S. 643Senate115th Congress (2017-2019)In Committee

Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2017

AI-Generated Summary

Updated April 15, 2026 at 1:43 PM UTC

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2017 would let federal judges decide whether to allow photography, recording, broadcasting, or televising of court proceedings. It applies to both appellate courts (including the Supreme Court) and district courts, but includes safeguards to protect due‑process rights, witnesses, jurors, and courtroom security. The Judicial Conference would be required to issue guidelines, especially for vulnerable witnesses, and the authority for district courts would end three years after the law’s enactment.

Key Provisions

Presiding judges in appellate and district courts may, at their discretion, permit media coverage of any proceeding they oversee, unless they determine it would violate a party’s due‑process rights.
In district courts, witnesses (who are not parties) can request that their faces and voices be obscured; judges must inform witnesses of this right.
Jurors and the jury selection process may never be filmed or broadcast.
Judges can also block media coverage if it threatens safety, court security, ongoing investigations, or the interest of justice.
The Judicial Conference must issue mandatory guidelines within six months on how to protect vulnerable witnesses (e.g., victims, minors, undercover agents).
The authority for district courts to allow media coverage expires three years after the law takes effect.
Decisions to allow or deny media coverage cannot be appealed before a final judgment.
Courts may set their own rules and require written acknowledgment from media participants, and they may charge any costs to the media parties.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

1 earlier action

SenateIntro Referral Latest Action

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S1845)

Judiciary Committee

March 15, 2017

View full timeline

SenateIntro Referral

Introduced in Senate

March 15, 2017

SenateIntro Referral

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S1845)

Judiciary Committee

March 15, 2017

Floor Debate

2 members

What members said about S. 643 on the floor

1 Republican1 Democrat

Sen. Jeanne ShaheenD-NH · Mar 15, 2017

Mr. President, I come to the floor again today to speak about a program I have been working on that has had bipartisan support for a number of years; that is, the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa…

Mr. President, I come to the floor again today to speak about a program I have been working on that has had bipartisan support for a number of years; that is, the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program. This program allows Afghans, including interpreters, who have supported the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and who face threats as a result of their service to apply for refuge in the United States. As I said, this has had strong bipartisan support. I have worked with Senators McCain, Tillis, Leahy, Graham, and so many others here in the Chamber to try to make sure we provide enough visas for those Afghans who are being threatened and who want to come to the United States.

I wish to point out that the Trump administration, even as it has sharply restricted immigration and refugee programs, has made exceptions for those who served alongside our soldiers and diplomats. In fact, when the administration's original Executive order on immigration was released, there was bipartisan anger that Iraqi interpreters were not protected because this program has served not just those in Afghanistan who have helped us but also those in Iraq. So the administration recognized its mistake and has made an exception for Iraqi SIV recipients, and now they have exempted Iraq from their Executive order.

It is really past time that we rally renewed support for the Afghan SIV Program. Last week, we learned that the State Department has stopped interviewing applicants for the Afghan program because there are more applicants in the final stages of the process than there are visas. Unless Congress acts, the final visas will be exhausted by the end of May. It is estimated that more than 10,000 applicants are still in some step of the process of obtaining these visas.

For these Afghans, it really is no exaggeration to say that this is a matter of life and death. Interpreters who served the U.S. mission are being systematically hunted down by the Taliban, and unless Congress acts, this program will lapse and we will abandon these Afghans to a harsh fate.

The United States promised to protect those Afghans who served our mission with great loyalty and at enormous risk, and it would be a stain on our national honor to break this promise. It would also carry profound strategic costs. U.S. forces and diplomats have always relied on local people to help us accomplish our missions. We continue to require this assistance in Afghanistan, and we will need this support in other places in the future where we face conflict. So we have to ask, if we don't keep our promise, why would anyone agree to help the United States if we abandon those who assist us? This is exactly why the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, GEN David Petraeus, and his predecessor, GEN Stanley McChrystal, have pleaded with Congress to extend the Afghan SIV Program. In a letter to Congress last year, more than 30 additional prominent generals, including Gen. John Allen, the former commander in Afghanistan, GEN George Casey, the former commander in Iraq, and two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also urged Congress to extend the program.

In addition, our soldiers and marines are keenly interested in protecting the interpreters who served with them in Afghanistan. Many of them owe their lives to the interpreters who went into combat with them. In recent years, I have gotten to know one of those servicemen, a former Army captain, Michael Breen, who is a Granite Stater. He served with the infantry in Iraq and led paratroopers in Afghanistan. He speaks with admiration about one interpreter in particular who was an Iraqi--part of the Iraqi program--a woman in her early twenties who was named Wissam.

On one occasion, Captain Breen and his soldiers were at a small forward operating base in Iraq. He said that a man approached, frantically pointing to his watch and indicating an explosion with his hands. The Americans didn't speak Arabic, so they couldn't tell if the man was trying to warn them or threaten them. Wissam hurried over toward Captain Breen to assist. Wissam was beloved by her American comrades, always cheerful and eager to help. She listened to the man and said that he was actually there warning of an improvised explosive device on the main road.

