Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2025
SB 1133, the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2025, would authorize federal appellate and district court judges to allow photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, and televising of court proceedings. In appellate courts, the presiding judge could permit media coverage at their discretion, but not if the judge or a majority of participating judges determines it would violate a party’s due process rights. In district courts, the presiding judge could similarly allow media coverage, but only after the Judicial Conference issues mandatory guidelines for obscuring certain vulnerable witnesses, and subject to additional protections for jurors, witnesses, and courtroom participants.
The bill also requires the Judicial Conference to issue mandatory guidelines within six months for obscuring vulnerable witnesses, including crime victims, minor victims, family members of victims, cooperating witnesses, undercover law enforcement, protected witnesses, and minors under 18. It bars media coverage of jurors and jury selection, prohibits broadcasting confidential attorney-client and related off-the-record conferences, and allows judges to impose courtroom media rules, disciplinary measures, and written acknowledgments. District court authority under the bill would sunset after three years, and the bill preserves a court’s inherent authority to protect witnesses, maintain decorum, and clear the courtroom when necessary.
If enacted, the bill would change federal court practice by creating express statutory authority for media coverage in federal appellate and district court proceedings, where such coverage is currently more limited and governed by court rules and judicial discretion. It would affect the administration of the federal judiciary, the Judicial Conference of the United States, litigants, witnesses, jurors, attorneys, and the press by establishing new procedures for broadcast access, privacy protections, and courtroom management. The bill would not alter substantive rights in most cases, but it would add procedural safeguards tied to due process, witness protection, and judicial control over courtroom recording.
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable bipartisan sentiment. The bill was introduced by Senator Grassley with bipartisan cosponsors, including Senators Klobuchar, Durbin, Blumenthal, Markey, and Cornyn, and it was reported by the Judiciary Committee without amendment. That procedural outcome indicates broad committee support and no recorded opposition in the materials provided. The absence of recorded votes or hearing transcripts limits the ability to assess detailed debate, but the bill’s progress suggests it was viewed as a measured transparency measure rather than a controversial overhaul.
The main points of contention are likely to center on balancing public access and transparency against due process, privacy, and courtroom security. The bill addresses these concerns by allowing judges to block coverage when due process would be harmed, prohibiting coverage of jurors, and requiring obscuring of vulnerable witnesses, but those same issues could still generate debate over how much discretion judges should have and how broadly media access should extend. Additional tension may arise over the mandatory guidelines for vulnerable witnesses, the three-year sunset for district court authority, and whether broadcasting could affect witness safety, law enforcement operations, or the dignity and integrity of proceedings.