Open Courts Media Access Act

Summary#

The bill would let federal judges allow media coverage (photos, recordings, broadcasting, or televising) of court proceedings in U.S. appellate courts and district courts, subject to limits. Appellate presiding judges could allow coverage at their discretion, except when it would violate a party’s due process rights. District courts could allow coverage only after mandatory guidelines are issued and with several specific protections for witnesses and jurors. The broad aim is to increase public access to federal court proceedings while protecting fairness and safety.

Key changes:

• Appellate courts: The presiding judge may permit photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising of any proceeding the judge presides over, unless the judge or a majority of participating judges find it would violate a party’s due process rights.
• District courts: The presiding judge may permit the same forms of media coverage, but only after the Judicial Conference issues mandatory guidelines and subject to special rules (for example, witness voice/face masking on request and an absolute prohibition on filming jurors or jury selection).
• Witness protections: Non-party witnesses in trials can request their face and voice be obscured; courts must notify non-party witnesses of this right. The Judicial Conference must issue mandatory guidelines within six months about obscuring “vulnerable witnesses” (crime victims, minors, cooperating witnesses, undercover officers, etc.).
• No juror coverage: Filming or recording of jurors or jury selection is prohibited.
• Limits on review: Decisions by a presiding judge about allowing or denying media coverage cannot be challenged through interlocutory appeal (i.e., immediate appeal before final judgment).
• Temporary district authority: The district-court authority to allow media coverage sunsets (ends) three years after the bill’s enactment.
• Costs: A court may require that accommodations to implement media coverage be made without public expense.

What it means for you#

• Media organizations

  • Appellate courts: Media can ask a presiding appellate judge to allow filming or broadcasting of proceedings. Permission is at the judge’s discretion.
  • District courts: Media cannot obtain coverage in district courts until the Judicial Conference issues mandatory guidelines; even then, judges control access and may set rules.
  • Media must follow courtroom rules and may be required to sign written acknowledgments before recording.

• Litigants and parties

  • Parties can be in proceedings that are photographed or broadcast if the presiding judge allows it and does not find a due process problem.
  • The presiding judge may stop coverage if it threatens fairness or other interests.

• Witnesses and victims

  • Non-party witnesses in trials can request that their face and voice be obscured so they are unrecognizable on broadcast.
  • The court must inform non-party witnesses of this right.
  • The Judicial Conference must create rules for protecting identified “vulnerable witnesses” within six months.

• Jurors

  • Jurors and the jury selection process cannot be photographed, recorded, broadcast, or televised.

• Judges and courts

  • Presiding judges get discretion to permit, manage, and limit media use in courtrooms.
  • Judges may issue rules, disciplinary measures, and require acknowledgements for media participants.
  • Judges may obscure identities for safety, security, law enforcement integrity, or the interest of justice.

• Law enforcement and undercover personnel

  • The bill requires special protections for undercover officers, cooperating witnesses, and others identified as vulnerable; guidelines must address these protections.

• Taxpayers and court administrators

  • A court may require that any accommodations to allow media use be provided without public expense (for example, media or litigants might pay for equipment or setup).

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill directs the Judicial Conference to prepare mandatory guidelines within six months. This may require staff time and administrative work by the Judicial Conference and courts.
• Courts may need to set up procedures, train staff, and manage technology and security for media coverage. The bill allows courts to require accommodations be made without public expense, which could shift costs to media organizations, litigants, or courts’ internal budgets, depending on how courts implement that option.
• The district-court pilot authority ends after three years; any short-term implementation may still have one-time setup costs.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to increase transparency and public access to federal courts. Possible arguments in favor, based on the bill text:

• Allowing cameras and broadcasts could make court proceedings more open and let the public see how the judicial process works.
• Judge-by-judge control aims to balance openness with fairness, because judges can deny coverage when it would harm due process.
• Specific protections for vulnerable witnesses and jurors aim to reduce harms while permitting broader public access.
• Requiring guidelines from the Judicial Conference seeks to create consistent practices for protecting certain witnesses and handling media in district courts.

Opponents' View#

Possible concerns and trade-offs that follow from the bill’s design:

• One concern is that media coverage could affect trial fairness or a party’s due process rights; the bill relies on judges’ discretion but does not provide a standard beyond “due process.”
• Witness safety, intimidation, and privacy could be at risk despite masking rules; the bill leaves many operational details to future guidelines and judge decisions.
• The bill bars interlocutory appeals of judges’ decisions on media coverage, which may limit early judicial review of controversial access decisions.
• Implementation costs and logistics (equipment, courtroom layout, staff, security, and training) are not estimated in the bill; while courts may require “no public expense,” it is unclear how costs would actually be covered.
• The bill does not clearly explain how it would interact with existing court rules or the current practices of the Supreme Court and other courts, or whether all appellate and district courts will take the same approach.