As Captain Breen later told me, ``A trusted interpreter can be the difference between a successful patrol and a body bag.'' He noted that every night, he and his fellow soldiers would hunker down in their heavily guarded perimeter, but Wissam would leave the compound and go home. One evening after she left the American compound, three gunmen ambushed her car. She was killed--one more interpreter who paid

the ultimate price for serving the American mission. As Captain Breen later said, one day there will be a granite monument with the names of all of the American servicemembers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wissam deserves to have her name on that monument, too, because she took great risks and she gave her life while serving the United States.

To be eligible for a visa through the Afghan SIV Program, new applicants must demonstrate at least 2 years of faithful and valuable service to the U.S. mission. To receive a visa, they must also clear a rigorous screening process that includes an independent verification of their service and then an intensive interagency review.

We know that the service of these individuals has been critical to our successes in Afghanistan.

Last month in Keene, NH, I met with a remarkable recent immigrant from Afghanistan named Patmana Rafiq Kunary. Patmana had worked closely with the U.S. Agency for International Development in Kabul. She went door to door, encouraging women to take out microloans to start their own businesses. Patmana eventually became vice president for operations at the USAID-sponsored Microloan Program.

In fact, just today I talked to a woman reporter from Afghanistan who wanted to know what message of hope I could provide to the women of Afghanistan. Well, I told her about Patmana, and I told her that one of the things that keep us in Afghanistan supporting our soldiers is concern about what is happening to the women in Afghanistan.

For Patmana, going door to door and working closely with Americans-- this was dangerous work. She drew unwelcome attention wherever she went, and she became a high-profile target for the Taliban and others. And then one day in 2013, she got a call at her USAID office. It was from the distraught wife of one of her USAID colleagues, another Afghan. The caller's husband had just been murdered, apparently in retaliation for his work with the Americans.

Realizing that her life was in danger, too, Patmana applied for a special immigrant visa. For 2 years, she and her husband were subjected to repeated interviews at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. Her background was checked and rechecked before visas were finally granted. She told me that they would move frequently. They couldn't stay in one place very long because the Taliban would find them. And she said occasionally there was a knock on her relatives' door, saying ``We know where Patmana is,'' and that would be a signal to move.

She and her husband now live happily in Keene, NH. I am pleased to say her husband has found work as an auditor with a local financial company, and they have a 2-year-old daughter. They are welcomed as valued members of the Keene community and of our larger Granite State family.

The many contributions of these Afghans--both in Afghanistan and now as residents or citizens of the United States--those contributions help explain why senior U.S. commanders and diplomats have urged Congress to extend the Afghan SIV Program. Our Secretary of Defense, GEN James Mattis, during the confirmation process, said: ``Most of our units could not have accomplished their missions without the assistance, often at the risk of their lives, of these courageous men and women.''

We would never leave an American warrior behind on the battlefield. Likewise, we must not leave behind the Afghan interpreters who served side by side with our warriors and diplomats.

We made a solemn promise to these brave people, and I am going to do everything I can to ensure that we keep this promise. I know there is a lot of bipartisan support in this body to do that. So today I am introducing the Keep Our Promise to Our Afghan Allies Act with Senators McCain, Reed, and Tillis. This legislation would authorize additional special immigrant visas and would help ensure that the program does not lapse and leave behind thousands of Afghans who helped us with the threat by the Taliban.

In addition, I intend to work closely with Senators who are negotiating legislation to fund the Federal Government in order to ensure that additional visas are included. I urge my colleagues to join me. Let's keep the promise we made to our Afghan allies and support these efforts.

Sen. Chuck GrassleyR-IA · Mar 15, 2017

Mr. President, affirming the public's right to know how their government is run, Sunshine Week is an annual reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in a government of the…

Mr. President, affirming the public's right to know how their government is run, Sunshine Week is an annual reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In the spirit of government transparency, I am pleased to join a bipartisan group of colleagues to introduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2017. This important piece of legislation furthers the public's access to court proceedings by permitting Federal judges at all Federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts.

For decades, and with great results, States such as my home State of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms. In fact, all 50 States and the District of Columbia now allow some news coverage of proceedings, and it is time we join them. This openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of the legal system and what happens inside our courts.

However, our Federal judicial system unnecessarily remains a mystery to many across the country. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Klobuchar and a number of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, will greatly improve public access to Federal courts by letting Federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other forms of electronic media. Letting the Sun shine in on our Federal courtrooms will allow Americans to better understand the judicial process.

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act will ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the State level. This legislation leaves the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts to the sole discretion of the judges--it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a 3-year sunset provision. The bill protects the privacy and safety of nonparty witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. Additionally, the bill prohibits the televising of jurors and includes a provision to protect the due process rights of each party.

