An in camera session is a court proceeding held in private, with the public, press, and jury excluded, so a judge can review or hear sensitive material without exposing it in open court. The Latin phrase translates to “in chambers,” and judges use these closed sessions for things like trade secrets, classified evidence, child witnesses, and alleged victims’ sexual history. Because American courts start from a strong presumption of openness, in camera sessions are the exception, not the default, and a judge has to justify each one on the record.
Why Private Sessions Are the Exception
The default in the American legal system is that court proceedings are public. The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants a public trial, and the Supreme Court has recognized a First Amendment right of public access as well. In Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (1986), the Court laid out a two-part “experience and logic” test: if a type of proceeding has historically been open, and if public access plays a meaningful role in how it functions, a qualified right of access attaches.1Justia Law. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. 478 U.S. 1 (1986)
A judge can still close proceedings, but only after clearing a high bar. In Waller v. Georgia (1984), the Supreme Court set four requirements. The party seeking closure must identify an overriding interest likely to be harmed by openness. The closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest. The court must consider reasonable alternatives. And the judge must make specific findings on the record explaining why closure is justified.2Justia Law. Waller v. Georgia 467 U.S. 39 (1984) Every in camera session in a criminal case traces back to this framework.
When Courts Hold In Camera Sessions
Sex-Offense Cases
Federal Rule of Evidence 412, often called the “rape shield” rule, requires a judge to conduct an in camera hearing before admitting any evidence about an alleged victim’s sexual behavior or predisposition. The victim and all parties have the right to attend and be heard. Unless the court orders otherwise, the motion, supporting materials, and the hearing record must be sealed.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 412 – Sex-Offense Cases: The Victim’s Sexual Behavior or Predisposition The private hearing lets the judge evaluate relevance and admissibility without the invasive public disclosure that deters victims from participating.
Trade Secrets
Civil litigation often forces companies to hand over proprietary information. Because public disclosure can destroy a trade secret permanently, courts treat it as one of the recognized overriding interests. Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, courts must give trade secret owners the chance to file submissions under seal describing their confidentiality interests before any disclosure is ordered. Judges typically close the courtroom only during the specific portions of a hearing where that information is actually discussed.4Federal Judicial Center. Trade Secret Case Management Judicial Guide
Classified Information
Two federal statutes create separate frameworks for private review of classified material. The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) governs criminal prosecutions involving classified evidence. If the Attorney General certifies that a public proceeding could result in disclosure, the hearing moves in camera, and the judge rules on relevance and admissibility behind closed doors.5United States Department of Justice. Synopsis of Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA)
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) goes further. When a defendant challenges FISA surveillance, the district court must review the application and related materials in camera and ex parte if the Attorney General files an affidavit stating that disclosure would harm national security. The judge reviews everything alone and may share portions with the defense only when necessary to decide whether the surveillance was lawful.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 50 USC 1806 – Use of Information
Child Witnesses
Courts routinely move proceedings in camera when a minor must testify about sensitive or traumatic events, especially in custody and abuse cases. In Maryland v. Craig (1990), the Supreme Court held that a court can shield a child witness from a face-to-face encounter with the defendant if the judge makes individualized findings that the child would suffer serious emotional distress, and if the alternative procedure preserves the defendant’s ability to cross-examine.7Constitution Annotated. Right to Confront Witnesses Face-to-Face
Privilege Disputes
When one side claims documents are privileged, such as attorney-client communications, the judge may examine them privately to decide whether the privilege actually applies. This is especially common when the opposing party raises a credible challenge to the claim. The in camera review lets the judge see the material without handing it to the other side if the privilege turns out to be valid.
Grand Jury Proceedings
Grand jury proceedings are the most thoroughly private part of the federal court system, though they operate on a different footing than most in camera sessions. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) prohibits government attorneys, jurors, interpreters, and court reporters from disclosing anything that occurred before the grand jury. The secrecy prevents targets from fleeing before indictment, encourages witnesses to speak freely, protects people investigated but never charged, and prevents witness tampering.8Congress.gov. Federal Grand Jury Secrecy: Legal Principles and Implications for Congressional Oversight Unlike other closed proceedings, grand jury secrecy isn’t ordered case by case; it’s built into the rules.
