DC Circuit Will Soon Livestream Audio of All Oral Arguments
“This is an important additional step in bringing transparency to our proceedings,” Chief Judge Merrick Garland said in the announcement. The appeals court for the first time since 2001 last year permitted a live audio broadcast.
May 23, 2018 at 10:23 AM
3 minute read
Merrick Garland (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Wednesday announced it would soon provide live audio streaming of all its oral arguments, sharpening the court's contrast with its more reticent nearby neighbor the U.S. Supreme Court.
The D.C. Circuit has live-streamed audio of oral arguments on request since October 2017, but the new policy beginning at the court's next term—which begins Sept. 5—would not require individuals or organizations to ask for it. The only exception for livestreaming would be for cases “when classified or sealed matters must be discussed,” according to the court's announcement posted online.
“This is an important additional step in bringing transparency to our proceedings,” Chief Judge Merrick Garland said in the announcement.
The Supreme Court releases same-day transcripts of oral argument, and on rare occasions—such as the argument April 25 in Trump v. Hawaii—allows the release of audio soon after the argument is over.
The high court has not explained its reluctance to provide live, real-time streaming, but one theory is that the justices wants to retain the ability to edit the audio before it is released, in case something untoward happens during the argument.
The D.C. Circuit's first recent venture into livestreaming came last October in the case of Garza v. Hargan, involving abortion rights for an undocumented minor. Fix the Court, a group that seeks greater transparency from the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, made the request. The audio stream marked the first time the court live broadcasted audio since 2001.
The Ninth Circuit routinely allows livestreaming, and the Fourth Circuit also allowed live audio in May 2017 for arguments in a travel ban case. The Fourth Circuit's feed last year marked the court's first foray into a live broadcast.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTopping Big Law, Litigation Firm the Latest to Dole Out Above-Market Bonuses
3 minute readSenate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
Trump-Appointed Judge Presides Over NASCAR Antitrust Dispute Under Case Reassignment
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1As Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
- 2Simpson Restructuring Leader Moves Back to Weil
- 3How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Mistakes and Setbacks Are Valuable Learning Experiences,' Says Kristen Behrens of Dilworth Paxson
- 4Trump 2.0: A Mostly Pro-Employer Agenda—But Not Entirely
- 5People in the News—Dec. 13, 2024—Gawthrop Greenwood, Reger Rizzo
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250