It is time to open the courthouse doors and let the light shine in on the Federal judiciary. Granting the public greater access to an already public proceeding will inspire greater faith in and appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Sen. Chuck GrassleyR-IA · Mar 15, 2017

Mr. President, affirming the public's right to know how their government is run, Sunshine Week is an annual reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in a government of the…

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in SenateIssued March 15, 2017

115th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 643

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 15, 2017

Mr. Grassley (for himself, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Graham, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Franken, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr. Markey) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for media coverage of Federal court proceedings.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2017.

Federal appellate and district courts

(a)

Definitions

In this section:

(1)

Presiding judge

The term presiding judge means the judge presiding over the court proceeding concerned. In proceedings in which more than one judge participates, the presiding judge shall be the senior active judge so participating or, in the case of a circuit court of appeals, the senior active circuit judge so participating, except that—

(A)

in en banc sittings of any United States circuit court of appeals, the presiding judge shall be the chief judge of the circuit whenever the chief judge participates; and

(B)

in en banc sittings of the Supreme Court of the United States, the presiding judge shall be the Chief Justice whenever the Chief Justice participates.

(2)

Appellate court of the united states

The term appellate court of the United States means any United States circuit court of appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States.

(b)

Authority of presiding judge To allow media coverage of court proceedings

(1)

Authority of appellate courts

(A)

In general

Except as provided under subparagraph (B), the presiding judge of an appellate court of the United States may, at the discretion of that judge, permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising to the public of any court proceeding over which that judge presides.

(B)

Exception

The presiding judge shall not permit any action under subparagraph (A), if—

(i)

in the case of a proceeding involving only the presiding judge, that judge determines the action would constitute a violation of the due process rights of any party; or

(ii)

in the case of a proceeding involving the participation of more than one judge, a majority of the judges participating determine that the action would constitute a violation of the due process rights of any party.

(2)

Authority of district courts

(A)

In general

(i)

Authority

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except as provided under clause (iii), the presiding judge of a district court of the United States may, at the discretion of that judge, permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising to the public of any court proceeding over which that judge presides.

(ii)

Obscuring of witnesses

Except as provided under clause (iii)—

(I)

upon the request of any witness (other than a party) in a trial proceeding, the court shall order the face and voice of the witness to be disguised or otherwise obscured in such manner as to render the witness unrecognizable to the broadcast audience of the trial proceeding; and

(II)

the presiding judge in a trial proceeding shall inform each witness who is not a party that the witness has the right to request the image and voice of that witness to be obscured during the testimony of the witness.

(iii)

Exception

The presiding judge shall not permit any action under this subparagraph—

(I)

if that judge determines the action would constitute a violation of the due process rights of any party; and

(II)

until the Judicial Conference of the United States promulgates mandatory guidelines under paragraph (5).

(B)

No media coverage of jurors

The presiding judge shall not permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising of any juror in a trial proceeding, or of the jury selection process.

(C)

Discretion of the judge

The presiding judge shall have the discretion to obscure the face and voice of an individual, if good cause is shown that the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising of the individual would threaten—

(i)

the safety of the individual;

(ii)

the security of the court;

(iii)

the integrity of future or ongoing law enforcement operations; or

(iv)

the interest of justice.

(D)

Sunset of district court authority

The authority under this paragraph shall terminate 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(3)

Interlocutory appeals barred

The decision of the presiding judge under this subsection of whether or not to permit, deny, or terminate the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising of a court proceeding may not be challenged through an interlocutory appeal.

(4)

Advisory Guidelines

The Judicial Conference of the United States may promulgate advisory guidelines to which a presiding judge, at the discretion of that judge, may refer in making decisions with respect to the management and administration of photographing, recording, broadcasting, or televising described under paragraphs (1) and (2).

(5)

Mandatory guidelines

Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Judicial Conference of the United States shall promulgate mandatory guidelines that a presiding judge is required to follow for obscuring of certain vulnerable witnesses, including crime victims, minor victims, families of victims, cooperating witnesses, undercover law enforcement officers or agents, witnesses subject to section 3521 of title 18, United States Code, relating to witness relocation and protection, or minors under the age of 18 years. The guidelines shall include procedures for determining, at the earliest practicable time in any investigation or case, which witnesses should be considered vulnerable under this section.

(6)

Procedures

In the interests of justice and fairness, the presiding judge of the court in which media use is desired has discretion to promulgate rules and disciplinary measures for the courtroom use of any form of media or media equipment and the acquisition or distribution of any of the images or sounds obtained in the courtroom. The presiding judge shall also have discretion to require written acknowledgment of the rules by anyone individually or on behalf of any entity before being allowed to acquire any images or sounds from the courtroom.

(7)

No broadcast of conferences between attorneys and clients

There shall be no audio pickup or broadcast of conferences which occur in a court proceeding between attorneys and their clients, between co-counsel of a client, between adverse counsel, or between counsel and the presiding judge, if the conferences are not part of the official record of the proceedings.

(8)

Expenses

A court may require that any accommodations to effectuate this Act be made without public expense.

(9)

Inherent authority

Nothing in this Act shall limit the inherent authority of a court to protect witnesses or clear the courtroom to preserve the decorum and integrity of the legal process or protect the safety of an individual.