high school student aimed a laser pointer at an incoming passenger jet  as it approached an airport near his home. Officials stated that the  courtroom was not able to accommodate the large number of students  from his high school who were interested in viewing oral arguments, but  students were able to watch the live-streamed video of arguments at the  school.
Education. Fourteen of the 16 judges and seven of the nine attorneys  with whom we spoke cited public education on the judiciary as a benefit  or potential benefit of video or audio coverage of oral arguments. For  instance, one judge said that because the work of the courts can easily  be misunderstood and is not in the headlines as much as the work of  other branches of the government, video coverage is useful for providing  the public a window into how the courts think about the issues in a case.  Moreover, one attorney with whom we spoke stated that video coverage  of oral arguments is a useful learning tool because she can review her  arguments to identify areas for improvement. Additionally, this same  attorney said that video coverage is useful for junior attorneys to watch so  they can learn about how to conduct oral arguments and the legal issues  of the case. However, another attorney stated that coverage of oral  arguments may be more misleading than illuminating because, for those  watching to have an accurate view of the arguments, they would need to  understand the entire case and the judicial process. Additionally, ten of  the 16 judges stated that they believed that coverage of oral arguments,  which is only part of the decision making process, may not be helpful for  understanding the case in its entirety. For instance, one judge stated  that the public might attain a general understanding of the issues in a  case and what was of concern to the court, but may not have all the  information needed to fully understand a case after viewing arguments.  Another judge noted that the written briefs that parties submit to the court  are critical to understanding the case, and that oral arguments frequently  address narrow aspects of the case that the judges are concerned about.
Court administrative officials with whom we spoke also provided  examples of instances in which video or audio coverage of oral  arguments in their courts has provided educational benefits. For example,  an official from the Florida Supreme Court stated that high-profile,  controversial cases can be misunderstood by the public and broadcasting  oral arguments in their entirety can help dispel misconceptions about the  case and how the court operates. For instance, this official stated that  broadcasting oral arguments in the 2000 presidential election cases that  were before the Florida Supreme Court helped educate the public about  the judicial system and noted that it was beneficial for the public to be  able to see the arguments and draw their own conclusions. In addition,  officials from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that  law schools have used live-streamed and archived oral arguments as a  learning tool for their students. A U.K. Supreme Court official also stated  that video coverage helps educate attorneys, law students, and others in  the legal profession who can watch the justices in action and see how  attorneys conduct arguments.
Public confidence in the courts. Seven of the 16 judges and seven of  the nine attorneys with whom we spoke believed that coverage has  enhanced or could potentially enhance confidence in the courts. For  instance, 1 judge stated that if a good judicial system is in place, video or  audio coverage of arguments, which demonstrates how the system  works, would increase the public’s understanding of and confidence in the  courts. Further, one attorney said that providing coverage of oral  arguments would show the public the work the courts conduct, as well as  the quality and quantity of the work the court puts into each case.  However, 7 judges with whom we spoke believed that coverage may not  enhance confidence. For instance, 4 judges noted that it would be hard to  identify the effect of coverage on the public’s confidence in the courts. In  particular, 1 judge stated that it would depend greatly on what a person  already thinks of the court before seeing any video or audio coverage of  oral arguments, while 2 judges said that it would be hard to determine the  specific impact of coverage on public confidence.
Judicial accountability. Eight of the 16 judges and five of the nine  attorneys with whom we spoke stated that coverage has increased or  could potentially increase judicial accountability, although 7 judges felt  that it did not affect accountability. For example, 1 judge stated that  video coverage is a form of accountability in that it demonstrates how  judges reason and think through cases, and helps explain the judicial  process and justify the court’s results. Moreover, 1 judge said that he  believed that video or audio coverage would increase the accountability of  any public official whose work was covered, including judges, although he  noted that the public does not and should not have access to the judges’  deliberative process. However, 4 U.S. courts of appeals judges explained  that judicial accountability is already very high, and if judges make  mistakes, they are documented in publicly issued opinions; therefore,  they did not believe that coverage would increase judicial accountability.
section_title: Few Judges or Attorneys Said Video or Audio Coverage Affected Court Participants’ Behavior, Privacy, or Security, but Many Had Concerns about the Media’s Use of Such Coverage
paragraphs: The judges and attorneys we interviewed in the selected appellate courts  raised some concerns with video or audio coverage of oral arguments,  including how the media might use such coverage, among others.
