Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Public is zero for seven at the Supreme Court

The public is zero for seven at the Supreme Court this term.

That tally doesn’t involve the justices’ votes on cases. It’s the number of times that the court has been asked (seven) and agreed (zero) to release same-day audio recordings of oral arguments in important cases.

Yes, audio recordings. In the age of Twitter and video chats, the court apparently finds the notion of allowing the public to hear audio of its proceedings overly intrusive.

We’re not talking television cameras here, folks. The only question is whether news organizations will be able to use tapes of oral arguments -- tapes that are being made in any event and will be released eventually -- on the same day the arguments take place.

The latest rejection came when the court turned down a request by C-SPAN, ABC, CNN and Fox News in a case, to be argued Monday, about whether a public law school can deny funding to a student group that requires its members to adhere to its religious beliefs.

If there is a rational basis, as the lawyers like to say, for refusing to release the audio in this case, I’d like to hear it.

Television cameras are said to be too distracting and too much of an imposition on justices’ privacy. I disagree, as does a majority of the public; in a poll conducted last year for C-SPAN, 61 percent backed televising Supreme Court proceedings. In any event, the same arguments have even less validity in the case of audio recordings.

Another anti-TV argument is that the snippets would be too susceptible to being misused in 30-second sound bites. Okay, but for all those picture-worth-a-thousand-words reasons, audio doesn’t seem to me to pose the same risk -- if that risk even exists. This argument -- again, as the lawyers like to say -- proves too much: If there is a problem with words being taken out of context, isn’t that true of print or broadcast reporters reduced to quoting the justices’ words? Isn’t the risk of being misquoted -- not getting the words wrong but missing the underlying meaning -- less when the actual sound is available? Any decent lawyer can tell you that the cold transcript of a proceeding is a poor substitute.

In fact, there is a record before the court on which to judge whether releasing audio recordings poses any problem. The court got one thing right in Bush v. Gore: It allowed audio of the oral arguments to be broadcast later that day. Since then, news organizations have asked for same-day audio in 44 cases; their requests have been granted in 19 more, according to statistics compiled by the folks at C-SPAN. This hardly seems like an unmanageable flood of requests.

Unfortunately, the court has been heading in the wrong direction under Chief Justice John Roberts. Of the 11 requests made to the court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist, nine were granted. The Roberts court has approved only 12 of 35 requests. Last year, audio was released for just two arguments (the big campaign finance case, Citizens United, and a major voting-rights dispute).

Perhaps the court doesn’t want to be in the position of deciding which cases rise to the level of heightened public importance. Here’s an easy way out of having to make that judgment: Release audio for all arguments. Yes, releasing audio has been the exception, not the rule. But then again, it wasn’t until recently that the court made it a practice of providing same-day transcripts of decisions. Things change, even at the Supreme Court. Technology makes this a pretty simple transaction.

Too radical? Here’s another solution: Release audio in a predetermined number of cases every year. Let the networks decide among themselves which to ask for so the court isn’t in the position of choosing. Or make the determination based on the number of friend-of-the-court briefs the cases attract.

The chief justice famously described the role of the judge as that of an umpire calling balls and strikes. Why would he want to deny the public the benefit of at least hearing the game in progress?

By Ruth Marcus  | April 15, 2010; 12:05 PM ET
Categories:  Marcus  | Tags:  Ruth Marcus  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Should Obama nominate a politician for the Supreme Court?
Next: Hey, Tea Party, why all the fuss?


Good article. However, I disagree with the thought that 30 second misleading sound bites won't be used by the media. Anyone there familiar with MSNBC and FOX news -- Glen Beck or Ed Schultz? However, that said I think that same day release of the recordings would be a good thing. On the issue of TV coverage I think that the Court is right. We have enough reality shows with folks playing to the camera. I prefer my justice the old fashioned way -- based on the law, briefs and arguments. I don't need to see the demeanor of a judge or hired lawyer to get a sense of what the arguments are about. Let's get live radio coverage!

Posted by: Fergie303 | April 15, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus,

fwiw, i believe that ALL of the proceedings of the SCOTUS should be on C-SPAN, either in REAL-time or rebroadcasted afterwards. - the public has a RIGHT to KNOW what the SCOTUS, & the advocates in each case, does/says/thinks.

the Justices are NOT princes/princesses & i, for just one citizen, am tired of them thinking that they are.

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | April 15, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

This is OUR court, the court of the people - the public has every right to hear (and see, in my opinion) the arguments and details of the cases.

If justices are worried they don't sound 'judicial' enough, then they can take voice lessons to improve their gravitas.

Posted by: EnemyOfTheState | April 15, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company