Lead Story

Corporate legal leaders say artificial intelligence (AI) will empower rather than replace in-house lawyers, despite growing concerns about automation across the legal profession, Bloomberg Law reported.


General counsel and chief legal officers say AI is helping legal teams manage mounting workloads by taking over routine tasks, allowing lawyers to focus on more complex, high-value matters that require human judgment.

"First and foremost, it means people spend less time working evenings and weekends," said Timothy Fraser, Chief Legal Officer at Toshiba Americas Group, which has introduced AI-powered research tools and uses the technology for document summarisation, analysis and trial preparation. "Secondly, it allows them to devote more of their time and attention to complex, high-risk matters where they can deliver real value to the business."

A recent Deloitte survey of 120 legal department leaders found that nearly three-quarters expect the size of their legal teams to remain broadly unchanged as AI becomes more widely adopted.

Their optimism contrasts with broader concerns about AI-driven job losses and the widespread belief that legal work is particularly well suited to automation. At legal technology conferences, one phrase has become increasingly common: "AI won't take your job, but someone who knows how to use AI will."

Even so, legal leaders acknowledge that AI could eventually reshape staffing. Deloitte's survey found that 20 per cent of respondents expect their legal departments to shrink as AI adoption increases, up from 10 per cent in the firm's 2024 survey.

Most, however, believe any impact will be gradual rather than immediate. Some legal executives told Bloomberg Law that AI may slow recruitment in the near term, while more significant employment effects could emerge over the next decade.

According to Eli Wald, a professor at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law, AI's ability to automate legal work does not automatically mean it will eliminate legal jobs.

"If AI reduces the time human lawyers need to complete tasks, it can replace lawyers in some circumstances," Wald said. "But if demand for legal services remains strong, AI may simply enable lawyers to handle more work rather than replace them."

Legal AI's Promise and Risks

Professional services are widely regarded as among the sectors most likely to be transformed by AI, with legal services standing out because much of the work is procedural, repetitive and heavily dependent on language—making it well suited to large language models.

Investment trends reflect that confidence. AI-focused legal technology companies such as Harvey and Legora are reportedly generating stronger revenues than AI firms serving sectors such as real estate, finance and accounting.

However, the same characteristics that make legal work suitable for AI also fuel anxiety within the profession.

A March report by the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University warned that AI's productivity gains could ultimately threaten employment.

"AI's productivity promise is a displacement pipeline," the report said. "The more AI helps you do your job, the more expendable you can become."

The report identified legal professionals, alongside finance professionals, teachers and accountants, as among those facing significant long-term employment risks.

Nevertheless, it remains unclear which legal roles are most vulnerable. Many in-house lawyers believe they are better protected than their counterparts in private practice because corporate legal teams do not bill by the hour and are often chronically understaffed.

Heavy Workloads Remain

Corporate legal leaders insist there is simply too much work for AI to eliminate the need for lawyers.

"The volume is overwhelming, regardless of the size of our department," said Matthew Geekie, General Counsel at Graybar Electric, which has incorporated AI into its contract management processes.

"We're all under the same pressure. I understand why younger lawyers worry about being marginalised by generative AI, but I don't share that concern. The workload isn't going away."

Broader trends within the legal profession support that view. Increasing amounts of legal work have shifted from external law firms to in-house legal departments in recent years, with corporate legal teams growing faster than private practice.

Many in-house lawyers also believe they are better positioned to benefit from AI because their success is measured by efficiency rather than billable hours.

"Do we really think AI is going to make in-house lawyers less busy?" Wald said. "I doubt it."

Hiring May Slow Rather Than Jobs Disappear

Rather than triggering widespread redundancies, legal leaders expect AI to reduce the pace of hiring.

Tam Pham, Managing Director on the in-house counsel recruiting team at Major, Lindsey & Africa, said there are already signs that recruitment for more junior legal roles is beginning to slow.

At some of the companies adopting AI most aggressively — particularly in the technology sector — senior executives are asking legal departments to justify every new hire.

"I'm hearing general counsel say that if they want to recruit someone, they now need to demonstrate that their AI tools cannot perform the work that person would do," Pham said.

Although some companies have linked large-scale redundancies to AI adoption, analysts argue that such announcements often mask broader cost-cutting measures.

Fraser believes AI is unlikely to become a significant employment issue in the short to medium term.

