The Coalition for Court Transparency is an amalgamation of eighteen organizations, mainly from the journalism profession. In a report released this week, The Coalition criticized the United States Supreme Court for not doing more to boost public access to court proceedings.

“There remains much to be done to bring the institution in line with our expectations of openness from our nation’s top legal officials,” according to an end-of-term report. “We are looking forward to an equally compelling, yet more transparent, 2014-15 term.”

“Increasing transparency at our nation’s highest court could not come at a more important time,” the report said. “Because Congress remains deadlocked and the relationship between the president and the U.S. House of Representatives is strained and will remain so for the foreseeable future, power in Washington has shifted toward the judicial branch, whose say in the law, given the current politics, is final.”

No progress was made this term on cameras in the Court, or on prompt release of the audio of oral arguments and opinion announcements. In March, the Court responded to a letter from The Coalition on this subject by stating, “There are no plans to change the court’s current practices.”

Nonetheless, The Coalition noted, justices are “not as camera-shy as you’d think.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for example, appeared on ABC News “This Week” in June on the occasion of publication of the paperback edition of her memoir “My Beloved World.”

The report also chided the Court for maintaining a no-protest buffer zone in front of the court building while striking down a Massachusetts buffer zone around abortion clinics in McCullen v. Coakley. Similarly, the Court has not acted on requests to post the justices’ financial disclosure forms online.

Issues like judges filing on-line available financial disclosure forms can be complicated. All too frequently lower court judges have had bogus liens filed that are not always simple to remove. But, the report also highlighted the limited scope of the financial disclosures. While there may be reasons for some to be cautious about easily available financial disclosure given the lien phenomenon, the same cannot be said about giving reasons for recusal. The issue of recusal is a burning and divisive issue with elected state court judges due to campaign contributions, so there is an opportunity for the United States Supreme Court Justices to lead by example, even though their reasons for recusal are not campaign contribution related.  

Read more here (registration required).