Live court streaming is most widely available through state court websites, with the U.S. Supreme Court offering live audio of every oral argument and federal trial courts allowing limited live audio in some civil and bankruptcy hearings. Video access is common in state appellate courts, uncommon in state trial courts, and almost nonexistent in the federal system. Whatever you watch, you are a passive observer: recording, screen-capturing, or rebroadcasting a stream can get you held in contempt of court.
Where to Watch
State Courts
State courts carry the bulk of live court streaming in the United States. State supreme courts and intermediate appellate courts commonly webcast their oral arguments, and some states also stream trial court proceedings. Streams are usually hosted on the court’s own website or on a public video platform such as YouTube. A handful of states run centralized portals that aggregate feeds from trial courts statewide, letting you pick a county and drop into whatever hearing is currently in session.
Coverage varies widely from state to state. Some stream only appellate arguments in cases of statewide legal significance. Others leave the decision to the trial judge in each individual case. If you want to watch a specific proceeding, start on the website of the court where the case is pending and look for a link labeled “webcasts,” “live stream,” or “oral arguments.”
Federal District and Appellate Courts
Video access to federal district court proceedings is largely off-limits. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 prohibits photographing or broadcasting judicial proceedings from the courtroom, with narrow exceptions, and that prohibition has been in place since the federal criminal rules were first adopted in 1946.1Legal Information Institute (LII) / Cornell Law School. Rule 53 – Courtroom Photographing and Broadcasting Prohibited
The civil side changed in 2023. Starting September 22, 2023, federal judges gained discretion to provide the public with live audio access to civil and bankruptcy proceedings, as long as the hearing does not involve witness testimony.2U.S. Courts. Judicial Conference Revises Policy to Expand Remote Audio Access Over Its Pre-COVID Policy The change does not apply to criminal proceedings, and the temporary CARES Act authority to hold certain criminal matters remotely expired on May 10, 2023.3United States Courts. Judiciary Ends COVID Emergency; Study of Broadcast Policy Continues Whether a particular federal judge actually provides live audio is discretionary, so availability varies from courtroom to courtroom.4United States Courts. Remote Public Access to Proceedings
Federal appellate courts each set their own broadcasting policies. Some circuit courts of appeals provide live audio of oral arguments. Check the specific court’s website for details.
U.S. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court live-streams audio of every oral argument on its website.5Supreme Court of the United States. Oral Arguments The feed goes live when arguments begin, and the Court posts a downloadable recording later the same day.6Supreme Court of the United States. Argument Audio Video is completely prohibited. There is no live video feed and no official video archive.
What You Will Not See on a Stream
Even when a court streams a proceeding, certain people and information are routinely kept off camera. The specifics depend on jurisdiction, but the pattern holds across most courts.
Juror identities receive the strongest protection. Courts that stream trial proceedings typically angle cameras away from the jury box, and electronic access policies broadly prohibit disclosure of juror names or identifying information.
Entire categories of cases are commonly excluded from streaming altogether:
- Juvenile proceedings: Nearly all jurisdictions bar cameras to protect minors’ identities.
- Family law cases: Divorce, custody, and domestic violence hearings involve sensitive personal information.
- Mental health and guardianship proceedings: These involve private medical or capacity-related details.
- Cases involving confidential witnesses: When identification could jeopardize safety, courts exclude that testimony or redact identifying details.
Courts also redact personal identifiers like Social Security numbers, dates of birth, financial account numbers, and home addresses from electronically accessible records. For transcripts, federal courts follow a structured process: attorneys have seven days after a transcript is delivered to the clerk’s office to flag personal data for removal, and the court reporter must file a redacted version within 31 days.7United States Courts. Privacy Policy for Electronic Case Files Transcripts are not published online until any redaction disputes are resolved.
What You Are Allowed to Do With the Stream
When you watch a court live stream, you are a passive observer. Courts provide these feeds for public education and transparency, not as raw material for content creation. Most courts explicitly prohibit viewers from recording, screen-capturing, republishing, or rebroadcasting any portion of the stream.
These restrictions exist to protect the rights of participants: defendants, witnesses, victims, and jurors. A clip taken out of context and posted to social media can taint a jury pool, endanger a witness, or undermine a fair trial.
The primary enforcement tool is contempt of court. A judge who discovers that someone has recorded or rebroadcast a stream in violation of court orders can hold that person in contempt, which carries the possibility of fines and jail time. The Judicial Conference’s broadcast policy exists specifically to prevent unauthorized dissemination,8United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of California. General Order 22-01 In Re – Prohibition on Broadcasting, Televising, Recording, and Photographing Bankruptcy Court Proceedings and individual courts reinforce it through their own standing orders.
Monetizing court footage raises the stakes. If you repackage a stream for profit on a platform like YouTube or TikTok, you are more likely to draw enforcement action, and the penalties a court imposes will likely reflect the commercial nature of the violation. The practical advice is straightforward: watch the stream, learn from it, and leave the recording to the court.
Accessibility for Viewers With Disabilities
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires state and local government entities, including courts, to make their services accessible to people with disabilities. When a court streams a proceeding online, that stream is part of the court’s public-facing services and falls under this obligation.9ADA.gov. Fact Sheet – New Rule on the Accessibility of Web Content and Mobile Apps
In practice, courts should provide auxiliary aids like closed captioning when necessary for effective communication. The Department of Justice has adopted the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Version 2.1, Level AA as the technical standard for state and local government web content, which includes captioning requirements for video. Implementation varies. Some courts provide real-time captioning for live streams; others offer only post-hearing transcripts. If you need an accommodation, contact the court clerk’s office in advance. Courts are generally required to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would create an undue burden.
Why Audio Access Is More Common Than Video
You will notice that audio-only access is far more common than video, especially at the appellate level and in federal courts. This is not accidental. The concern driving most camera restrictions is that video can change how participants behave: witnesses may become nervous or performative, jurors may worry about being identified, and attorneys may play to a visible audience rather than the judge.
Audio sidesteps most of those concerns. Appellate arguments involve lawyers presenting legal positions to a panel of judges, with no jury and no witness testimony. The risk of behavioral distortion is low, which is why even the traditionally camera-averse federal system now permits live audio for certain civil proceedings. At the trial level, where witness credibility and jury impartiality are central, courts stay more cautious. States that allow trial-level video streaming typically give the presiding judge authority to cut the feed or restrict camera angles if a participant’s rights are at risk.
Whether federal courts will eventually allow routine video access remains an open question. The pandemic proved remote access is technically feasible at scale, but the Judicial Conference has moved incrementally, and the gap between audio permission and video permission in federal courts shows no signs of closing soon.