"I don't see this as a jobs issue in the short to medium term," he said. "It may simply allow us to delay or defer adding headcount."

Jolie Siegel, General Counsel at Odyssey Therapeutics, echoed that view. While her company is assessing specialist legal AI platforms alongside general-purpose models developed by OpenAI and Anthropic, she believes human expertise remains indispensable.

She expects lawyers to continue reviewing AI-generated work, applying legal judgment and making strategic decisions.

"What may happen is not necessarily a reduction in roles today," Siegel said. "Instead, organisations may be able to postpone hiring because a smaller team can achieve greater efficiency with AI."

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed 64 civil denaturalisation cases so far during President Donald Trump’s second term. Legal advocacy group Democracy Forward places the number even higher at 69, including 33 in June alone, based on its own analysis.

The surge reflects coordinated efforts by the DOJ’s Civil Division, US Attorneys’ Offices and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expand the rarely used process of denaturalisation — a measure historically reserved for serious offences such as war crimes, threats to national security and violent crimes.

The administration aims to file at least 250 cases by October, according to a DOJ spokesperson. US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) spokesman Zach Kahler said the agency, part of DHS, is working with the DOJ to “aggressively pursue and recommend denaturalisation” of anyone who obtained citizenship through fraud.

However, former DOJ and DHS lawyers say the current pace may be difficult to sustain, pointing out that federal law limits denaturalisation to conduct that casts doubt on an individual’s “good moral character” at the time they were naturalised.

Combined with mounting immigration-related caseloads for DOJ lawyers, this makes it unlikely that the denaturalisation campaign will affect a significant share of the estimated 24 million naturalised citizens living in the US, former government attorneys said.

“It’s going to be very difficult to meet those goals, especially if the government wants to bring only strong cases, which require substantial work,” said George Fishman, a former DHS deputy general counsel.

While most of the cases filed so far align with priorities pursued under previous administrations, some involve allegations and convictions linked to money laundering and financial fraud, raising concerns among immigration rights advocates about the scope of future targets.

Trump administration officials have pledged a broad approach to investigating fraud among naturalised citizens, making it a formal priority in a 2025 Civil Division memo.

Enforcement Priorities

The government has filed more denaturalisation cases this year than in any single year of Trump’s first term, and at a faster pace than the average of 11 cases a year recorded between 1990 and 2017. Many of those targeted recently have been US citizens for decades, with some naturalised as far back as 1978.

This suggests the administration is exercising broader discretion over who can face denaturalisation, said Ramya Reddy.

Under federal immigration law, naturalised citizens can lose their citizenship for “concealment” or “wilful misrepresentation” of a “material fact” that would otherwise have prevented them from being granted citizenship. There is no statute of limitations on such cases.

Of the cases filed during Trump’s second term, at least nine have resulted in denaturalisation rulings, according to Democracy Forward’s analysis. One is currently under appeal. Many involve individuals who committed crimes before becoming citizens and were later convicted.

“The government is most likely to focus on the low-hanging fruit — people with serious convictions, recent offences or other easily identifiable issues that make them straightforward enforcement targets,” said Nancy Canter.

Legal and Practical Constraints

Former government lawyers say decades of legal precedent on citizenship rights, combined with limited resources at federal agencies, will restrict how far the Trump administration can push its denaturalisation agenda.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly ruled that naturalised citizens must be treated in law the same as those born in the US, said Margy O’Herron.

In 1967, the court ruled that the government could not forcibly strip citizenship without consent, except where it had been “unlawfully procured”. In 2017, it further ruled that minor misrepresentations by citizenship applicants could not serve as grounds for denaturalisation.

Resource shortages at both the DOJ and DHS are another obstacle, said David McConnell.

That office has reportedly lost nearly a third of its attorneys since January 2025, while US Attorneys’ Offices have seen a wave of departures by career lawyers. These exits come as both the immigration litigation office and federal prosecutors face a record number of constitutional challenges brought by detained immigrants.

Fears Over Future Expansion

Despite these limitations, immigration advocates fear the DOJ could begin filing more cases based on conduct that occurred after an individual became a US citizen.

At least two cases filed this year involve individuals accused of supporting designated terrorist organisations after naturalisation. These cases rely on a provision allowing denaturalisation for anyone who becomes affiliated with a terrorist group, the Communist Party or a totalitarian party within five years of gaining citizenship.

