Technical corrections only. The diff updates the bill's legislative status from "Introduced in Senate" to "Reported in Senate" and adds a calendar number and reporting date. No substantive policy changes were made to the bill's text.
Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 23, 2026
Bottom line
The bill expands media access to federal courts, increasing transparency while implementing specific protections for participants and a trial period for district courts.
What it actually does
This bill grants presiding judges in federal appellate and district courts the discretion to permit photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising of court proceedings. It includes significant safeguards, such as requiring the obscuring of non-party witnesses' faces and voices upon request in district courts, prohibiting coverage of jurors, and mandating the Judicial Conference to develop guidelines for vulnerable witnesses. The authority for district courts is set to expire after three years.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that allowing cameras in federal courts will enhance public understanding of the judicial process, foster greater transparency, and hold the judiciary more accountable to the public. They contend that the proposed safeguards are sufficient to protect due process rights and the integrity of court proceedings.
Opponents contend
Opponents typically express concerns that media coverage could lead to grandstanding by attorneys, intimidate witnesses, or create a 'circus-like' atmosphere that undermines the solemnity and fairness of judicial proceedings. They worry that even with safeguards, the presence of cameras could compromise due process and the search for truth.
The bill is concise and easily readable, allowing for quick comprehension of its core provisions and implications.
Section 2(b)(1)
Discretionary Media Coverage in Federal Appellate Courts
This provision grants the presiding judge of any federal appellate court, including the Supreme Court, the discretion to permit media coverage (photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising) of court proceedings. This authority is limited if the judge, or a majority of judges in a multi-judge proceeding, determines that such coverage would violate the due process rights of any party involved.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision enhances transparency and public understanding of the judicial process, particularly for high-profile cases in appellate courts, without mandating coverage, thus respecting judicial autonomy.
Critics contend
Critics might express concerns about the potential for judges to be influenced by public opinion or for proceedings to become performative, though the bill includes explicit due process safeguards.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's right to observe judicial proceedings with the judiciary's need to maintain decorum and protect the due process rights of all parties.
Section 2(b)(2)
Discretionary Media Coverage in Federal District Courts with Witness Protection
This section grants presiding judges in federal district courts the discretion to allow media coverage of proceedings. However, it includes crucial safeguards: the face and voice of any non-party witness must be obscured upon their request, and witnesses must be informed of this right. It explicitly prohibits media coverage of jurors or the jury selection process. This authority is contingent on the Judicial Conference promulgating mandatory guidelines for vulnerable witnesses and is set to terminate after three years.
Section 2(b)(5)
Judicial Conference Mandate for Vulnerable Witness Guidelines
This provision mandates that the Judicial Conference of the United States must, within six months of the Act's enactment, promulgate mandatory guidelines. These guidelines are specifically for obscuring certain vulnerable witnesses, including crime victims, minor victims, families of victims, cooperating witnesses, undercover law enforcement officers, witnesses under federal protection, and minors under 18 years of age. The guidelines must also include procedures for early identification of such witnesses.
Section 2(b)(7)
Protection of Confidential Courtroom Communications
This provision explicitly prohibits any audio pickup or broadcast of confidential conferences that occur in a court proceeding between attorneys and their clients, between co-counsel, between adverse counsel, or between counsel and the presiding judge, provided these conferences are not part of the official record of the proceedings.
Section 2(b)(2)(D)
Three-Year Sunset for District Court Media Authority
This provision stipulates that the authority granted to federal district courts to permit media coverage will automatically terminate three years after the date of the Act's enactment. This establishes a trial period for the new policy in district courts, allowing for evaluation before any permanent extension.