Can You Film in Court? Cameras in Courtroom Rules

Can you film in court? The short answer

It depends on the court. Federal courts mostly bar recording, photographing, and broadcasting of proceedings for public release ^[1]. State courts vary widely ^[2].

Treat permission as step one in any courtroom. Ask first, in writing if you can, and never assume a camera or recorder is welcome ^[3].

This guide covers the federal rules, the exceptions, devices and social media, the constitutional question, and how state rules differ. It ends with a step-by-step list for asking permission. It is general information, not legal advice.

What do federal courts allow?

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 sets the baseline for criminal cases. It says that, unless a statute or the rules provide otherwise, a federal court must not permit photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or broadcasting of them ^[4].

This is not new. The federal judiciary says Rule 53 has expressly barred electronic media coverage of federal criminal proceedings since the criminal rules were adopted in 1946 ^[5].

Judicial Conference policy reaches civil cases too. Except as the policy itself authorizes, it does not allow civil or criminal proceedings in federal district courts to be broadcast, televised, recorded, or photographed for public dissemination ^[1].

Why the caution? After a three-year experiment, the Judicial Conference said it concluded that the intimidating effect of cameras on some witnesses and jurors was cause for concern ^[1]. The federal judiciary says the 2011-2015 federal cameras pilot covered civil cases only ^[5].

Document · U.S. Courts (Judicial Conference of the United States)

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 10, Ch. 4: Cameras in the Courtroom

Open at uscourts.gov

Document from U.S. Courts (Judicial Conference of the United States). Open at uscourts.gov. Content from uscourts.gov loads only if you click.

What exceptions exist in federal court?

The federal rules have a few narrow openings. Do not read them as a general permission.

Ceremonies are one. The policy lets a judge authorize broadcasting, recording, or photographs in the courtroom and adjacent areas during investitive, naturalization, or other ceremonial proceedings ^[1].

Appeals are another. The policy lets each court of appeals decide locally whether to permit cameras in its appellate courtrooms ^[1]. The federal judiciary says the Second (1996), Third (2017), and Ninth (1996) Circuit Courts of Appeals adopted rules and guidelines allowing camera coverage ^[5].

Audio is a third. The federal judiciary says all courts of appeals have livestreamed audio of oral arguments and made audio recordings available to the public ^[5].

Remote audio also exists in trial courts, in a limited form. A judge presiding over a civil or bankruptcy non-trial proceeding may, at the judge's discretion, authorize live remote public audio access to any part of the proceeding in which a witness is not testifying ^[1].

That policy does not create any right of a party or the public to live remote audio access ^[1]. Whether you get access is the judge's call.

What about phones, laptops, and social media?

Bringing a phone into a courtroom is not the same as being allowed to record with it. The federal judiciary's device guidance repeats that broadcasting of district court proceedings is prohibited under Judicial Conference policy ^[6].

The same guidance notes that some federal judges have allowed media to use social media for text-based coverage from designated locations ^[6]. It also says no judge it described has allowed media to use recording functions such as video, audio, or photographs ^[6].

So if you cover a federal case, plan for notes and text. Ask the court in advance what, if anything, you may post and from where ^[6].

Before you contact a clerk, decide how you will show who you are and which outlet or project you work for. Our guide to press credentials for independent reporters covers one option. Whatever ID you carry, you still need the court's approval before you bring a device in ^[3].

Is there a constitutional right to film in court?

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press says jurisdictions vary widely and that the issue is governed by state law rather than a constitutional access right ^[2].

The Supreme Court's decision in Chandler v. Florida (1981) points the same way. It held that the Constitution does not prohibit a state from experimenting with a program of electronic media coverage like Florida's ^[7]. That means the Constitution does not bar states from experimenting with camera programs in their courtrooms ^[7]. It does not tell you that you may bring one.

The highest court in the country sets its own rule. A Congressional Research Service report, updated in 2019, says the U.S. Supreme Court does not allow the use of any type of camera within its courtroom ^[8]. Check the Court's current practice before you rely on that.

Video from C-SPAN. Open at youtube.com. Content from youtube.com loads only if you click.

Why do state court rules vary?

Each state sets its own rules. A Congressional Research Service report, updated in 2019, says all 50 state supreme courts allow video cameras under certain conditions. It adds that many states allow cameras in trial and appellate proceedings ^[8]. Treat that as background, not a promise about your courthouse.

Conditions are where the differences show up. A few examples show the range.

California. Under California Rule of Court 1.150, courts have discretion to approve or deny a media request to photograph, videotape, or record a proceeding ^[2]. You ask, and the judge decides.

New York. The Reporters Committee's New York entry quotes the state's highest court saying that, under the statute at issue, what the press cannot do is bring cameras into the courtroom ^[2].

Oregon. The Oregon Judicial Department says courts generally allow the media to bring electronic devices into the courtroom ^[3]. It also says you must get approval from the court before doing so ^[3].

Oregon's guidance adds a point many reporters miss. Permission to record or write electronically does not automatically include permission to transmit that recording or writing ^[3]. Ask about posting and live broadcasting as a separate question.

For other states, start with the Reporters Committee's Open Courts Compendium and then check your state's court rules ^[2].

Which proceedings may be off limits?

Even where cameras are welcome, some proceedings may be closed to recording. Oregon's guidance lists voir dire, or jury selection, among the situations where recording is never allowed ^[3].

It also lists proceedings related to sex crimes, if the victim has requested no recording ^[3]. Other states may draw their lines elsewhere, so check your own state's rule ^[2].

If you are unsure whether a hearing is covered, ask the clerk or the judge's staff before you bring anything in. Asking costs you nothing. A mistake can cost you a lot ^[2].

How do you ask for permission to record or cover a proceeding?

Courts handle requests differently, so follow the local process. These steps hold up in most places.

1. Identify the court. Federal district courts bar recording and photographing for public dissemination unless the policy authorizes it ^[1]. Your state's rule governs state courts ^[2].
2. Read the rule that applies. Jurisdictions vary widely, so do not rely on what a court in another state allows ^[2].
3. Ask for approval before you bring any device. Oregon's guidance says you must obtain court approval first ^[3].
4. Ask about publishing as a separate question. Permission to record does not automatically include permission to transmit ^[3].
5. If you want text coverage in federal court, ask which locations the judge will designate. Some judges have allowed social media coverage from designated spots ^[6].
6. Expect limits. Some proceedings, such as jury selection, may be closed to recording ^[3].
7. Keep the approval. Write down who said yes, what they allowed, and when.

A short, specific request works best. Name your outlet or project, the case, the date, and exactly what gear you plan to use. If you work independently, you can join the National Press Association as an independent reporter to document your work. Membership does not give you a right to record or any special standing with a court. The court still decides what you may bring in ^[3].

What are the risks, and when should you get a lawyer?

Recording without permission can cost you. The Reporters Committee reports that in California, knowingly recording any part of a court proceeding without the court's authorization can bring sanctions or a contempt citation ^[2]. Your jurisdiction may have its own penalties, so check before you assume the rules are lenient ^[2].

Federal courts are stricter on recording, photographing, and broadcasting what happens in the courtroom. No judge described in the federal device guidance has allowed media to use video, audio, or photographs ^[6]. A phone in your pocket is not a license to use it.

Get a lawyer if a court threatens contempt, if you are unsure what a gag or sealing order covers, or if you have already recorded something and are unsure whether you may publish it. Do this before you act. Also check your state's law, because the rules vary widely ^[2].

If you need legal help, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press runs a Legal Hotline for journalists and media lawyers ^[9].