The limited case law surrounding post-naturalisation conduct has fuelled concerns that the Trump administration may attempt to broaden its legal strategy, creating what advocates say could amount to a distinction between naturalised and US-born Americans.

Elizabeth Taufa said such a move could fundamentally alter how citizenship protections are interpreted.

Fishman said the government stands a better chance of succeeding in cases involving misrepresentation or actions taken before naturalisation, but noted there is “no particular bar” to using post-naturalisation conduct as evidence of a person’s character at the time they became a citizen.

Meanwhile, Eric Schmitt has introduced legislation that would allow the government to denaturalise individuals convicted of aggravated felonies or other serious offences up to 10 years after naturalisation.

The bill has yet to advance in the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow majority.

For decades, revenue per lawyer (RPL) stood as one of the most trusted indicators of success in the world of Big Law. It was simple, direct and easy to compare — a measure of how much income each lawyer generated on average. In an industry built on billable hours and high-value legal services, the metric became the standard shorthand for financial health and market strength.

But the legal industry is undergoing a structural transformation, and the long-standing dominance of revenue per lawyer as the defining benchmark is beginning to fade.

According to Bloomberg Law, major firms are increasingly shifting their attention away from topline revenue and towards profitability, scalability and strategic workforce design. This transition reflects a broader change in how law firms compete, grow and reward talent.

For much of modern legal history, the business model was straightforward: firms grew by attracting clients, billing more hours and increasing rates. The logic behind revenue per lawyer was therefore easy to understand. A higher RPL suggested stronger productivity, premium billing power and efficient use of legal talent.

That model, however, belonged to a time when partner movement between firms was relatively limited and business relationships were more stable. Today’s legal market is far more fluid.

The rise of the lateral recruitment market — often referred to as the “free agent era” of Big Law — has fundamentally altered the competitive landscape. Top-performing partners now move more freely between firms, often bringing lucrative client books with them. In response, firms are spending aggressively to recruit and retain rainmakers, driving compensation to unprecedented levels.

This has created a new financial priority: generating larger profit pools.

Profitability, particularly profits per equity partner (PEP), has become one of the most closely watched indicators of a firm’s strength. Unlike revenue, which only reflects gross income, profitability shows how effectively a firm converts that income into earnings for its senior partners.

That distinction has become increasingly important.

To improve profitability, firms are now paying closer attention to another critical metric — leverage.

Leverage refers to the number of lawyers, typically associates and junior staff, working under each equity partner. In practical terms, a higher leverage model means more lawyers supporting fewer partners. This allows firms to distribute work across multiple billing levels while reserving high-value strategic tasks for senior lawyers.

The result is often a stronger profit margin.

A partner who can keep six associates consistently occupied is likely to generate far more profit for the firm than one supervising only three. This is because the firm captures the difference between what clients pay for the associates’ work and what it costs to employ them.

In many ways, leverage has become one of the clearest indicators of how efficiently a law firm is structured.

Yet this creates an interesting contrast with revenue per lawyer.

Firms with lower leverage — where partners themselves handle more of the billable work — often report stronger RPL figures because equity partners command the highest billing rates in the industry. A senior partner charging $2,000 an hour can significantly lift a firm’s average revenue per lawyer, even if the overall structure is less scalable.

This means that a strong RPL no longer necessarily reflects the most profitable or strategically competitive model.

According to Bloomberg Law’s latest Leading Law Firms survey, several elite firms such as Ropes & Gray, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Paul Hastings and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison continue to rank highly on both revenue and profitability. But increasingly, the firms dominating the lateral hiring market are those that have mastered scale through higher leverage and tighter financial management.

This evolution has also influenced partnership structures. Many firms have expanded their non-equity partner tiers, creating more flexibility in compensation while preserving profits for equity partners. These structural changes allow firms to grow without diluting partner earnings.

Now, another major disruption is entering the equation: artificial intelligence.

Generative AI is expected to challenge some of the most basic assumptions underpinning the legal business model. From contract review and legal research to document drafting and due diligence, tasks once performed by junior lawyers can now be completed faster — and in some cases more cheaply — with AI support.

This raises serious questions about the future of billable hours, long the backbone of law firm revenue.

