How About Live Audio, Your Honors?
According to a recent press release, the Supreme Court will release the Boumediene oral argument audio recording on Wednesday, very shortly after the conclusion of the argument. (My FindLaw column will preview the argument Wednesday morning. Read the column and then listen to the argument to hear how off-base my analysis proves to be!). Same-day audio for very high-profile cases is a nice idea, but here's a better one: Live audio for all oral arguments.
Without revisiting the argument over cameras in the Supreme Court, there is nothing to be said for delaying audio an hour or two after the argument has occurred, rather than providing a live feed to interested media outlets. Surely the 1920s technology is available to the Court, and any worries about jeopardizing the Justices' privacy or the risk of Justices and lawyers "hamming it up" either doesn't apply to pure audio or, if it does, applies equally whether the audio goes out live or delayed by one or two hours.
Admittedly, there may not be a very large audience for your garden-variety ERISA case, but surely that's true of a large portion of what's on C-SPAN too (not to mention Fox Business Channel or Knicks basketball).
Posted by Mike Dorf
Without revisiting the argument over cameras in the Supreme Court, there is nothing to be said for delaying audio an hour or two after the argument has occurred, rather than providing a live feed to interested media outlets. Surely the 1920s technology is available to the Court, and any worries about jeopardizing the Justices' privacy or the risk of Justices and lawyers "hamming it up" either doesn't apply to pure audio or, if it does, applies equally whether the audio goes out live or delayed by one or two hours.
Admittedly, there may not be a very large audience for your garden-variety ERISA case, but surely that's true of a large portion of what's on C-SPAN too (not to mention Fox Business Channel or Knicks basketball).
Posted by Mike Dorf
posted by Michael C. Dorf @ 12:09 AM
5 Comments:
At 9:07 AM,
egarber said…
Is there a stated rationale for delaying the release? I guess in some cases, there is a need to vet potential national security concerns -- but I'm guessing those would be handled under different rules from the outset. Would say, NSA spying cases be made available at all?
At 11:08 AM,
Michael C. Dorf said…
There are no national security reasons for the delay because what's said in open court gets heard by members of the press anyway. I don't know of any circumstance in which a transcript or recording has been changed for national security reasons.
At 11:21 AM,
egarber said…
Prof,
I should know this, but are there cases where all deliberations are closed -- something like the Pentagon Papers case, etc.? If so, it seems national security is already covered via other cautions (vs. the delay).
At 12:43 PM,
Michael C. Dorf said…
The Richmond Newspapers case makes courts presumptively open to the public but any (and rarely) all proceedings can be closed.
At 2:46 PM,
Paul said…
Perhaps the delay is so the clerks can edit in bleeps in the event a Justice or counsel uses language not approved by the FCC.
Post a Comment
<< Home