Home Supreme Court Criticisms What Are Secret Proceedings

What Are Secret Proceedings

What Are Secret Proceedings

Introduction

The Supreme Court of the United States is an institution that holds immense influence over American society. It consists of nine justices who are appointed for life and who make decisions that shape the country’s laws and policies for decades to come. However, not all of the court’s proceedings are publicly accessible. Some cases are conducted in secret, and the details of these cases are never made public. In this article, we will explore the concept of secret proceedings in the Supreme Court, why they happen, and their impact on American democracy.

What are Secret Proceedings in the Supreme Court?

Secret proceedings in the Supreme Court are cases that are heard and decided without public knowledge or scrutiny. These cases are rare, but they do occur from time to time. The most common type of secret proceedings in the Supreme Court involves receiving briefs or other filings from the parties that are kept confidential. This happens when one or both parties to a case submit information that they consider too sensitive to be publicly revealed.

Why do Secret Proceedings Happen?

Secret proceedings in the Supreme Court take place for a variety of reasons. One common reason is to protect the privacy of individuals or organizations that are involved in sensitive matters. For example, cases involving national security issues or matters related to trade secrets may require secrecy. In these cases, the parties may want to protect their confidential information from public scrutiny or from becoming part of the public record.
Another reason why secret proceedings happen is to avoid political controversy or pressure. The Supreme Court is an inherently political institution, and its decisions have the potential to significantly impact American society. Some cases, such as those involving controversial social issues like abortion or affirmative action, can be highly polarizing. By conducting proceedings in secret, the court can avoid public backlash or pressure from interest groups.

The Impact of Secret Proceedings on American Democracy

The use of secret proceedings in the Supreme Court has significant implications for American democracy. One of the key principles of democracy is transparency, which requires an open and accountable government. When the Supreme Court conducts proceedings in secret, it undermines this principle, which can erode public trust and confidence in the government.
Another impact of secret proceedings is the lack of accountability. When cases are heard and decided in secret, there is no way for the public or the press to hold the justices accountable for their decisions. This lack of accountability is contrary to the principles of checks and balances that underpin American democracy.
Finally, secret proceedings can have a chilling effect on free speech and the free flow of information. When parties to a case are required to keep information confidential, it may discourage them from engaging in robust and open debate, which is vital to a healthy democracy.

Calls for reform

In recent years, there has been growing concern over the use of secret proceedings in the Supreme Court. Some legal scholars and advocacy groups have called for greater transparency and accountability in the court’s proceedings. One proposal is to require the court to provide public notice when it receives confidential filings or conducts secret proceedings. This would allow for greater public scrutiny and help to ensure that the court is conducting its business in a responsible and accountable manner.
Another proposal is to limit the use of secret proceedings to only the most extraordinary circumstances, such as cases involving national security issues or trade secrets. This would help to strike a balance between the need for confidentiality and the need for transparency and accountability.

Conclusion

The use of secret proceedings in the Supreme Court is a complex issue that raises important questions about transparency, accountability, and the role of the judiciary in American democracy. While there are legitimate reasons for conducting proceedings in secret, it is important to ensure that the court is accountable to the public and that its decisions are made in accordance with democratic principles. As calls for reform continue to grow, it is up to legal scholars, advocacy groups, and the American public to push for greater transparency and accountability in the highest court in the land.

The Federal Supreme Court has had a long history of keeping its inner workings and proceedings secret from the media and the general public. The media has struggled to cover the Supreme Courts, as records which are released of the cases come in the form of occasional public events and brief printed releases, not revealing the pending cases and processes that take place behind closed doors.

The extreme secrecy of the Federal Supreme Court has been considered to be a serious problem, hurting the general public who know little about the Court justices that have such an abundance of power over their liberties. In the later years of the 2000s, however, the view of the Federal Supreme Court has changed quite drastically. Current justices have taken a more open approach, writing books, becoming more open to journalists, and even appearing on television.

It is quite apparent that the closed doors and secrecy of the Supreme Courts are beginning to change. In fact, many reporters believe that the Supreme Court has become an open institution with the only secret meetings occurring during private Justice conferences.

Justice Antonin Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia of the Federal Supreme Court is a prime example of the Court’s shift from secrecy and lack of public openness to a slightly more open system of communication. A social conservative, Scalia was one of the Justices of the Supreme Court which voted to cease the Florida recount during the 2000 election, a decision which led to the victory of George W. Bush.

Justice Scalia, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan, has been notorious for shunning the media and ignoring their requests for information while citing his First Amendment right to keep quiet when it comes to media attention. He has ignored reporters in the past who have approached him and even had his security team erase tapes recording one of his speeches.

In 2008, however, Scalia has begun a more open policy toward the media, due to encouragement and pressure from his children and because of the release of his book. He has spoken to the BBC in London and even hosted a question and answer session with a local high school, which was also broadcasted live on television.

Even so, Scalia continues to criticize media coverage and has expressed his arguments against broadcasting court proceedings on television. His reasoning was his concern that a broadcast network would only air certain clips of the proceedings, instead of what really happened in the Supreme Courts, deeming this practice a “miseducation of the American people.”

C-SPAN

C-SPAN (Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network) is an American cable television network, which was created to air governmental meetings and public affair gatherings. Owned by the National Cable Satellite Corporation, C-SPAN does not accept funding from outside advertisers or funding from governmental agencies.

C-SPAN airs non-stop political programming for cable subscribers. It has aired such proceedings from the Senate and the United States House of Representatives on its three main channels, but as of yet, has not aired any footage of the proceedings of the Supreme Court.

C-SPAN has made several requests over the years to the United States Supreme Court to allow camera access inside during deliberations, though each request has been denied. C-SPAN, however, has been given access to certain audiotapes of key trials that have taken place behind the closed doors of the Federal Supreme Court for airing on the network. In addition, C-SPAN has also been given permission to air individual Supreme Court Justices’ speech engagements.

There has, however, been a growing concern over permission to air certain audio tapes recording during Supreme Court deliberation and the Supreme Court’s diminishing transparency to C-SPAN. From 2000 until 2010, the court has granted access to a total of 21 audio tapes to be aired, while 25 of the requests were denied. In 2009, seven out of the nine which were requested were also denied.

So far, as of 2010, every request for audio recordings has been denied. This has so far been an inverse trend to the media’s claim that the Supreme Courts have begun opening the doors to the public and increasing access to certain information. Reaction to C-SPAN’s failed efforts was mostly negative, with blame largely aimed at the Justices of the Federal Supreme Court and their use of secrecy as a shield to prevent their decisions from being scrutinized.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR