Courtroom sketches still exist because cameras are banned from every federal courtroom and from many state proceedings, and when no lens is allowed inside, a sketch artist with a pad of paper is the only person producing a visual record. That ban has held for nearly eighty years in federal court and shows no sign of ending, which is why the pastel drawing on the evening news is often the only image you will ever see of a major trial.
The Federal Rule That Keeps Cameras Out
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 is the core of the prohibition. It says the court “must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.”1Cornell Law School. Rule 53. Courtroom Photographing and Broadcasting Prohibited The rule took effect in 1946 and applies to every federal district court in the country. It has survived largely unchanged since.
The Supreme Court reinforced the approach in 1965 in Estes v. Texas. Billie Sol Estes, a Texas financier, was convicted of fraud at a trial broadcast over his objection. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that televising a criminal trial over the defendant’s objection violated the right to a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The reasoning behind the rule has not shifted much since. Judges worry witnesses will refuse to testify or shade their answers if millions are watching. Jurors could feel pressure from public reaction. Lawyers and even judges themselves might perform for the audience rather than focus on getting the case right. A single artist sitting quietly with paper does not create the same dynamic as a broadcast camera.
Congress has repeatedly tried to open federal courtrooms to cameras. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, most recently reintroduced in 2023, would create a framework for cameras in federal district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. None of these bills has passed. On the federal appellate level, only the Second and Ninth Circuits allow media cameras at all.2Radio Television Digital News Association. RTDNA Cameras in the Courts Guide
Why the Supreme Court Still Refuses Cameras
The Supreme Court has never allowed a camera to record a single oral argument or opinion announcement. Decades of advocacy from media organizations and periodic legislative pushes have not changed that. The justices have offered their own reasons. Justice Anthony Kennedy once argued the Court is a “teaching institution” that teaches by being judged on its written reasoning, not video clips, and said he did not want the “insidious dynamic” of television coming between him and his colleagues. Justice Samuel Alito has worried that lawyers would perform for cameras rather than the bench. Justice Clarence Thomas has raised security and privacy concerns.
The practical result: every image you have seen from inside the Supreme Court, from Bush v. Gore to the Dobbs oral arguments, is a courtroom sketch.
State Courts Allow Cameras, but Sketches Still Appear
The federal camera ban does not reach state courts, and the Supreme Court made that clear in 1981 in Chandler v. Florida. Two Miami Beach police officers convicted of burglary argued that Florida’s camera coverage of their trial violated due process. The Court disagreed, holding that the Constitution does not prohibit states from experimenting with cameras in courtrooms. A defendant seeking to exclude cameras has to show that coverage actually prejudiced their specific case, not just that cameras are generally risky.
Since Chandler, nearly every state has adopted some provision allowing cameras under certain circumstances.2Radio Television Digital News Association. RTDNA Cameras in the Courts Guide The degree of access varies widely. In some states, cameras are routine at the trial level. In others, only appellate courts or the state supreme court allow them, and often the court itself runs the camera. Even where cameras are permitted, judges keep broad discretion to limit or revoke access based on the circumstances of a particular case.3Judicial Branch of California. Rule 1.150. Photographing, Recording, and Broadcasting in Court California’s rules list more than a dozen factors a judge must weigh before allowing coverage, including witness safety, jury selection fairness, and the effect on minors in the case.
That patchwork is why sketches remain essential even in states that technically allow cameras. A judge can ban cameras from any trial where the risks seem too high, and in those cases, the sketch artist produces the only visual record. High-profile defendants frequently request camera-free proceedings, and judges in the most watched cases, such as the Timothy McVeigh bombing trial and the Scott Peterson murder trial, have often agreed.
Why Smartphones Haven’t Replaced the Sketch Pad
It may seem strange that a practice shaped by 1930s technology still thrives in an era of smartphone cameras and live streaming. The concerns that drove the camera ban have not disappeared, though. A witness’s tearful moment on the stand, clipped to a fifteen-second video and shared millions of times on social media, creates exactly the kind of spectacle the courts have spent decades trying to prevent. A courtroom sketch captures the same moment with an inherent filter: the artist’s interpretation, the slight abstraction of a hand-drawn image, the inability to loop and replay a fleeting expression.
Sketches also do something a camera feed cannot. An artist can compose a single image showing the defendant, the jury, and the judge together, conveying the spatial relationships and emotional dynamics of the room. A fixed courtroom camera from one position would miss that. The best sketches record who was present and communicate what the room felt like, which expressions told the real story, and where the tension sat.
What Sketch Artists Are Not Allowed to Draw
Courtroom artists do not have a free hand. The most universal restriction is on sketching jurors. Federal courts and most state courts prohibit artists from depicting or identifying individual jurors or prospective jurors in any way. Jurors who fear public identification might not deliberate honestly, and jurors in high-profile cases could face harassment or threats.
Judges can impose further restrictions based on the case. In one federal case involving mentally disabled witnesses, the court initially banned sketch artists entirely out of concern that witnesses would be too anxious to testify if they knew their likeness was being drawn. A later ruling let one artist back in with conditions: no sketching jurors or victims, and sketch materials had to be put away during each victim’s testimony.4The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Courtroom Ban on Sketch Artists Rejected by Federal Judge Judges can also prohibit sketches of undercover law enforcement officers, confidential informants, or minor witnesses.
These rules carry real consequences. Violating a court order about sketching, or about any courtroom media rule, can result in a criminal contempt finding. Federal courts can punish contempt by fine, imprisonment, or both.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 401 – Power of Court In the most notable case involving courtroom art, CBS was convicted of criminal contempt in the 1970s after broadcasting sketches made in defiance of a district court order. The conviction was upheld on appeal.
Until Congress passes legislation opening federal courts to cameras, something that has failed repeatedly over two decades, the courtroom artist’s pastel and paper will remain the only window most Americans get into the proceedings that shape their legal system.