Effect on court participants. Almost all judges and attorneys we  interviewed stated that they did not believe video or audio coverage had  affected court participants’ behavior or did not believe that such coverage  would affect the behavior of court participants. For example, at least 12 of  the 16 judges and eight of the nine attorneys we interviewed said that  they personally were not affected by video or audio coverage and had not  observed judges or attorneys appearing to grandstand, talking in sound  bites, or being more attentive or courteous to others; judges altering their  methods of questioning; effects on court decorum; or other changes in  behavior. Three attorneys we interviewed explained that coverage did not  affect their behavior because, during oral arguments, they are so focused  on the arguments themselves that it is not possible to think about  anything else, including video coverage. Two judges stated that judges or  attorneys could grandstand and be more courteous, potentially because  their questioning might be misinterpreted as badgering attorneys.  However, one judge noted that he was not sure if this behavior would be  caused by audio coverage.
Privacy and security. Fifteen of the 16 judges and all nine attorneys with  whom we spoke did not have concerns with the effect of coverage on  their own privacy and security, while 1 judge we interviewed expressed  concerns. Specifically, this judge recounted having personally  experienced security concerns in a particular case in which a video clip  during questioning by the judge was posted and disseminated on social  media. The judge received threats as a result of the video coverage. In  addition, 6 judges and four attorneys said that there was the potential for  coverage to affect the privacy and security of court participants even  though they had not experienced issues themselves.
Media use of coverage. Some judges and most of the attorneys with  whom we spoke also raised some concerns with how the media might  use coverage of oral arguments. For instance, 5 of the 16 judges and  eight of the nine attorneys we interviewed stated that they believed that  video or audio coverage might potentially result in portions of the  proceeding being distorted by the media. However, 11 of the 16 judges  we interviewed stated that they did not believe that coverage might result  in such distortions. In addition, three attorneys noted that distortions  happen even without audio or video coverage. For instance, one attorney  stated that the media regularly distort proceedings, including some of her  own oral arguments, regardless of video or audio coverage. Another  attorney stated that, in her experience, proceedings have been  inaccurately covered by the media. For instance, the reporters listening to  an argument are often not lawyers and may not understand the oral  argument; as a result, members of the media may focus on a segment of  the case that they think is interesting and use that segment in their  reporting of the argument even if they have taken that segment out of  context. She noted that same-day audio coverage may help prevent  distortion because it allows reporters to review and confirm what actually  occurred before reporting on the case and allows the public to  independently listen to the entire oral argument.
Four judges and four attorneys with whom we spoke stated that they  believe that coverage by the court itself—such as the court recording oral  arguments using its own equipment—versus coverage by the media,  might help or could potentially help mitigate these concerns, including  potential distortion of proceedings by the media. For example, one  attorney stated that if the court produces the coverage, then the court can  control it and release it as the court sees fit. He also noted that while the  media generally have an incentive to promote coverage to gain viewers,  the court does not have such an incentive. Further, 1 judge stated that  when the court shows coverage of the entire oral argument, people have  the opportunity to make their own judgements about what they see, while  the media may insert their own views. Moreover, 12 of the 16 judges and  five of seven attorneys with whom we spoke stated that the media  showing edited segments of oral arguments is not sufficient to provide a  complete or accurate understanding of court proceedings. For example,  one attorney stated that the public may misunderstand the proceeding if  the media show edited segments and do not provide proper context for  the case.
In addition, 1 judge stated that a local channel broadcasts the court’s oral  arguments in their entirety, which is preferable to the media showing  edited snippets. He noted that television networks rarely have the air time  to broadcast an entire oral argument and will not do so unless it is for a  landmark case. A representative from one media organization explained  that some media outlets selectively cover oral arguments, which may  appear to some as distortions, because they must report on the case in a  short news segment during their broadcast. He stated that, while his  organization generally broadcasts oral arguments in their entirety, other  media outlets have such time constraints and cannot do so. A small  number of studies have also addressed the effects of video coverage on  appellate courts. See appendix II for information about these studies.
