Can’t the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?
It’s been widely reported that SB.1945, if passed, would compel the Supreme Court to televise its proceedings. Here’s the relevant bill text:
‘The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation of the due process rights of 1 or more of the parties before the Court.”
(1) This seems badly drafted to me. What does “television coverage” mean for the purposes of this bill? Does it mean that the camera gets to swivel between Justices and the attorney? That it can face the wall? But more interestingly,
(2) What ifthe Supreme Court just says no? The Marshall of the court reports to the Chief, not to the President or the Congress. What is the Coult were simply to decide, as a body, that it didn’t feel bound by another branch’s wishes on how to conduct its proceedings? Obviously, this would never actually happen. But imagine a different case, where the Congress prescribed wig-wearing? Or how long arguments would last? Or brief length or content? I recall a Larry Tribe con law exam in which the Congress wrote a law the required the court to decide its constitutionality in a matter of days. That struck me as unlikely to survive scrutiny. Similarly here, there’s a plausible separation of powers argument that the Congress doesn’t have the right to tell the Court how to run its house. That’s precisely what Mike Dorf argued in this column, and it’s surprising to me that so few mainstream journalists have picked up the objection. (But see this Scotusblog discussion.) Basically, if I were the Court and I didn’t want to be on TV, I’d consider telling Congress to go pound sand. They don’t have an army either.