US Judiciary Panel Recommends No Change on Courtroom Camera Ban

A judiciary panel has recommended against revising a rule that prohibits broadcasting of federal criminal trials, following a push to permit cameras ahead of potential trials involving former President Donald Trump.

Members of a subcommittee created last year to study the issue raised concerns that allowing criminal trials to be broadcast “would have a negative effect on witnesses and victims in criminal cases” and “stressed the need for a cautious approach to broadcasting in criminal cases,” according to a recently published October memo to the full committee.

Panel members cited examples of cases involving sexual abuse, gangs, and confidential informants where broadcasting could chill witness cooperation. And they worried the policy allowing audio broadcasting of some civil cases is too new to expand to the criminal context.

The panel said if there is “continued interest” in broadcasting criminal cases, the issue could be revisited after enough time has passed for that policy change to be formally reviewed.

The memo, dated Oct. 9, was authored by Professors Sara Sun Beale of Duke University School of Law and Nancy King of the Vanderbilt University Law School, reporters for the Judicial Conference’s advisory committee on criminal rules, and included in materials released ahead of the committee’s scheduled meeting next month.

The subcommittee studying the prohibition of televising criminal trials was created last year following calls by media organizations and politicians to allow Trump’s criminal trials to be broadcast.

Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records in a New York state court earlier this year. He also faces charges related to election obstruction in a Georgia state court and Washington federal trial court. The 2024 contender won’t face trial on the other charges before the election.

The panel’s recommendation against changing the camera ban will likely have little effect on those trials regardless. Committee members said at a meeting last year that under the judiciary’s process, any changes to the ban wouldn’t take effect in December 2026 at the earliest, and likely even later.