Should Trump’s Federal Election Subversion Trial Be On TV?

The U.S. Justice Department’s recent decision has ignited a contentious debate surrounding the highly anticipated trial of former President Donald Trump. While reasonable minds can often differ on many matters, the consensus on this issue is clear: the trial on federal charges related to the 2020 presidential election results has piqued intense public interest. Scheduled to begin on March 4, this trial has captivated the nation’s attention.

Media’s Call for Transparency

Media organizations, including NBCUniversal and a coalition of others represented by prominent attorney Chuck Tobin of Ballard Spahr, have voiced their strong disapproval of the Justice Department’s reluctance to allow video and audio access to the trial. They assert that transparency is paramount and argue that allowing cameras in federal courtrooms is fundamental to ensuring this transparency. Their argument goes beyond just transparency; they emphasize the need for a modern approach. In the digital age, where video technology has advanced, the public expects to witness significant events through video coverage. As such, media organizations contend that video access should be made available, thus enabling all Americans to exercise their First Amendment right to observe trials, particularly one as historic as this.

Constitutional and Legal Challenges

The ongoing debate over video access is deeply rooted in legal precedent and constitutional challenges. The government cites a longstanding procedural rule, first adopted in 1946, which prohibits the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from inside the courtroom during federal trials. While this rule has faced constitutional challenges over the years, it has consistently survived such scrutiny. Notably, the D.C. Circuit, responsible for overseeing the case, did not endorse the constitutionality of this rule, creating an added layer of complexity.

Aware of the potential for appellate and Supreme Court review, media organizations have strategically prepared their arguments. They present various constitutional arguments, including a textualist approach that accounts for technological advancements and historical context, highlighting the importance of public access to court proceedings. Despite the complexity of the legal landscape, they remain optimistic that a resolution will be reached before the trial’s scheduled commencement on March 4.