Who Is in the Room
Attendance is strictly limited. A typical in camera hearing includes the judge, a court reporter, and the attorneys for each side. The press, spectators, and jury are excluded. In especially sensitive situations, even the attorneys may be excluded; FISA reviews, for example, are ex parte, so only the judge and the government participate.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 50 USC 1806 – Use of Information
The session usually takes place in the judge’s chambers or a cleared courtroom. A court reporter is present because the proceeding remains part of the official record, even though the public can’t observe it. The record exists so that appellate courts can later review what happened and whether the closure was justified.
In criminal cases, the defendant’s right to be present complicates things. The Supreme Court has held that a defendant may be excluded from a competency hearing if the exclusion doesn’t interfere with effective cross-examination, particularly where the witnesses will later testify in open court.7Constitution Annotated. Right to Confront Witnesses Face-to-Face
What Happens to the Record
Transcripts from in camera proceedings are typically placed under seal, meaning they are excluded from the public court file. The judge decides how long the seal lasts based on whether the need for confidentiality continues. A sealed grand jury transcript may remain locked away indefinitely; a trade secret dispute may be unsealed once the information loses its commercial value.
Someone who wants access to sealed records must file a motion to unseal. In federal court, the burden falls on the party who wants the records to stay sealed. Under the common law right of access, courts require “compelling reasons” to justify keeping judicial records from the public, and broad claims of potential harm aren’t enough. The party seeking secrecy must identify the specific type of information at risk and explain concretely how disclosure would cause serious injury. The stronger the public interest in the underlying litigation, the heavier that burden becomes.
How to Request or Oppose an In Camera Session
A party seeking in camera review typically files a written motion explaining why the material is too sensitive for open proceedings and why private review is necessary. The judge has broad discretion. In camera review is generally treated as a tool of last resort: if the court can resolve the dispute based on descriptions, affidavits, and argument alone, the review isn’t ordered. It becomes more likely when a party’s written explanations remain inadequate after a chance to supplement them, or when reviewing a sample of records would help the judge evaluate the claims.9United States Department of Justice. FOIA Guidance and Resources: Court Decisions: In Camera Review
If you’re on the other side and want proceedings kept open, the Waller factors are your framework. You can argue that the moving party hasn’t identified a sufficiently narrow interest, that less restrictive alternatives (redaction, a protective order, closing only part of a hearing) would work, or that the proposed findings aren’t specific enough. An improperly closed proceeding can be challenged on appeal.
Penalties for Disclosing Sealed Information
Disclosing information from a sealed in camera proceeding is treated as contempt of court. Federal courts have the power to punish contempt by fine, imprisonment, or both when a person disobeys a lawful court order.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 401 – Power of Court There is no fixed penalty schedule; the judge calibrates the sanction to the severity of the violation.
Grand jury material carries its own enforcement regime. Rule 6(e) flatly prohibits disclosure by anyone involved in the grand jury process, and leaks can trigger criminal contempt charges and professional discipline for attorneys and court staff.8Congress.gov. Federal Grand Jury Secrecy: Legal Principles and Implications for Congressional Oversight The whole system depends on witnesses and jurors trusting that what happens in the room stays there.
How This Differs From a Government Executive Session
Government bodies use a parallel concept called an executive session to deliberate privately on a narrow set of topics, but it isn’t a court proceeding. Every state has some form of open meetings law requiring public bodies to conduct business in the open, with specific carved-out exceptions. The common ones are pending or anticipated litigation, real property purchases or sales, and personnel matters.
A critical limit separates executive sessions from ordinary closed-door decision-making: government bodies generally cannot take binding votes or make formal decisions during an executive session. The private setting is for discussion only. When the body is ready to act, it must return to open session and vote publicly. Executive sessions must be formally convened, discussion is limited to the topics announced in advance, and advance public notice is typically required. Decisions made in an improperly closed session can be voided, and individual members may face civil fines that vary by state.