section_title: Selected Stakeholders Cited Potential Benefits of and Concerns with Allowing Video Coverage of U.S. Supreme Court Arguments, and Some Said Coverage Could Affect Participant Behavior
subsections: section_title: Perspectives of Appellate Judges and Attorneys
paragraphs: In our interviews with selected appellate judges and attorneys who have  had experience with video or audio coverage, we asked for their  perspectives on the extent to which the benefits, concerns, or potential  effects of coverage discussed previously might also apply to video or live- audio coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court’s oral arguments, if such  coverage were to be allowed. Twelve of the 16 judges and eight of the  nine attorneys we interviewed in selected appellate courts said that they  believed that the potential benefits, concerns, and effects might apply to  the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, 3 of the 16 judges and two of the  nine attorneys we interviewed identified benefits to the public of video or  same-day audio coverage, such as providing the public with access to the  Court’s proceedings, or enhancing the public’s perception or  understanding of the Court’s proceedings. One judge noted, however,  that video coverage of oral arguments could distort the public’s perception  of what the Court does, as the coverage would likely focus on a small  number of high-profile cases and little attention would be given to the  other cases the Court hears.
In addition, 7 of the judges and two of the attorneys noted that, given the  greater media or public interest in the U.S. Supreme Court and the higher  profile or sensitivity of the cases it hears, the potential concerns and  effects may be magnified. For instance, 3 judges and three attorneys felt  that coverage could affect the behavior of court participants, such as  justices adjusting their lines of questioning or attorneys grandstanding.  Further, 5 judges and one attorney said that privacy and security  concerns associated with coverage of oral arguments at the U.S.  Supreme Court would be greater than at the appellate level because of  the increased interest and profile of the Court and its cases. One judge  explained that, because U.S. Supreme Court cases are so often high- profile, the Justices could face threats against them after every argument,  compared to a small number of such instances at the appellate court  level.
section_title: Perspectives of the U.S. Supreme Court and Attorneys Who Have Argued Before the Court
paragraphs: We also requested perspectives on the potential benefits of and concerns  with video coverage of oral arguments from the U.S. Supreme Court’s  Public Information Officer, as well as four attorneys who have argued  before the Court. Three of these four attorneys believed that the Court  should allow additional access to coverage of its oral arguments. Of these  three attorneys, two stated that the Court should allow video coverage  and one stated that allowing more same-day audio access to oral  arguments would be a good starting point. The fourth attorney stated that  he would support additional access to coverage if the Court allowed it but  that the Justices are in the best position to determine whether such  access should be allowed.
All four attorneys stated that there would be potential benefits to allowing  video coverage of U.S. Supreme Court proceedings. Specifically, all of  them stated that they believed allowing video coverage of U.S. Supreme  Court oral arguments would enhance access to the Court. For example,  one attorney said that the courtroom has a limited number of seats  available and it can be costly to travel to the Court. He noted that allowing  video coverage would be more equitable because all members of the  public could view coverage on the television or the Internet. Another  attorney stated that there is a substantial difference between access to  transcripts of oral arguments, which the Court provides, and viewing oral  arguments. He noted that individuals are more likely to be interested in  viewing arguments. In addition, all four attorneys stated that they believed  allowing video coverage would help educate either the public about the  judicial system or law students and professionals on how to conduct  arguments. For instance, one attorney stated that video coverage would  allow individuals to see the judicial branch operating at the highest level  and help increase understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court’s work.  Further, three of the four attorneys believed that allowing video coverage  would increase the public’s confidence in the Court. For example, one  attorney stated that such coverage would allow the public to see the rigor  and seriousness with which the Court conducts its business. Another  attorney noted that it could help alleviate the potential public perception  that the Court is a partisan institution.