Why is it important for courts to ensure a high level of transparency to the public?

The public needs to trust in the rule of law and that it will be applied objectively, regardless of financial status, political affiliation, or other factors that the public believes will influence the course of events.

In general, the courts function very well. In most cases, the parties will have their disputes heard and undergo actual deliberations. But when I say “very hard working,” there’s an income element there, which is at stake for people who can’t afford to be represented. But I think it will work out well in court, and people should be able to see it in the workplace.

What does court transparency mean to you?

Transparency means that if you are a citizen and want to see how the courts operate, you have access. You should be able to go to the courthouse and observe the trial. Reporters should be allowed to cover the proceedings for those who cannot be there in person.

Cameras should be installed, especially in appellate courts, which have more control over the process and are typically limited to legal arguments by lawyers without citizen witnesses. These are important cases that affect everyone within the jurisdiction of the court hearing the case. People have a right to hear it.

The benefit of having cameras in the courtroom is that people can understand that the court is really trying to get the right answers, and that the case is much more complex than the news headlines suggest. Citizens can understand that certain answers may be required by the Constitution, statutes, and case law, and that these are true even if they do not like the policies being implemented.

Access to court documents is also important. Documents should be universally submitted electronically, with some exceptions regarding sensitive matters. And online access to these documents, along with all court orders and opinions, should also be free or low-cost. Most are available, but not all.

Why did you decide to broadcast the Texas Supreme Court arguments in the first place?

I have always been an appellate lawyer. Before I joined the court, my colleagues and I were very interested in what was going on in the state supreme courts and the issues they were working on. But if you wanted to see it, you had to drive to Austin. And Texas is a big state! For many, it was difficult to actually see what the court was interested in during oral arguments. You can also order audio recordings, but I couldn’t fully hear who was asking the questions, and I couldn’t tell exactly which lawyer was speaking. When I came to court, I wanted to be able to show the judge and the appellate lawyers what was going on.

So I thought, why is it aimed only at the legal profession? That applies to journalists, citizens, interest groups, political groups, and everyone else. I began my mission to expand access.

How did your fellow judges react to the cameras in the courtroom?

Because we are elected officials in Texas, some judges were worried that their videos would be used in campaign commercials that would distort or slow the images, or that people would try to take pictures of judges with their eyes closed. There are also major concerns about lawyers acting on camera without answering questions from the court. But chief justices in other states that already have cameras in their courtrooms said those concerns were not significant. It didn’t work out for us either.

What benefits did you feel by introducing the camera?

Other lawyers can tell you what works and what doesn’t. Law students will understand as well. If you want to become an appellate lawyer someday, this is the place for you. This is useful not only for journalists, but also for political parties and people who are interested in whether judges should be re-elected. They can take a look. Another benefit that people don’t often consider is that it encourages judges to prepare their arguments. You don’t want to ask stupid questions that will show that you haven’t read the abstract. It elevates that discussion among judges and lawyers alike.

The U.S. Supreme Court has so far refused to install cameras in courtrooms. Why do you think that is? And whatever the reason, do you think they have to have them?

This is a domestic court and many issues are controversial. Their safety concerns could be heightened even more if it were easier for people to meet all the judges and find out who they are. That’s really worrying.

But even when it comes to the Texas Supreme Court, a state with a population of over 30 million people, the cases are huge, some of them controversial. Although we have increased security at the Supreme Court building, there is no reason to stop live hearings of Supreme Court arguments.

If I were on the U.S. Supreme Court, I would want to discuss national security and hear from my colleagues and the U.S. Marshals Service. But since I don’t know anything about the Supreme Court other than what they do, I would put cameras in the courtroom. The courts work very well. The judges are good, prepared, knowledgeable, and ask the right questions. This would show the public that the problem is difficult and that we are serious about how to solve it properly.

Another reason the Texas Supreme Court is more transparent than the U.S. Supreme Court is who can attend the conferences where the justices discuss cases and whether they accept them. Please tell me how it works.

This has been true of the Texas Supreme Court for decades, even before I arrived. In virtually all cases, court clerks and staff attorneys were present during the court’s deliberations. Let’s consider a case where there is a possibility of a 5-4 decision. The court begins hearing the case once the petition is filed, after which briefs are filed. There are developments in the case, and law clerks and staff attorneys are listening to those developments along the way. They can also help you understand where other judges stand on the case and observe the evolution of their thinking. You’ll see how the majority will come together over time, but it can be difficult to do it on your own. My staff will help you. Their attendance helps the court run efficiently.

It was very gratifying for the clerks, who had recently graduated from law school, to be able to observe the internal deliberations. If there is a clerk responsible for a particular section of the opinion, I might ask that clerk to stand and present. So, as a first-year lawyer, they’re basically arguing before the Supreme Court.

Going out into the workforce might help correct misconceptions about how the courts work. In states where political parties run candidates for office, the public can get the impression that everything is political on the state supreme court. But current practicing clerks can help dispel the idea that just because the Supreme Court is all Republicans, that doesn’t mean it’s group think. Very serious disagreements will resolve themselves and compromises will be made along the way.

The United States Supreme Court shadow docketan expedited case resolution process that does not involve oral argument or limited explanation, and generally results in a judgment that includes minimal analysis or explanation of the court’s reasoning. Is there an equivalent in Texas and do you think there is a problem with the way this decision is made?

There was nothing similar in Texas during my tenure, and I see no inevitability today. The model method for deciding cases, whenever possible, is full briefing and oral argument. Sometimes that is not possible. In some cases in Texas, courts have had to take emergency relief measures to halt depositions or halt trials because the parties may be disadvantaged if the matter is not resolved quickly. For example, even if you ultimately win, your trade secrets will be revealed and you will lose.

However, in most cases, the case ends up going to oral argument. We have separate curiam documents without oral arguments, but they are supposed to be reserved for cases where obvious errors are apparent.

Returning to the importance of transparency, are there any reasons why transparency is important that may not be obvious to someone who doesn’t look closely at the courtroom?

A byproduct of transparency is that it creates a kind of community of people who care about the court. They perform their own analysis of trends and data and observe what is written in court minutes. They can do it much easier if the information is readily available. There are a lot of students of the court system, so to speak, and they talk to their colleagues and other appellate attorneys and attorneys in general.

The bottom line is that transparency increases public trust in the court system. This increases the responsibility of judges and increases the responsibility of the system. After people see what you’re doing, if they have a complaint and it’s legitimate, you might as well address it.

Erin Geiger-Smith is a writer and editor at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Recommended Citation: Erin Geiger Smith, Former Texas Chief Justice talks about the importance of court transparencySᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (April 24, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/former-texas-chief-justice-importance-court-transparency