The Court’s shift to telephonic oral arguments shows how substantially pandemic conditions have forced institutions to make accommodations in order to function in our new reality. In-person meetings are now conducted via videoconferencing; the messaging platform Slack enables team members to communicate with one another while working remotely. Going back to the old ways will be difficult.

At least as far as the Court is concerned, we shouldn’t go back. The Court’s switch to live-streamed oral arguments is an important and welcome concession to the current climate, but it is a move that should have happened well before a global pandemic demanded it. Even before the coronavirus, congressional proceedings were aired over C-SPAN, and the president, governors, and other government officials routinely appear on various news programs. Of the three branches of government, the Court is perhaps the least transparent, remaining doggedly shrouded from public view.

Why should this be the case? As much as Congress or the president, the Court serves an important function in our democracy. Indeed, the cases now slated for telephonic conferences concern a variety of issues of great public significance, including the scope of exemptions to the terms of the Affordable Care Act, and whether federal and state officials may subpoena the president’s financial records. The Court’s work shapes Americans’ lives in ways both profound and mundane. Yet most Americans are given relatively few opportunities to see or hear the Court at work.

Garrett Epps: The Supreme Court has chosen reckless partisanship

We are all adapting to pandemic conditions. When this crisis passes, we will sort through the rubble, deciding which pandemic-era practices to maintain, and which to abandon in favor of the old, familiar ways. The Court’s new transparency is a necessary accommodation of a global catastrophe, but public understanding and appreciation of the Court’s work are also necessary preconditions for bolstering and maintaining a healthy and thriving democracy. Given the opportunity to show its work to the American people, the Court cannot—and should not—go back.

This story is part of the project “The Battle for the Constitution,” in partnership with the National Constitution Center.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.