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Public Information Officer (PIO) and the  attorneys with whom we spoke also raised potential concerns with video  coverage of oral arguments. According to the PIO, individual Justices  have commented on the need to ensure the fairness and efficiency of its  decision-making process. They have noted that televising U.S. Supreme  Court proceedings could adversely affect the dynamics of the oral  arguments, diminishing the frankness and extemporaneity of the  exchanges, and reducing their usefulness for both the counsel and  Justices. Three of the four attorneys also shared concerns related to  potential changes in the behavior of court participants, such as changes  to how attorneys prepare for oral arguments and the manner in which oral  arguments are conducted. For example, one attorney stated that allowing  video or live-audio coverage of the Court’s oral arguments might change  the tenor of the argument, which currently focuses on the genuine search  for truth and is a very effective process. He noted that attorneys may feel  the need to choose their words more carefully during arguments because  of the potential for negative public reactions. In addition, three attorneys  stated that allowing video coverage might potentially result in  inexperienced attorneys playing to the public or grandstanding, but noted  that such behavior would be detrimental to their case.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s PIO and the attorneys we interviewed further  noted concerns related to the information and perceptions the public  could potentially get from viewing oral arguments. Specifically, the PIO  stated that Justices have observed that oral argument is a small part of  the advocacy process. According to the PIO, because oral argument  merely supplements the extensive and often technical written  submissions, it is generally indispensable to read the written briefs in  order to understand the oral arguments. She also noted that the  Justices have emphasized that the Court’s written decisions stand as the  Court’s most important and enduring work—work that should not be  overshadowed by one piece of the decision-making process. All four  attorneys with whom we spoke stated that they believed viewing oral  arguments would not provide a complete understanding of a case, but  could still provide useful information. These four attorneys also stated that  there is the potential for the media to distort video coverage of oral  arguments to varying degrees. For example, one attorney stated that  there is the potential for statements to be taken out of context or  misrepresented but the benefits of coverage outweigh the risks, and  another attorney stated that such distortion could be a significant  problem. This attorney noted that the Court providing coverage of  arguments in their entirety, as opposed to edited coverage by the media,  could help alleviate this concern. Finally, the PIO stated that, above all,  the Justices are trustees of an institution that has functioned well and  earned the public’s confidence. The Justices have expressed caution  about introducing changes that could diminish the public’s respect for and  create misconceptions about the Court. The PIO stated that the Court is  proceeding carefully in evaluating whether it should make changes to its  current practice of not providing video camera coverage of its  proceedings.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Supreme Court, the  Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Federal Judicial Center, and  the Department of Defense for review and comment. They had no written  comments on the draft report. The Administrative Office of the U.S.  Courts provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the U.S. Supreme Court;  Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; the Federal Judicial Center; the  state and foreign courts of last resort in which we conducted interviews— the Supreme Court of California, the Florida Supreme Court, the High  Court of Australia, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the U.K. Supreme  Court; the Department of Defense; appropriate congressional committees  and members, and other interested parties. In addition, this report is  available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Diana Maurer at  (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page   of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions to this report  are listed in appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: We addressed the following questions as part of this review:  1.  What is the U.S. Supreme Court’s policy regarding access to video  and audio of oral arguments and what are the policies of other  selected appellate courts?  2.  What do selected stakeholders report are the benefits of and  concerns with allowing video and audio coverage of oral arguments in  appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court?
To address the first question, we analyzed information on the U.S.  Supreme Court’s policy regarding access to video and audio of oral  arguments that we obtained from Court documents, the Court’s website,  and its Public Information Officer, including the process by which the  Court decides whether to grant media requests to release audio  recordings of oral arguments on the same day of the arguments. We also  analyzed data from the Public Information Officer on the cases for which  the Court received requests for same-day audio recordings of oral  arguments and whether the requests were granted or declined from the  Court’s 2000 term—the term in which same-day audio was first made  available—through the Court’s 2014 term. We assessed the reliability of  these data and determined them to be reliable for the purposes of this  report. This assessment included comparing these data with other  available sources and obtaining information from the Court about the  accuracy and completeness of these data.
