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

		The U.S. Supreme Court Provides Audio Recordings of Oral Arguments and Releases Recordings on the Same Day of Arguments in Selected Cases

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. 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. 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. At its discretion, the Court granted these  requests in 26 cases and declined them in 32 cases. Officials from 9  of these 10 courts stated that their court generally posts audio recordings  on the same day arguments are heard. Of these cases, 6 were granted and 9  were denied based on judicial discretion. 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

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 Policies of the Courts of Last Resort in Three Countries Provide Video Coverage of Oral Arguments, Though Procedures and Allowable Use of Footage Vary

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. 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

		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

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. 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. Effect on court participants. 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. 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

			Perspectives of Appellate Judges and Attorneys

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. Perspectives of the U.S. Supreme Court and Attorneys Who Have Argued Before the Court

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. 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. The Justices have expressed caution  about introducing changes that could diminish the public’s respect for and  create misconceptions about the Court. 2. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.