If AI reduces the number of hours needed to complete routine legal work, firms may increasingly adopt alternative pricing models such as fixed fees, value-based billing or subscription-style legal services. In such a model, revenue per lawyer may no longer mean what it once did.

A firm could post higher RPL figures simply because fewer lawyers are needed to generate the same or greater income.

That would fundamentally alter the interpretation of the metric.

A message typed in seconds on WhatsApp can carry consequences far beyond the screen in the UAE, where courts continue to reinforce that online abuse is subject to the same legal scrutiny as conduct in the physical world.

A Dubai court has ordered the cancellation of a trademark registered by a former UAE licensee of a globally recognised educational institution, ruling that the registration was made in bad faith and amounted to unfair competition and trademark infringement.

The judgment, issued by the Dubai Court of Appeal, also imposed a permanent injunction barring the former licensee from using the institution’s name, logo or any similar intellectual property, in a decision legal experts say strengthens protections for internationally recognised brands operating in the UAE.

The closely divided US Supreme Court has reinforced the Federal Reserve’s independence from the White House, protecting its governors from being dismissed by the president without proof of wrongdoing.

The decision came even as the court, in a separate ruling on Monday, widened presidential authority to remove senior officials at other federal agencies, overturning a 91-year-old precedent in a major constitutional shift.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook can remain in office while she challenges President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove her over unproven mortgage fraud allegations. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed to the long-standing tradition of preserving the Fed’s independence in exercising monetary policy.

“Congress limited the president’s power to remove governors for good reason,” Roberts wrote. He and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s three liberal justices in the majority.

The justices also faulted Trump for failing to provide Cook with notice and an opportunity to respond before seeking her removal. However, the court stopped short of deciding whether the allegations, if proven, would justify removing her during her 14-year term.

Narrow Ruling

Roberts stressed that the court was ruling on “narrow grounds”, leaving open the possibility of Trump trying again to remove Cook if he chooses. That limited scope means the case could return to the Supreme Court at a later stage.

Cook said the ruling reaffirmed a principle that has guided US economic stewardship for generations: that the Federal Reserve must make policy decisions based on evidence and independent judgement, free from political interference.

Trump, meanwhile, wrote on social media that his administration would “take appropriate action immediately” to ensure that anyone found guilty of wrongdoing would not be making vital decisions concerning the welfare of the United States.

The administration has accused Cook of fraudulently listing homes in Michigan and Georgia as her “primary residence” to secure better mortgage terms in 2021. Cook has dismissed the claims as baseless, saying they rely on “cherry-picked, incomplete snippets” of documents. She has not been charged with any offence.

The case tested the Supreme Court’s commitment to the central bank’s autonomy. While the court had previously moved to shield the Fed from Trump’s attempts to assert greater control, the Cook case introduced fresh legal questions.

Kathryn Judge, a law professor at Columbia University, said the ruling was “good news but not great news” for Federal Reserve independence, adding that it raised questions over how durable that independence would remain.

The narrow margin also exposed divisions within the court. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented on different grounds.

Thomas, writing separately, argued that the Fed’s regulatory functions are executive powers that should fall under presidential authority. He described the ruling as “an unprecedented incursion on the executive branch”. Barrett, meanwhile, said the constitutional status of the Federal Reserve was beyond the scope of the case.

In a concurring opinion, Kavanaugh warned that even temporary uncertainty over the Fed’s status could trigger political upheaval and economic turbulence in both the US and global markets.

FTC Ruling

In the second case, the court ruled that Trump could dismiss Democratic Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission despite legal protections limiting removals to specified grounds. Roberts said the Fed remained distinct from other agencies because of its central role in setting monetary policy.

A victory for Trump in the Cook case could have paved the way for him to remove other Fed governors who resisted his calls for interest-rate cuts, potentially allowing him to reshape the central bank. Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of dismissing Jerome Powell, who continues to serve on the Fed’s Board of Governors even after his term as chair ended.

The ruling comes less than two weeks after Fed officials concluded their first policy meeting under new chair Kevin Warsh. Despite sustained pressure from Trump to cut rates, the Fed left its benchmark interest rate unchanged. Recent inflationary pressures have raised concerns among officials that borrowing costs may need to rise further in the months ahead.