We also analyzed information about policies regarding access to video  and audio of oral arguments from selected appellate courts. We focused  on appellate courts because these courts conduct oral arguments and, as  such, their proceedings and participants are most similar to those of the  U.S. Supreme Court. The selected appellate courts included the U.S.  courts of appeals for the 13 federal circuits and courts of last resort—the  highest appellate courts in a given jurisdiction—in the 50 states and the  District of Columbia. These courts were chosen because their decisions  may be directly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court under certain  circumstances and/or because they are generally the highest court in  their respective jurisdictions. We also included foreign courts of last  resort because they are the highest appellate courts in their respective  countries. We selected the High Court of Australia, Supreme Court of  Canada, and United Kingdom Supreme Court because their countries  have common law legal systems in which judicial decisions establish legal  precedents of law that are unwritten in statutes or codes, as does the  United States; populations of over 20 million; and English as an official  language and the language predominantly spoken. We identified and  compiled rules, court and administrative orders, guidelines, and other  documentation of video and audio policies of the courts we selected by  searching court websites and lexis.com and reviewing literature that  discussed the video and audio policies of the courts. We also contacted  administrative officials in these courts to confirm that the written policies  we identified were complete and current and to obtain information on and  documentation of policies not available online. We compiled the  information on state courts of last resort from January through May 2015,  and confirmed that our analysis of the policies was accurate, complete,  and current as of January 2016 for 42 states and the District of Columbia  and June through August 2015 for the 9 remaining states.
In addition, we conducted interviews in person and on the phone or had  written correspondence with court administrative officials in 8 selected  U.S. courts of appeals, state courts of last resort, and foreign courts of  last resort to obtain information on the implementation of video and audio  policies in the courts, such as resource requirements or challenges. We  selected U.S. courts of appeals to reflect a range of video and audio  policies. As such, we visited the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second  and the Ninth Circuits because they are the two U.S. courts of appeals  that currently allow media video coverage of oral arguments, and the U.S.  Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit because it is one of the U.S. courts  of appeals that does not allow video coverage of oral arguments. We  selected state courts of last resort based on their (1) range of video and  audio policies, including limitations on coverage such as whether certain  types of cases are excluded from coverage and whether consent of  parties is required; (2) having relatively high caseloads to increase the  likelihood of cases with media interest and coverage; (3) extent of  experience in allowing video or audio coverage; and (4) proximity to  selected U.S. courts of appeals. Using these criteria, we visited state  courts of last resort in Florida and California. We also contacted courts of  last resort in 3 other states that require the consent of parties before  coverage is allowed or do not allow video coverage of oral arguments to  arrange interviews, but officials in these states either did not respond to  our requests or declined to meet with us. In addition, we conducted  interviews with or received written responses from court administrative  officials in our three selected foreign courts of last resort—the High Court  of Australia, Supreme Court of Canada, and United Kingdom Supreme  Court. The information collected from the interviews with officials in these  selected appellate courts cannot be generalized to all administrative  officials or appellate courts. However, the site visits and interviews  provided us with valuable information about court officials’ experiences  with and perspectives on a variety of policies regarding access to video  and audio of oral arguments. In addition, where available, we obtained  data from these courts on the number of cases for which media video or  audio coverage has been requested or granted and the number of views  video or audio recordings of oral arguments that are posted online have  received. We assessed the reliability of these data and determined them  to be reliable for the purposes of this report. This assessment included  obtaining and reviewing information from court administrative officials on  how the data are collected and maintained.
To address the second question, we conducted semi-structured  interviews with 16 judges and nine attorneys who have had experience  with video or audio coverage. Specifically, we interviewed 14 judges and  nine attorneys who practice in the selected federal circuit courts of  appeals and state courts of last resort described above—the U.S. Courts  of Appeals for the Second, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits, and courts of last  resort in Florida and California—to discuss their experiences with video  and/or audio coverage of oral arguments, and their perspectives on the  benefits of and concerns with allowing such coverage in appellate courts,  including the U.S. Supreme Court. We also interviewed 2 justices of the  United Kingdom Supreme Court. We selected the judges and attorneys  based on recommendations from the courts. The information obtained  from these interviews cannot be generalized to all appellate courts,  judges, or attorneys; however, they provided us with insights regarding  the benefits of and concerns with video and audio coverage of oral  arguments in these courts. In addition, we obtained written responses  from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Justices’ perspectives on  video coverage of the Court’s oral arguments. We also conducted semi- structured interviews with four attorneys who have argued before the U.S.  