lawrota.com

In a digital age that champions transparency and instant access to information, one of the most powerful institutions in the United States—the Supreme Court—continues to lag behind. Despite livestreaming oral arguments since 2020, the Court still refrains from offering real-time audio access to one of its most consequential functions: the public announcement of its opinions.

This gap was on full display on May 15, when the Court heard Trump v. CASA, Inc., a case that questions the legality of an executive order by former President Trump targeting birthright citizenship. On the same day, the justices issued a unanimous opinion in Barnes v. Felix, a case addressing the use of deadly force by a police officer—a topic that sparks national debate. While anyone could listen live to the arguments in CASA, the decision in Barnes remained an in-person privilege for the few who could secure a seat inside the courtroom.

This discrepancy raises an urgent call: Why should the public have to wait months for access to audio of rulings that reshape American law and life?

The Case for Livestreaming SCOTUS Opinions

The COVID-19 pandemic ushered in a new era of openness for the Court when it began livestreaming oral arguments in 2020. This practice has continued, offering the public a front-row seat to the deliberative process behind major legal decisions. Yet, when the justices deliver their final rulings, the audio is withheld—available only to those present in the courtroom, or released months later through the National Archives.

The current system creates an unnecessary divide between what is said in the courtroom and what the public hears in real time. The written opinion may be posted promptly on the Court’s website, but text alone lacks the nuance of vocal tone, emotional emphasis, and judicial demeanor. It’s often in these oral deliveries that the justices’ passions, warnings, and jurisprudential philosophies are most evident.

The Importance of Oral Delivery in Judicial Opinions

Oral opinion announcements are not scripted recitations of the written text. They are living performances—complete with inflection, improvisation, and symbolic weight. For example, in the famous dissent of Citizens United v. FEC, Justice John Paul Stevens reportedly stumbled through phrases like “corporation” and “corruption,” a delivery that spoke volumes about his frustration. Or consider Justice Hugo Black’s trembling dissent in Brown v. Louisiana—a moment lost to history because there was no livestreamed record.

These non-verbal cues matter. They communicate judicial urgency, emotional stakes, and rhetorical framing. In some cases, like Miranda v. Arizona or Parents Involved v. Seattle School District, the justices even ad-lib from the bench—adding comments not found in the written record. These off-script remarks often highlight a deeper judicial philosophy or pointed critique, and they deserve public visibility.

Transparency Is a Constitutional Virtue

The call to livestream opinions isn’t just about access—it’s about aligning with foundational democratic principles. As Judge Don Willett of the Fifth Circuit once noted, government proceedings in a republic are presumed to be transparent. The Supreme Court’s refusal to offer real-time audio of opinion announcements contradicts that presumption.

In The Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton lamented the geographic divide between the people and their government. He recognized that many Americans lacked “personal observation” and had to rely on secondhand accounts. Today, with audio technology and livestreaming tools at our fingertips, the Supreme Court has the power—and the responsibility—to bridge that gap.

No Substantive Argument Against Livestreaming Remains

Some justices have previously expressed concern that livestreaming could alter behavior or encourage grandstanding. But this concern is speculative at best. Years of livestreamed oral arguments have shown no meaningful deterioration in judicial decorum. If anything, it has helped demystify the Court and make it more accessible to law students, practicing attorneys, journalists, and the broader public.

Moreover, opinion announcements are not secret or sensitive briefings. They are already read aloud to a room full of spectators and media. Livestreaming wouldn’t change the message—only expand the audience.

A Defining Moment for Civic Engagement

As the Court prepares to issue decisions in cases involving LGBTQ+ books in public schools, tax exemptions for religious institutions, and online age-verification laws, it’s imperative that the public not just read about these rulings but hear them as they are delivered. In real time.

To relegate opinion audio to the archives until the next term is not only antiquated—it’s undemocratic. It denies Americans a direct experience with the decisions that shape their rights, responsibilities, and lives.

For a court that holds the final say on the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s refusal to livestream opinion announcements is more than a missed opportunity. It’s a misalignment with the very values of openness and accountability that the judiciary is meant to uphold.

It’s time to let the people listen.

#SCOTUS #LegalTransparency #SupremeCourt #JudicialReform #LivestreamJustice #LegalAccess #OpenGovernment #CourtOpinions #LawInRealTime #LegalCommunity

Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/the-supreme-court-should-livestream-opinion-announcements/