As Meta and other tech giants battle thousands of lawsuits accusing them of designing social media platforms to addict young users, a parallel legal war is unfolding in Delaware — one that could determine who pays for that defence. At stake is whether insurers must fund what could become hundreds of millions of dollars in legal costs, even when the underlying claims allege deliberate misconduct.

More than 20 insurers, led by The Hartford and Chubb, argue they have no obligation to bankroll Meta’s defence. While companies routinely purchase liability insurance to cover litigation costs, the insurers contend those policies do not apply where the alleged harm stems from intentional acts rather than accidents.

In a pre-emptive move, the insurers sued Meta in Delaware Superior Court in late 2024. Earlier this year, they secured an initial victory when the court ruled that they had no duty to defend the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. The case is now headed to the Delaware Supreme Court on appeal.

At the heart of the dispute lies a familiar but commercially significant insurance question: when do negligence allegations trigger a duty to defend?

The social media addiction lawsuits accuse Meta of deliberately engineering platform features to exploit teenagers’ developing brains and encourage compulsive use. Insurers argue such conduct cannot be classified as accidental, placing it outside the scope of liability coverage.

Meta, however, insists the underlying lawsuits also contain negligence claims — alleging a failure to exercise reasonable care — and maintains it never intended to harm users. Under California law, the company argues, that should be enough to compel insurers to cover its defence costs.

The dispute mirrors earlier insurance battles during the opioid litigation era, where drugmakers and pharmacies fought similar coverage claims. In many of those cases, courts held that insurers were not required to defend allegations rooted in deliberate conduct or public-harm claims, often leaving companies to shoulder enormous legal bills.

That precedent could prove costly here. Legal experts warn that if the Delaware ruling stands, it may significantly weaken the position of tech companies facing addiction-related claims.

A growing majority of law firms are now offering — and in some cases mandating — generative AI training for lawyers, as firms seek to reduce the risks of data breaches, fabricated citations and the unauthorised use of AI tools.

According to Bloomberg Law’s 2026 Leading Law Firms survey, around 70 per cent of firms reporting on technology training said they provide generative AI instruction for attorneys. Among those firms, an average of 73 per cent of lawyers have completed the training.

Law firms say structured training, alongside dedicated governance teams, is helping lawyers experiment with AI securely while reducing the risk of exposing private or confidential information, which could trigger regulatory breaches or professional misconduct.

The survey, based on self-reported data, found that 57 per cent of participating firms have established AI governance teams.

“If you’re not giving your attorneys and staff an option for using AI safely and responsibly, they’re going to find it on their own and experiment independently,” said Robert Skinner, chief executive of Offit Kurman, a mid-sized law firm.

Training Gains Momentum

As firms increasingly look to harness AI, many are taking deliberate steps to encourage lawyers to become more comfortable with the technology while using it responsibly.

At Eversheds Sutherland, for instance, employees have been encouraged to spend at least two hours a week of their personal time familiarising themselves with their preferred AI tools, according to Lino Mendiola, the firm’s global co-chief executive and US chief executive.

“That’s on top of everything the firm asks of them. And that was the call to action,” Mendiola said, adding that the initiative was backed by formal training and embedded AI thought leadership.

Offit Kurman has also introduced layered AI training programmes through its professional development team to ensure attorneys have clear guidelines and a secure framework for integrating AI into their daily workflows.

The firm uses a mix of instructor-led sessions and computer-based learning to train lawyers on evaluating AI outputs and managing them safely. Offit Kurman reported that all of its attorneys have completed AI training.

“We believe this training is essential—not only to meet our professional responsibilities as a law firm, but also to ensure that governance doesn’t discourage lawyers from using AI. We want them to experiment responsibly and safely,” Skinner said.

Managing the Risks

One of the biggest dangers of unregulated AI use is the possibility of confidential or sensitive client information being entered into public-facing AI platforms, said Michael Bruckner, chief information officer at Duane Morris.

Bruckner said governance controls are critical in reducing the likelihood of lawyers turning to unauthorised tools.

“Our philosophy is to make tools available where governance controls are already in place, so people understand how to use them properly instead of turning to publicly available alternatives,” he said. He added that the firm also has monitoring systems to restrict access to certain public AI platforms.

Defining a clear list of approved AI tools and their appropriate uses is equally important, said Eric Felsberg, principal at Jackson Lewis, who heads the firm’s technology industry group.

