The issue of whether or not to allow video cameras into the courtroom has been discussed and debated by Members of Congress, the legal community, journalists, and the public since the introduction of newsreel films in the early 20 th century. Technological advances have shifted some of the considerat ions in this ongoing dialogue, as newsreel cameras gave way to television cameras and Internet video. Increasingly, new technology makes video recording less disruptive, accessible to more people, and able to be distributed quickly, if not instantaneously. Most state courts, and several international supreme courts, allow video cameras to record and televise, or otherwise broadcast, their proceedings under certain circumstances. Although the U.S. Supreme Court does not allow cameras of any sort in its chamber, a few federal circuit and district courts do allow video recording of their proceedings, and the Judicial Conference of the United States continues to consider expanding the use of cameras in the lower federal courts. Some judges who have experience with video cameras in their chambers support the use of video recording or broadcasting in the courts; other judges have reservations, typically related to the effects cameras might have on the proceedings. The public generally tends to support televising U.S. Supreme Court proceedings. In this context, Members of Congress have introduced measures to enable, or expand, the use of video cameras in the federal courts. Typically, since the mid-1990s, a handful of bills have been introduced each session. Several bills reflecting four distinct proposals have been introduced in the 114 th Congress addressing cameras in the federal courts. Due to the assortment of considerations in this policy debate, the provisions of these cameras in the courtroom bills vary on several dimensions, balancing concerns about preserving judicial integrity and due process with other goals, like improved public education, media access, or government transparency. This report is not intended to provide a legal analysis of court cases relevant to the use of video cameras in federal courtrooms. The following sections of this report provide information about the current judicial policies and attitudes related to video camera use in the U.S. Supreme Court, federal circuit courts, and federal district courts; summaries of the major debates and considerations for policymakers on the subject of courtroom cameras, including the appropriateness of congressional action, standards for public and media access to the courts, and potential effects on courtroom proceedings; descriptions of the four legislative proposals currently before the 114 th Congress, including the Cameras in the Courtroom Act ( H.R. 94 and S. 780 ), the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act ( H.R. 917 and S. 783 ), the Transparency in Government Act ( H.R. 1381 ), and the Eyes on the Courts Act ( H.R. 3723 ); and complementary policy measures that might accomplish similar objectives. This section describes the current policies that the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal circuit and district courts have adopted regarding video cameras in their courtrooms, along with the attitudes Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges have expressed toward expanding video use. Video broadcasting can be treated as one of several means by which the courts provide information about their proceedings to the public and the press. As such, the other policies the federal courts have in place related to public and media access are also briefly discussed where relevant. The U.S. Supreme Court does not allow the use of any type of camera within its courtroom. For cases involving criminal matters, the Supreme Court abides by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which are submitted to Congress by the Supreme Court after consultation with the Judicial Conference of the United States. In 1946, Rule 53 was added to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states the following: Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom. The Judicial Conference added further prohibitions on cameras and broadcasting from federal courtrooms in 1973 through its Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Although Supreme Court Justices are not required to abide by the Code of Conduct, they do follow its guidance on many matters and seemingly have adopted its position on the issue of cameras in the courtroom. Even though cameras and recording devices are prohibited in the Supreme Court chambers, there is no statute that designates possession or use of them in the courtroom a criminal act. An individual's use of such equipment, however, may constitute a disruption to the Supreme Court, which is a violation of federal law. As Rule 53 indicates, the prohibition on cameras could be lifted if the Supreme Court and Judicial Conference amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or if Congress passes a statute that allows or requires cameras in the courtroom. Supreme Court oral arguments and opinion announcements are open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. There are about 400 seats in the courtroom, but the number of seats available to the public varies, based on the number of guests of the Justices, journalists, and members of the Supreme Court bar who are also in attendance. During oral arguments, some public seats are reserved for those who wish to stay for the full day's