Health care case adds pressure for cameras in Supreme Court

WASHINGTON -- Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a dispute over the federal health care law, the justices are facing the strongest challenge to their ban on televised hearings.

Members of Congress and news industry leaders have asked the court to allow the televising of oral arguments, to be held over five and a half hours during two days in March.

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll found that 72% of the people surveyed think the justices should allow cameras for those arguments. Several polls in the past decade have shown majority support for televising the court's arguments, in general.

The pressure from Congress, which included a Senate hearing last week on legislation that would require the televising of most arguments, and from outside interests following the health care case, could present a turning point in breaking down justices' resistance to cameras.

"I can't think of another case in recent years, except Bush v. Gore, that has generated so much public interest," says Sally Rider, former administrative assistant to Chief Justices William Rehnquist and John Roberts and now a University of Arizona law professor, referring to the 2000 Florida election case. "Now that I'm away from the court," Rider added, "it's incredible how often I hear people talk about wanting to see oral arguments. When they find out they're not on TV, they are shocked." Yet Rider cautioned that the justices might think if they say yes to televising the health care controversy, they would be pressured to open other arguments.

"I think it's inevitable that we'll have cameras in the court. The question is when," says New York University law professor Barry Friedman, who studies the judiciary and public attitudes. "This case would be a wonderful, object lesson in the work of the court."

At the core of the health care overhaul signed by President Obama in March 2010 is a requirement that most Americans buy insurance by 2014 or face a tax penalty. The legislation also expands Medicaid eligibility and is intended, overall, to bring new health coverage to more than 30 million Americans. The day after the justices announced they would hear the constitutional challenges brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, C-SPAN Chairman Brian Lamb wrote to Chief Justice Roberts asking that the cable company be allowed to televise the oral arguments.

"It is a case which will affect every American's life, our economy, and will certainly be an issue in the upcoming presidential campaign," Lamb said in his Nov. 15 letter.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., among the members of Congress who have long encouraged television in the courtroom, immediately endorsed the request.

In an interview, Lamb stressed the public-education value of televising arguments and noted that C-SPAN shows events in their entirety so that viewers get the full context.

Lamb acknowledged that a snippet of an oral argument could be aired elsewhere and ridiculed, as some of the justices, including Antonin Scalia, have said they fear. But, Lamb said, referring to Comedy Central's The Daily Show, "Jon Stewart already can make fun of them, and does."

The judiciary is the only branch of the federal government not subject to regular TV coverage. C-SPAN came to the House of Representatives in 1979, and the Senate in 1986. The administration regularly allows broadcast of briefings and presidential speeches.