A coalition of media outlets have asked for permission to provide the public with video access to the election interference trial of former President Donald Trump.

The trial is to begin on March 4, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, presided over by Judge Tanya Chutkan. That is the day before Super Tuesday.

The outlets, which include ABC, CNN, CBS, C-SPAN, the National Association of Broadcasters, Tegna and others, filed a motion with the court asking to be able to “record and telecast the trial by the media, or by the Court publishing its own livestream on YouTube, or releasing video/audio at the end of each trial day.”

Also Read: C-SPAN Will Gavel In More History

Since there is currently a ban on cameras in federal criminal trials, the groups also asked the Federal Judicial Conference to grant the outlets an exception to its ban on cameras in federal criminal trials.

“The Coalition is asking for this exception due to the uniquely high public interest in this case and the unprecedented nature of a trial of a former president,” C-SPAN said. “The Coalition advocates this exception as an opportunity for the American public to assess the process and results for themselves in real time.”

C-SPAN has been a leading voice for providing greater public access to courts through video and audio on traditional cable and streaming media.

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said she will keep an open mind on allowing cameras in the High Court, but she did not elaborate nor weigh in on her experience with video in the Seventh Circuit.

Related: Barrett Likely to Get Cameras in Court Question

That came early on day two of her confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

She was asked by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a big fan of cameras in the courts who has introduced and backed legislation to allow for video of oral arguments.

Grassley said that, at age 87, he will probably not live long enough to see those cameras in court, but pointed out he been pushing for that electronic access over the past 15 years. He conceded it was not a very popular subject and pointed to retired Justice David Souter's suggestion it would come over his dead body. Barrett's mentor Justice Scalia was also no fan of cameras in court.

Grassley said he could not disagree more and thought cameras could bring about a better understanding of the judiciary.

Barrett's one-sentence response came after Grassley pointed out that the Seventh Circuit, where she currently serves, allows for requests for video recording of oral arguments and public release of the recording.

"That's correct," she said.

He asked her to opine on whether her court had any problem with those procedures and what her views were on allowing cameras in the courtroom and, if confirmed, whether she would keep an open mind. Barrett chose to respond only to the last part of his question, saying: "I would certainly keep an open mind about allowing cameras in the Supreme Court.

Grassley did not press her for answers to others.

“I applaud Sen. Grassley for asking Judge Barrett whether video-recording Seventh Circuit arguments has caused any issues," said Fix the Court Executive Director Gabe Roth. "The fact is it hasn't, as Barrett knows, since she sat on the first-ever appeal at which cameras were allowed.

“I’m pleased the issue was broached not only by Grassley but also by his fellow judicial broadcast fan, Sen. Leahy, and that Barrett says she’d keep an open mind on cameras if confirmed. That’s a welcome divergence from the view of Barrett's mentor, Justice Scalia, who insultingly thought Americans too daft to understand appellate proceedings.”

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) used part of his time 20 minutes of question time during the hearing to push back on cameras in the court. "I differ with former chairman Grassley about cameras would be a good idea in the court," he told Barrett. He said he would not ask for her opinion. 

Sasse did himself opine that he was glad there were transcripts and a lot of press to cover the court, but he said he thought cameras would mean not more transparency, but more theatrics. " Think more cameras in the courts is a bad idea," he told her, but said he thought more judges explaining to the public the structure of the constitutional system, in scholarly writings for example, would be "a huge asset."

At about the same time that Chief Justice John Roberts was being sworn in to preside over the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump, a pair of legislators, one a current and one a former House impeachment manager, were introducing a bill that would turn the Supreme Court into the Stream Court.

The Eyes of the Courts Act would make the default setting that "real time or near-real time [access] on the internet," either audio or video, of all appeals courts, including the highest court in the land, would be allowed. It would also permit other electronic coverage of federal appeals courts--TV, radio, still photography, though in all cases the judge would preserve the discretion to disallow it.

Related: Congress Looks at Cameras in the Court

To date the Justices have declined to allow video of their oral arguments or reading of opinions, and any move by Congress to force that would prompt the separation of powers debate that has characterized the tension between judges and the legislators who view video as a way to put technological teeth into the requirement for public trials.

The bill was introduced by current impeachment manager Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), former Clinton impeachment manager and former chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Judges would still have plenty of discretion.

It would allow judges to exclude that coverage if they decided, on their own initiative or in response to a petition, that such coverage threatened due process or was not otherwise in the interests of justice. Such a finding would not be appealable.

“That next week’s impeachment trial will be broadcast live, while the audio of this week’s Supreme Court arguments has yet to be released, is a significant and unnecessary discrepancy in public access among our branches of government,” said Fix the Court executive director Gabe Roth, who has long pushed for more electronic access. “The work of the Supreme Court and other federal appeals courts has broad implications for the country, and real-time access to their proceedings ought not be limited to the few who can travel to a courthouse and spend hours waiting to get in.”

A majority of Americans (76%) say the Supreme Court should allow its oral arguments to be on TV.

That is according to a new study from C-SPAN, the suite of public service networks funded by the cable industry, in conjunction with strategic communications company PSB.

Not only did the survey respondents want TV in the courtroom, but 70% said that was where they were getting their news about the court. School was only named by 4% and books by only 3%.

The study found that the public recognized the importance of the Court's decisions. Nine out of 10 voters said those decisions impact their lives and 82% said the makeup of the Court was an important issue in their vote in the 2016 presidential election.

TV may want to name the Justices more frequently, though, if that is where most are getting their news about the court.

Fewer than half (43%) could name any of those Justices, only 1% could name Sonia Sotomayor, Anthony Kennedy or Elena Kagan, and none could name Stephen Breyer.

The study was conducted March 7-9 among 1,032 likely voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.05 percentage points.

The study was timed to Sunshine Week (March 12-18), which celebrates access to public information, and as Congress prepares to vet Neil Gorsuch March 20 (C-SPAN will cover the hearing), President Donald Trump's pick to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia, who was opposed to cameras.

The study also comes as a bill to allow cameras in federal courts, including the Supreme Court, has been reintroduced.

As part of its recognition of Sunshine Week, C-SPAN has posted a video on YouTube with the Justices' historic views on cameras.

C-SPAN has long pushed for cameras in the court, pointing to its successful coverage of the House and Senate — now generally acknowledged to be an invaluable tool for civic engagement with, and understanding of, the legislature.

Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) have reintroduced a bill to allow cameras in federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act gives the presiding judge in a federal court the discretion to allow cameras, protecting the identities of witnesses and jurors when ended. It does not allow those cameras to capture private conversations between clients and counsel, opposing counsels, and with the judge.

It would also need to be renewed after three years.

It has been a decades-long effort on the Hill to open the courts to cameras, always with the caveat that it be at the discretion of judges on a, literally, case-by-case basis.

C-SPAN has demonstrated the value of television in the political process and the ability to do it unobtrusively and Grassley cited the cable-backed public service networks in trying once more to get the rest of Congress to join in the effort.

Allowing cameras in the courts creates a window into our judicial process for those Americans who may never climb the courtroom steps," said Grassley Wednesday (march 15). "In much the same way that C-SPAN fostered a greater understanding of the legislative process and improved transparency in Congress, allowing cameras in federal courtrooms would contribute to a better understanding of, and appreciation for, the American judicial system,” Grassley said.

Grassley pointed out that all 50 states now have some form of audio and video coverage. Federal courts have some form as well, but usually only on special request or with a time delay rather than live coverage.

Grassley is also lead cosponsor of another bill requiring TV camera access to Supreme Court oral arguments.

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is being reintroduced in concert with Sunshine Week, which celebrates access to government information.