	Introduction

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. 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. In this context, Members of Congress have introduced measures to enable, or expand, the use of video cameras in the federal courts. 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. 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. 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. In September 2010, the Judicial Conference authorized a second pilot program to study cameras in the courtroom. This pilot program began in July 2011 and concluded in July 2015, with fourteen federal district courts participating. In turn, all courts may become more consistent in their interpretations of past case precedents and become more uniform in how subsequent decisions are made. Although they are public figures, many federal judges and even Supreme Court Justices are not widely recognized. As a result of the concerns addressed above, some believe that adding cameras to the courtroom might change the way in which cases are argued and decided. 1381 ) was introduced in the House on March 16, 2015. Recent actions taken by the courts, such as the Supreme Court's measures to improve the timely release of audio recordings and the Judicial Conference's 2011-2015 pilot program on cameras in the courtroom, may suggest that the courts themselves may be inclined to take measures to improve access to their proceedings. Concluding Observations

International, state, and local courts have expanded the use of video cameras to record and/or broadcast their proceedings over the last 20 years, and the federal judiciary has experimented with video cameras in the federal circuit and district courts as well.
Members of Congress, along with the legal community, journalists, and the public, have long considered the potential merits and drawbacks of using video cameras to record and/or broadcast courtroom proceedings. The first bill to propose video camera use in the federal courts was introduced in the House of Representatives in 1937, and since the mid-1990s, Members of Congress in both chambers have regularly introduced bills to expand the use of cameras in the federal courts and have sometimes held hearings on the subject.
Video cameras are commonly used in state and local courtrooms throughout the United States to record and broadcast proceedings. All 50 state supreme courts in the United States allow video cameras under certain conditions, and cameras are allowed in many states for trial and appellate proceedings. Yet video cameras are not widely used in federal circuit and district courts, and they are not used at all in the Supreme Court. While Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has banned photography and broadcasting of any federal criminal proceedings since 1946, the Judicial Conference of the United States conducted pilot programs from 1991 to 1994 and from 2011 to 2015 to study the use of video cameras in federal courtrooms in civil proceedings. As a result of their participation in these pilot programs, two federal circuit courts and 14 federal district courts presently allow video cameras in their courtrooms under certain circumstances.
Yet even as the use of cameras in courts has become more widespread during the past few decades, many of the fundamental questions about the use of video cameras in the courts remain relatively unchanged.
The debate regarding video cameras in federal courtrooms revolves around these and other issues:
the appropriate degree of congressional involvement in matters related to the operation of the federal judiciary; the degree of access the public and media should have to the federal courts; the advantages and disadvantages of additional judicial transparency; the potential effects of cameras in the courtroom on ensuring a fair trial and protecting participants' privacy; and the possible ways in which cameras may alter the way courts conduct business and affect judicial integrity.
Addressing these issues often involves balancing one consideration against another. For example, protections to make sure the accused receives a fair trial might lead to more restricted public or media access to the courts.
Generally, while Congress may legislate in this area, to date, considerable deference has been given to the Supreme Court Justices and other officials within the federal judiciary in determining if and how video recording and broadcasting should be implemented in the federal courts. A study based on the Judicial Conference's 2011-2015 pilot program is expected later this year and may alter considerations in this policy debate.