A Republican bill with 4 Democratic cosponsors · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 444.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
The "Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2025" aims to allow media coverage of Federal court proceedings. It gives presiding judges in appellate and district courts the discretion to permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising of proceedings to the public. Specific protections are included for witnesses, allowing them to have their faces and voices obscured. However, the bill prohibits the media coverage of jurors or the jury selection process. It also prevents the broadcast of certain attorney-client and counsel-judge conferences that are not part of the official record.
Yes
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill increases judicial transparency by allowing media coverage of federal court proceedings.
- Scored +4
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?
The bill includes strong provisions to obscure the identities of vulnerable witnesses.
- Scored +3
Does this protect the individual right to speak freely?
It expands media access to court proceedings, enhancing freedom of expression regarding judicial matters.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill allows judges to deny coverage based on due process concerns and bars interlocutory appeals.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Transparency: The bill allows for the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televisng of court proceedings to the public, which may provide more insight into the judicial process (Section 2(b)(1) and 2(b)(2)(A)(i)).
-
Witness Privacy Protections: In trial proceedings, any witness who is not a party to the case can request that their face and voice be disguised or obscured so they are unrecognizable to the broadcast audience (Section 2(b)(2)(A)(ii)).
-
Safety and Security Measures: Presiding judges have the authority to obscure an individual's identity if there is good cause related to the safety of the individual, the security of the court, or the integrity of law enforcement operations (Section 2(b)(2)(C)).
-
Protection of Vulnerable Groups: The Judicial Conference of the United States is required to create mandatory guidelines for obscuring vulnerable witnesses, such as crime victims, minor victims, and undercover law enforcement officers (Section 2(b)(2)(5)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Due Process Concerns: A presiding judge may deny media coverage if they determine that doing so would constitute a violation of the due process rights of any party involved in the proceeding (Section 2(b)(1)(B)).
-
Limited Authority for District Courts: The authority granted to presiding judges in district courts to permit media coverage is subject to a sunset provision, meaning it will terminate 3 years after the Act is enacted (Section 2(b)(2)(D)).
-
Restrictions on Challenges: The decision made by a presiding judge regarding whether to permit, deny, or terminate media coverage cannot be challenged through an interlocutory appeal (Section 2(b)(3)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill increases judicial transparency by allowing media coverage of federal court proceedings. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — The bill includes strong provisions to obscure the identities of vulnerable witnesses. Does this protect the individual right to speak freely? — It expands media access to court proceedings, enhancing freedom of expression regarding judicial matters. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill allows judges to deny coverage based on due process concerns and bars interlocutory appeals.
- 6/23/2026
- Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Grassley without amendment. Without written report.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 444.
- 6/18/2026
- Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
- 3/26/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
John CornynRepublican · Texas
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
Amy KlobucharDemocrat · Minnesota
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts