Supreme Court not revisiting no-cameras rules

The Supreme Court hasn’t revisited the issue of televising its arguments this decade, Justice Elena Kagan said Thursday.

She and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said there’s no serious move to embrace television, with the court’s members generally believing that it would force justices to censor themselves, in a bad way.

“We haven’t spoken about this together as a conference since I’ve been at the court,” said Justice Kagan, who was confirmed in 2010.

The two justices were testifying to the House Appropriations Committee ahead of the 2020 budget season.

Justice Alito said he had been a backer of cameras before, including during his time on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But he said now on the high court he’s decided that it would be bad.

Both justices said the danger in more transparency is that things could be taken out of context, which might spur court members to be reticent about their arguments in the future.

Justice Alito said that would hurt the “open” style of debate.

“We argue the issues robustly — let me put it that way — and increasingly we don’t pull any punches,” he said.

He said the court has made huge strides in transparency outside of televising oral arguments, with transcripts of the arguments posted online within hours of their completion each day, and opinions available instantly to the public.

While some members of the subcommittee pushed for television access, others said their experience in Congress is a caution to the courts.

Justice Alito was asked whether he was troubled by President Trump’s frequent and vehement criticism of federal judges who have ruled against his agenda.

He said he wouldn’t comment on any particular situation, but those in the executive, legislative and judicial branches “have to be careful.”

“I think it is extremely important for all of the members for all three branches of our government to be accurate and respectful when we’re talking about members of the other branches,” he said.