Members of Congress on Thursday resumed a long-fruitless struggle to require the U.S. Supreme Court to broadcast hearings by holding a press conference on the court's steps.

Reform-minded lawmakers said at their kickoff press conference for the Eyes on the Courts Act that the court is wrong to ban video recordings, and that transcripts and audio recordings do not sufficiently inform and engage the public.

The new and relatively straightforward bill would require the high court and federal appeals courts to allow video recordings with rare exceptions. Guidelines would be established and judges could block broadcasts if they deem doing so would be in the interest of justice.



“These are important parts of our history,” said Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., noting overwhelming public support for airing Supreme Court hearings on TV.

A Gallup poll in 2011 found 72 percent of Americans favor the change. McLaughlin and Associates found 74 percent support last year.

“How is it that we can keep up with the Kardashians, but we cannot keep up with the Supreme Court?” joked Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., sponsor of a similar bill called the Cameras in the Courtroom Act, was more indignant.

“This building behind us does not house the Oracle of Delphi,” he fumed, saying what he saw as an “antiquated druidic approach” to cameras by justices is “simply not appropriate for a contemporary democracy.”



Connolly alone among the lawmakers was receptive to the idea of civil disobedience by members of the public to help publicize the issue.

Last year and again in January, activists posted secretly recorded footage of Supreme Court hearings online. Before that, only two photos were believed to exist of the court in session, both taken in the 1930s, University of Georgia law professor Sonja West wrote in 2012.

“We have a long tradition of civil disobedience in America,” Connolly said, and the Supreme Court’s camera ban “invites civil disobedience … especially given the technology that now exists.”



It’s “very easy,” Connolly said, to sneak a camera into the courtroom and violate the ban.

The press conference also featured representatives from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the group Fix the Court.

In public statements, justices have expressed concern that broadcasting hearings might lead to grandstanding by attorneys or confusion among the public – worries dismissed by reform backers.

After the press conference, Connolly told U.S. News he personally has no plans to commit an act of civil disobedience inside the court, but that he believes justices “have brought it on themselves” if such activism happens with a policy that “smacks of elitism and condescension.”

Members of Congress, he added, “violate our laws all the time” and take calculated risks in doing so.