Some trials are televised and others aren’t because the answer to “can cameras come in?” depends on three things: the court system hearing the case, the type of case it is, and the judge assigned to it. Why some trials are televised and others not comes down to a state-federal split baked into the rules, plus a case-by-case judgment call that every presiding judge gets to make.
State Courts Allow Cameras; Federal Courts Mostly Don’t
The single biggest factor is which courthouse you’re looking at. Nearly every state and the District of Columbia now permit at least some audio-visual coverage of court proceedings. That’s why the trials you see on cable news, from murder prosecutions to civil disputes, are almost always state cases.
Federal courts run the other way. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53, adopted in 1946, prohibits photographing or broadcasting judicial proceedings from the courtroom in criminal cases.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 53 – Courtroom Photographing and Broadcasting Prohibited Federal civil trials are also effectively closed to cameras. The Judicial Conference of the United States, after reviewing a pilot program in 1994, concluded that the “intimidating effect of cameras on some witnesses and jurors was cause for concern” and declined to open civil proceedings up. A later pilot in 2010 permitted cameras only with the judge’s approval and the consent of every party.2United States Courts. History of Cameras, Broadcasting, and Remote Public Access in Courts
So if a high-profile case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney in federal district court, you won’t see it live, no matter how much interest it generates. If it’s being prosecuted by a state district attorney, cameras are usually possible, subject to the judge.
The Judge Has the Final Say
Even in a state that broadly allows cameras, the presiding judge decides whether this particular trial gets broadcast. Media outlets generally file a written request days or weeks ahead, and the judge weighs the request against objections from the parties. Several concerns can push a judge toward denying access.
Protecting Witnesses
Vulnerable witnesses are the concern judges take most seriously. Victims of sexual offenses, minors, and undercover law enforcement officers all face real risks from being broadcast to a mass audience. Several states flatly prohibit camera coverage of certain proceedings, like sexual assault prosecutions, to shield victims from re-traumatization. Others allow individual witnesses to object to being filmed, and the judge must honor the objection. When cameras are permitted but a specific witness needs protection, courts sometimes obscure the person’s image on the broadcast feed, or shut the camera off entirely during that testimony.
Keeping Jurors Off Camera
Camera operators are almost universally prohibited from filming jurors. People who have to decide whether someone goes to prison shouldn’t have to worry about being recognized at the grocery store, receiving threats, or facing social pressure. Judges treat violations of this rule harshly.
Fair-Trial Risk
Judges also worry that cameras change behavior. An attorney who knows millions are watching may play to the audience rather than the jury. A witness may become less candid, or more dramatic. When a judge concludes that broadcast coverage could distort the proceedings or prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial, they have the authority to deny the request. The defendant’s constitutional rights outweigh the media’s interest in broadcasting.
The 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial is the reference point for a lot of this caution. Broadcast gavel-to-gavel, it drew sharp criticism that cameras had turned the courtroom into a spectacle. Judges in several high-profile cases that followed cited the Simpson proceedings as their reason for barring cameras, and some states tightened their rules in response.
The Type of Case Matters
Beyond witness protection, certain categories of cases almost never get televised because other interests override the presumption of openness.
National security cases are the clearest example. When classified information is at issue, courtrooms may be sealed entirely, with no public or media access during sensitive portions. Trade secret litigation produces a similar result: companies fighting over proprietary technology don’t want their secrets broadcast to competitors. Courts prefer less restrictive alternatives, like sealing specific exhibits while keeping the rest of the trial open, and treat full courtroom closure as a drastic measure. But when those alternatives aren’t sufficient, closure is available.
Judges can also issue gag orders restricting what trial participants say to the media outside court. Those orders must be narrowly tailored. Restricting a lawyer’s public comments requires a showing that the speech poses a “substantial likelihood of causing material prejudice” to the proceedings. Restricting a criminal defendant’s own speech requires the highest level of justification: only a significant and imminent threat to the administration of justice will do. Gag orders cannot be used to shield judges or prosecutors from criticism.
The Constitutional Backdrop
The reason states can televise trials at all traces to two Supreme Court decisions. In Estes v. Texas (1965), the Court reversed a fraud conviction after finding that heavy television coverage denied the defendant due process, and for the next fifteen years the ruling cast a long shadow over courtroom broadcasting.3Supreme Court of the United States. Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) Then Chandler v. Florida (1981) changed the landscape. The Court ruled 8-0 that there was no empirical evidence showing the “mere presence of the broadcast media inherently has an adverse effect” on trial fairness, and that states were free to experiment with camera access.4Justia. Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981) Within a few years, state after state adopted rules permitting broadcast coverage of trials.
The underlying presumption that trials be open comes from two different sources. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused a “speedy and public trial.”5Congress.gov. U.S. Constitution – Sixth Amendment And in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980), the Supreme Court held that the public and the press have their own First Amendment right to attend criminal trials.6Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) A right to attend, however, is not the same as a right to broadcast, which is why the camera question remains for each judge to answer.
Appeals Courts and the Supreme Court
At the federal appellate level, things loosen slightly. In 1996, the Judicial Conference authorized each federal court of appeals to decide for itself whether to permit camera coverage of oral arguments. The Second and Ninth Circuits adopted camera guidelines that year, and the Third Circuit followed in 2017.2United States Courts. History of Cameras, Broadcasting, and Remote Public Access in Courts
The Supreme Court itself has never allowed video cameras during oral arguments. It provides same-day audio recordings, and since the 2020 pandemic sessions it has offered live audio through its website.7Supreme Court of the United States. Live Oral Argument Audio You can listen to the Supreme Court in real time. You cannot watch it.
Streaming and Remote Access
The pandemic pushed courts to rethink how the public watches proceedings. Federal courts temporarily allowed remote audio and video access during the emergency; the criminal-case permissions authorized under the CARES Act ended in May 2023. The Judicial Conference then adopted a revised policy in September 2023 permanently allowing judges in civil and bankruptcy cases to provide live audio access to non-trial proceedings that don’t involve witness testimony.8United States Courts. Judicial Conference Revises Policy to Expand Remote Audio Access Over Its Pre-COVID Policy
Some state courts have gone further and live-stream proceedings on platforms like YouTube. Coverage varies by courtroom even within the same courthouse, but the practical result is that more trials are watchable from home than ever before, with or without a television network making the decision.
One Thing You Can’t Do
If you attend a trial and pull out your phone to record, you are risking a contempt of court charge. The rules that let news outlets broadcast exist because those outlets went through a formal approval process, agreed to specific conditions, and operate under the judge’s ongoing supervision. Most courthouses require electronic devices to be turned off or silenced, and many prohibit bringing camera-equipped devices into the courtroom at all without prior approval. Penalties can include fines, confiscation of the device, and jail time.