Supreme Court to obtain their perspectives on allowing video and audio  coverage of oral arguments at the Court. We selected these attorneys  because they had argued nine or more cases before the Court from the  2012 through 2014 terms and based on their availability. Their  perspectives cannot be generalized to all attorneys who have argued  before the U.S. Supreme Court, but provide insights regarding allowing  video and audio coverage of the Court’s oral arguments. Finally, we  contacted or interviewed representatives from selected legal associations  and media organizations to obtain their perspectives on the potential  benefits of and concerns with allowing video and audio coverage of oral  arguments in appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. We  selected these organizations based on our review of relevant literature,  their work in this area, and recommendations from others. The  organizations included the American Bar Association, Federal Bar  Association, C-SPAN, and the Coalition for Court Transparency, and  Radio Television Digital News Association. Their perspectives cannot be  generalized, but provided insights into potential benefits of and concerns  with such coverage.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2015 to April 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Few Studies Have Been Conducted on the Effects of Video and Audio Coverage in Appellate Courts
paragraphs: Through searches of databases, Internet websites, and other sources  available as of April 2015, we identified almost 400 documents that  addressed video and audio coverage of court proceedings. We reviewed  these documents and identified 53 studies. Of these 53 studies, 2 were  studies that included findings on the effects of video coverage in appellate  courts, while most of the remaining studies focused on trial courts.  According to one of two researchers we interviewed who have conducted  work in this area, more studies have been conducted in trial courts, rather  than appellate courts, because of a greater interest in the potential effects  on victims, witnesses, and jurors—stakeholders who are not involved in  appellate court proceedings. Both of these researchers also stated that,  in general, there is insufficient empirical or experimental research on the  effects of coverage in courts. They said that conducting a rigorous study  on the effects of coverage in court proceedings requires funding and time  from both researchers and stakeholders involved, such as judges,  attorneys, and court personnel.
Neither of the two studies we identified used an experimental or quasi- experimental methodology. Instead, they reported findings on the  perceived effects of video coverage in appellate courts and relied on data  from surveys and interviews with stakeholders, which provided useful  information on stakeholder experiences with video coverage. Table 4  describes these studies.
section_title: Appendix III: U.S. Supreme Court Cases in Which Media Organizations Requested Same-Day Audio of Oral Arguments
subsections: section_title: October Term Date Argued 2000 12/1/00
paragraphs: Case  Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board  McConnell v. Federal Election Commission  Rasul v. Bush; and Al Odah v. U.S. (Consolidated)
Cheney v. USDC District Of Columbia  McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky.
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England  Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights  League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry; Travis County, Tex. v. Perry;  Jackson v. Perry; and GI Forum of Texas v. Perry (Consolidated)
Philip Morris USA v. Williams  Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America  Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1  Meredith v. Jefferson County Board Of Education  Davenport v. Washington Education Association; and Washington v. Washington  Education Association (Consolidated)
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life; and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (Consolidated)  Declined  Boumediene v. Bush; and Al Odah v. United States  (Consolidated)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board; and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita  (Consolidated)
section_title: October Term Date Argued 3/25/08
paragraphs: Case  United States v. Ressam  Altria Group, Inc. v. Good  Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum  Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Williams  Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder  Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project; and Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder  (Consolidated)
National Federation Of Independent Business v. Florida; and Florida v. Department  of Health and Human Services (Consolidated)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.; and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v.  Burwell (Consolidated)
Obergefell v. Hodges; Tanco v. Haslam; DeBoer v. Snyder; and Bourke v. Beshear  (Consolidated)
section_title: Appendix IV: Video and Audio Policies and Procedures for the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits
paragraphs: The three U.S. courts of appeals that we visited—the U.S. Courts of  Appeals for the Second, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits—have varying policies  and procedures for video and audio coverage of oral arguments, with  different levels of usage and resource requirements. Tables 5, 6, and 7  summarize the policies and procedures, coverage requests and online  views, and policy implementation for these courts.