“Not only does it ensure compliance with internal guidance, but it also makes people understand they can’t simply download and use any AI platform without safeguards,” Felsberg said.

The Pressure to Catch Up

The survey found that larger firms—particularly those with more than 500 lawyers—are more likely to offer AI training. The biggest firms, with more than 1,000 attorneys, also reported the highest completion rates.

Firms that fail to introduce AI training programmes or governance structures risk exposing both themselves and their clients to avoidable legal and ethical vulnerabilities.

Federal judges have said that the rise in threats against their families has begun to take a significant toll on the judiciary, raising concerns about the long-term impact on public trust in the legal system.

The threats have not intimidated judges into abandoning the law, said US Circuit Judge Nancy Abudu during a judicial security panel on Friday at the annual convention of the American Constitution Society.

However, she said threats directed at judges’ families, friends and clerks are steadily eroding confidence in the judicial system, both within the profession and among the public.

“If the real goal is a long-term strategy to erode the trust and the integrity of the judicial system by discouraging people from entering into this particular part of our profession, the answer unfortunately is it’s getting close to doing just that,” Judge Abudu said.

The United States Marshals Service recorded 564 threats against federal judges in 2025, according to US District Judge Beth Bloom. She said more than 340 such incidents have already been reported this year.

Judge Bloom pointed to US District Judge John C. Coughenour, whose home was “swatted” last year after he blocked the enforcement of an executive order issued by Donald Trump. A bomb threat followed the next day.

In another alarming trend, hundreds of pizzas were sent last year to the homes of judges and their family members — a chilling signal that the senders knew their residential addresses. Many of the deliveries were made in the name of Daniel Anderl, the son of US District Judge Esther Salas, who was shot and killed in 2020 as part of an assassination plot targeting his mother.

US Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett said last year that members of her family had received similar pizza deliveries. Her home was also the target of an attempted swatting call last month.

Judge Bloom said that in her 32 years on the bench — including two decades as a state judge — she had never witnessed the level of hostility or the frequency of violent threats now directed at judges.

“Now it’s not just the judges, it’s their families,” she said.

The Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, enacted in 2022, allows federal judges to redact personal information from government websites and prohibits commercial data brokers from selling or sharing it.

US Circuit Judge Embry Kidd said the law was an important step forward, but urged Congress to provide stronger funding for judicial protection.

Security for federal judges is largely handled by the United States Marshals Service, which earlier this year requested an additional $34 million in funding to meet the growing demand for protective details for government officials.

A US Senate panel has advanced two bills that would allow television cameras in the Supreme Court of the United States and other federal courtrooms, with senators citing the need to end longstanding broadcast restrictions that have prevented most Americans from watching proceedings in major cases.

The United States Senate Judiciary Committee, in two rare bipartisan voice votes, sent the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act and the Cameras in the Courtroom Act to the full Republican-led chamber for consideration.

The panel backed the bills despite objections from the federal judiciary, which earlier this month sent a letter to the committee chair reaffirming its opposition to allowing cameras in courts, arguing that such a move could negatively affect jury trials and courtroom security.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who chairs the panel and co-sponsored both bills, described them as “common-sense” legislation aimed at promoting transparency in the judicial system by allowing the public to watch significant court proceedings without having to travel in person.

“The public has a right to observe the cases before the highest court, and these Supreme Court decisions have national importance and affect the lives of every American,” Grassley said.

If enacted, the Cameras in the Courtroom Act would require the Supreme Court to permit television coverage of sessions open to the public, such as oral arguments, unless a majority of the justices determine that doing so would violate due process. That would mark a significant shift for the court, which has historically allowed public access only in person and on a first-come, first-served basis. Beginning during the COVID-19 pandemic, the court started making live audio of its arguments available to the public for the first time, though without video.

Under the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, presiding judges in all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, would gain the discretion to permit photography, electronic recording, broadcasting or televising of proceedings.

Grassley stressed that the bill includes safeguards to protect the identities of witnesses and jurors and bars media coverage of private conversations. The legislation also carries a three-year sunset clause, allowing Congress to review the impact of cameras in courtrooms before deciding whether to renew it.

Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, who co-sponsored the bills, noted that for four decades the public has been able to watch congressional proceedings through C-SPAN.

“People should have the right to see what’s going on when senators are debating the important issues of our time,” she said. “The same is true, particularly of the Supreme Court.”