Courts have sketch artists instead of cameras because federal courtrooms and the U.S. Supreme Court prohibit photography and broadcasting during proceedings, and have done so for most of the last century. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 has banned cameras from federal criminal trials since 1946, and the Supreme Court has never allowed a camera through its doors. Sketches are the workaround for a restriction the legal system has repeatedly chosen to keep in place.
The Rule That Keeps Cameras Out
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 states that a court “must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom,” with narrow exceptions only where another statute or rule specifically allows it.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 53 – Courtroom Photographing and Broadcasting Prohibited The rule has existed since the federal criminal rules were first adopted in 1946.2United States Courts. History of Cameras, Broadcasting, and Remote Public Access in Courts
In 1972, the Judicial Conference of the United States went further, adopting a blanket prohibition on broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing proceedings in courtrooms and adjacent areas. That prohibition covered both criminal and civil cases across the federal system.2United States Courts. History of Cameras, Broadcasting, and Remote Public Access in Courts Reporters can walk in, sit in the gallery, take notes, and sketch. They cannot bring a camera.
Why the Ban Exists
The restriction is a reaction to specific disasters, not an abstract preference. In the 1930s, the trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann for the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh’s son turned into a media spectacle. Hundreds of reporters packed the courtroom, climbed on counsel’s table, and shoved flashbulbs in witnesses’ faces. The chaos helped push the American Bar Association to recommend banning cameras from courtrooms entirely, a position that held for decades.
Two Supreme Court decisions cemented the legal reasoning. In 1965, the Court reversed the conviction of financier Billie Sol Estes, finding that televising a criminal trial violated the defendant’s right to due process. The majority concluded that cameras inevitably affect every participant in a trial, from the judge and attorneys to witnesses and jurors, and that a criminal trial exists to reach a fair and reliable determination of guilt. Nothing that seriously threatens to divert it from that purpose, the Court said, could be tolerated.3Library of Congress. U.S. Reports: Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965)
The following year, in Sheppard v. Maxwell, the Court reversed a murder conviction because the trial judge had failed to control a media frenzy that permeated the proceeding. That decision reinforced the idea that judges have an affirmative duty to manage press access and courtroom conditions to protect fair-trial rights.
Together those cases built the current federal philosophy: cameras change the behavior of everyone in the room, and the risk to a fair trial outweighs the public’s interest in watching along.
State Courts Took a Different Path
In 1981, the Supreme Court drew an important line in Chandler v. Florida. While the earlier cases established that cameras could violate a defendant’s rights, Chandler held that the Constitution does not prohibit a state from experimenting with camera access, as long as the presiding judge retains authority to control proceedings, ensure decorum, and protect fair administration of justice.4Justia Law. Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981)
States walked through that opening. Today, 49 states and the District of Columbia permit at least some audio-visual coverage of court proceedings. The scope varies: some states allow cameras in both trial and appellate courts with few restrictions, while others limit coverage to appellate arguments or require all parties to consent. Judges in most states can still exclude cameras when they believe recording would interfere with a fair trial or endanger a participant.
That is why state murder trials often reach the evening news as live footage, not sketches. The sketch artist’s natural habitat is the federal system, where the camera ban holds for criminal proceedings, and the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never budged.
The Supreme Court Has Never Allowed a Camera
The Supreme Court has never in its history permitted live television or radio coverage of its open proceedings.5Congress.gov. S. Rept. 110-448 – A Bill to Permit the Televising of Supreme Court Proceedings It did not begin recording oral arguments on audiotape until 1955, and those tapes were originally restricted to research and teaching purposes. The Court has occasionally released same-day audio for high-profile cases in recent decades, but the practice has been discretionary and inconsistent.
Congress has tried to force the question. Legislation requiring the Court to allow television coverage has been introduced in multiple sessions, including the Cameras in the Courtroom Act in the 119th Congress.6Congress.gov. 119th Congress (2025-2026): Cameras in the Courtroom Act None of those bills has passed. The justices themselves have generally opposed cameras, citing concerns about sound bites being taken out of context and about oral arguments turning into performances rather than genuine exchanges. Every major Supreme Court case still gets illustrated by someone sitting in the press gallery with pastels and a sketchpad.
Why the Rule Hasn’t Changed
The federal judiciary has not entirely ignored the pressure to modernize. In 2010, the Judicial Conference approved a pilot project to evaluate the effect of cameras in federal district courtrooms. The pilot was limited to civil proceedings, participation was voluntary for judges and litigants, and recordings of jury members were prohibited.7United States Courts. Judiciary Approves Pilot Project for Cameras in District Courts Despite generally positive findings, the Judicial Conference did not extend the program to criminal cases.
The COVID-19 pandemic produced a sharper shift. In March 2020, the Judicial Conference approved a temporary exception to its broadcast policy, allowing judges to authorize teleconferencing for public and media audio access when courthouse access was restricted for health reasons.8United States Courts. Judiciary Authorizes Video/Audio Access During COVID-19 Pandemic The CARES Act further allowed chief district judges to authorize video or telephone conferencing for certain criminal proceedings with the defendant’s consent. These were explicitly temporary measures, set to expire when the Judicial Conference determined that emergency conditions no longer materially affected the courts.
The pandemic showed that remote audio and video access was technically feasible and did not obviously undermine proceedings. The temporary authorizations expired anyway, and the federal judiciary returned to its default. Criminal proceedings in federal court remain closed to cameras. The Judicial Conference has repeatedly declined to amend Rule 53, including rejecting a proposed 1994 amendment that would have allowed cameras in criminal proceedings under Conference guidelines.2United States Courts. History of Cameras, Broadcasting, and Remote Public Access in Courts
What a Sketch Artist Actually Does
Courtroom sketch artists are not casual observers. In federal courts, they need credentials. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, for example, requires artists to obtain a sketch artist pass before drawing in any courtroom, overflow room, or media room, and to contact the court’s media liaison before attending any proceeding to confirm access and seating. The court can limit the number of artists present for reasons of space and security.9United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Sketch Artist Policy (Effective: October 11, 2023)
The work itself demands speed. Artists typically use soft pastels or colored pencils on toned paper, which lets them build up color quickly under deadline pressure. A sketch might take anywhere from a few minutes for a reaction shot to an hour or more for a detailed scene. The challenge is capturing recognizable likenesses, meaningful gestures, and courtroom geography from a fixed seat that often does not give a clear view of every face. Media outlets need images before deadlines, and key moments in trial do not pause for the artist to finish.
Most sketch artists work as freelancers, hired by television networks, wire services, or newspapers on a per-trial basis. The field is small. It exists at the size it does because of a single institutional fact: federal judges, as a group, believe cameras change behavior inside their courtrooms, and the risk to fair-trial rights outweighs the transparency benefits. That belief has survived every legislative and procedural challenge thrown at it for nearly 80 years. Until it stops, there will be someone in the press gallery with a sketchpad.