section_title: Appendix V: Summary of Media Video and Audio Policies and Online Availability of Oral Arguments for State Courts of Last Resort
subsections: section_title: Written policies
paragraphs: Written policies  require parties  to affirmatively  that judges must  make an on-the- record finding to  juvenile)
section_title: Written policies exclude
paragraphs: Written policies  require parties  to affirmatively  that judges must  make an on-the- record finding to  juvenile) ●  through August 2015, but did not review policy implementation. Courts of last resort in 42 states and  the District of Columbia confirmed their policies as of January 2016 and those in the 9 remaining  states were confirmed as of June through August 2015. The states with asterisks were confirmed as  of January 2016.  This category does not include policies that prohibit media video or audio coverage of oral  arguments that are not conducted in open court, such as arguments for cases that are closed to the  public, sealed, or confidential under law.  The D.C. Court of Appeals has no written policies on media video or audio coverage of oral  arguments, and according to the court’s Clerk, does not allow such media coverage.  The Florida Supreme Court partners with WFSU-Television, a public broadcasting station, to provide  video coverage of oral arguments. Freestanding video cameras are not permitted in the courtroom  during arguments.  Although oral arguments in the Supreme Court of Illinois are not generally streamed live, video of  arguments for four cases in the court were streamed live on another website in November 2015.  Louisiana Canon 3 states that a judge should prohibit broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking  photographs in the courtroom and areas immediately adjacent thereto at least during sessions of  court or recesses between sessions except as provided by guidelines on media coverage. The  guidelines for extended media coverage in appellate courts require media organizations to notify the  court clerk of their intention to provide such coverage at least 20 days in advance of the proceedings  and allow the chief justice to prohibit or limit coverage of Louisiana Supreme Court proceedings,  among other provisions. According to the Deputy Judicial Administrator of the Louisiana Supreme  Court, there is a presumption that coverage is not allowed, although exceptions may be made for  cases with high public interest.  Mississippi Rules for Electronic and Photographic Coverage of Judicial Proceedings prohibit media  coverage of certain matters, such as those involving divorce, neglect of minors, domestic abuse, and  trade secrets, but the presiding justice can allow coverage by order.  Missouri Court Operating Rules prohibit media video and audio coverage of juvenile, adoption,  domestic relations, and child custody hearings. The Communications Counsel of the Supreme Court  of Missouri stated that this limitation does not apply to the supreme court, although the court reserves  the right to make a case-by-case determination about whether such coverage would be allowed.  Supreme Court Guidelines for Still and Television Camera and Audio Coverage of Proceedings in  the Courts of New Jersey state that coverage is prohibited in certain proceedings, such as juvenile  proceedings and those involving trade secrets, child abuse or neglect, and charges of sexual contact  when the victim is alive. The Director of Communications and Community Relations for the New  Jersey Courts stated that this limitation does not apply to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.  North Carolina court rules state that media video and audio coverage is prohibited in certain judicial  proceedings, such as juvenile and child custody proceedings and proceedings involving trade  secrets. The Clerk of the Supreme Court of North Carolina stated that this limitation does not apply to  the supreme court.  Oklahoma’s two courts of last resort—the Supreme Court, which determines all issues of a civil  nature, and the Court of Criminal Appeals, which decides all criminal matters—do not have written  policies on media video and audio coverage. The office of the Chief Justice of the Oklahoma  Supreme Court noted that the supreme court has left it up to each presiding judge to determine  whether to allow coverage. According to the Chief Justice, the supreme court has allowed video  coverage of oral arguments on a few occasions and is in the process of developing a written policy for  such coverage.  According to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s Court Crier, the Pennsylvania Cable Network is  the only media organization that can record proceedings.
section_title: Appendix VI: Video and Audio Policies and Procedures for the Supreme Court of California and Florida Supreme Court
paragraphs: The courts of last resort in the two states we visited—California and  Florida—have varying policies and procedures on video and audio  coverage of oral arguments, with different levels of usage and resource  requirements. Tables 8 and 9 summarize the policies and procedures,  coverage requests and online views, and policy implementation for these  courts.
section_title: Appendix VII: Video Policies and Procedures for the High Court of Australia, Supreme Court of Canada, and U.K. Supreme Court
paragraphs: The courts of last resort in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom  (U.K.) have policies that provide video coverage of oral arguments by the  court itself, with varying procedures for doing so and mechanisms to help  control who can use the footage and how the footage can be used.  Tables 10, 11, and 12 summarize the policies and procedures, online  views and usage requests, and policy implementation for these courts.
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Jill Verret (Assistant Director),  Tom Jessor (Assistant Director), David Alexander (Assistant Director),  Claudine Brenner, Colleen Candrl, Dominick Dale, Farrah Graham, Nina  Gurak, Yvette Gutierrez, Eric Hauswirth, Tracey King, Jan Montgomery,  Alice Paszel, Janet Temko-Blinder, and Johanna Wong made significant  contributions to this report.