session, and other public seats are available for short-term (3-5 minute) viewing. The Supreme Court posts transcripts of its opinions, as well as transcripts and audio recordings of oral arguments, to its official website. Opinion transcripts are posted "within minutes" of their release, and argument transcripts are also posted on the same day of their release. Typically, the Supreme Court posts the audio recordings of oral arguments on Fridays, meaning that most oral arguments are not posted on the same day they were made. For some high-profile cases, the Supreme Court has released same-day audio recordings. At the Supreme Court level, none of the present Justices have consistently advocated for cameras in their courtroom, but several have expressed a willingness to consider the idea. Although the current Justices may seem reluctant, some observers note that their ambivalence actually reflects greater receptivity toward bringing cameras into the Supreme Court, given that some of their predecessors strongly opposed cameras in the courtroom. While most of the current Justices have remarked that they would consider permitting cameras in the Supreme Court if their colleagues agreed, many of the Justices have also revealed personal apprehension toward video broadcasting of Supreme Court proceedings. For the lower federal courts, and, in particular, the appellate circuit courts, the current Supreme Court Justices are somewhat more supportive of allowing cameras. Each Justice has made public statements recognizing potential benefits of televising judicial proceedings, but each has also made public statements that acknowledge the potential risks. Some of the Justices had experience with cameras in the courtroom while they were serving on these lower courts and have commented on their positive experiences. As a circuit court judge, for example, Justice Stephen Breyer voted in favor of the Judicial Conference's first pilot program and volunteered his court for the program, though it was not chosen. The concerns the Justices have raised about cameras in the courtroom are often related to the effect the videos might have on the judicial process. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, has expressed support for cameras in the courtroom as long as the proceedings are not affected. Some are concerned that cameras may cause the Justices or others in court to behave differently, or that a change may alter how arguments are made. Other Justices, however, note that oral arguments are only a small part of the overall decision-making process: as long as their deliberations still occur in private, the decision-making process will remain largely unchanged. Some Justices also express the view that judges would lose their relative anonymity, which could bring greater political pressure or security threats and affect judges' ability to be neutral arbiters of the law. The Supreme Court is, by nature, an institution that is slow to change, according to its own members. It is often cautious in its jurisprudence related to new technology, and is similarly cautious about introducing new technology into judicial procedures. To some observers, video recording may seem like a tried and true technology, but to the Supreme Court and others, the need to maintain the integrity of the courtroom and its proceedings may outweigh the potential benefits of video cameras. In recent years, observers note that the Supreme Court has become more accessible through its own initiatives. New policies, like posting oral argument audio recordings online, help those interested in court proceedings receive information quickly and fully. Observers also note that the Justices also seem increasingly willing to speak at public engagements or on television interviews where they are often given the opportunity to better explain their judicial philosophy and reasoning behind decisions. Currently, two federal circuit courts and 14 federal district courts allow video recordings of their proceedings under certain, limited circumstances. Historically, federal statutes and professional guidelines have generally prohibited or discouraged use of cameras in federal circuit and district courts. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits photography in and radio broadcasting from lower federal courtrooms during criminal cases, and, in 1948, Congress passed legislation that applied its provisions to the federal courts. This prohibition applies both during the initial criminal trials and during any subsequent appeals. The Judicial Conference continues to support Rule 53, given the heightened concerns about maintaining the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings. Although these policies prohibit the recording or broadcasting of criminal proceedings, cameras may be allowed for civil cases. The use of video cameras in civil proceedings has increased since the 1990s, but most of the lower federal courts still do not allow cameras to record or broadcast from the courtroom, nor have they expanded camera coverage of criminal proceedings. For most of the 20 th century, the American Bar Association (ABA) advised judges against permitting cameras in courtrooms. Although the ABA Canons of Judicial Ethics were not initially binding, many federal judges voluntarily followed them once they were adopted in 1924. In 1937, the ABA added Canon 35, which discouraged judges from allowing cameras in the courtroom, and which was amended in 1952 to include televised proceedings.