University of California Irvine Law Professor Susan E. Seager urged the California Supreme Court this week to decide whether the public and press have a constitutional right to observe the Britney Spears conservatorship case — and all court proceedings — on their computers and smart phones.

Professor Seager submitted a friend-of-the-court letter to the state’s high court on Tuesday along with three pro-tranparency groups.

The three non-profits that co-signed the amici letter are ACLU of Southern California, First Amendment Coalition, and National Press Photographers Association. Professor Seager and the three groups called themselves the “First Amendment Amici” in the letter.

“This Court should accept review to consider whether the presumptive right of access to court proceedings under the state and federal constitutions ensure remote access for the public and press during the digital age and a global pandemic that shows no sign of disappearing,” the letter said.

The Supreme Court is being asked by USA Today to allow the public and press to listen to the Spears conservatorship case on the same audio feed that the court had previously provided to the attorneys, Ms. Spears, other parties, as well as to the public and press. But court leadership abruptly cut off the public audio feed to the Spears case and all other cases in late June.  The court said it was ending the public audio feed because unnamed persons recorded the feed in violation of state court rules. 

Profressor Seager argued in the letter that the California Supreme Court should accept USA Today‘s invitation to decide whether the constitutional right of access to court proceedings is limited to physical access only, or whether the state and federal constitutions require courts to provide the same audio or video feeds of court proceedings to the public and press that the courts already provide to lawyers and their clients.

“The question before this Court is this: whether a court’s own use of internet technologies to broadcast its public court proceedings to the parties and their counsel through their computers should be presumptively open to the public and press under the First Amendment and California Constitution to promote public confidence in the judicial system and improve the truth-finding function of court proceedings.”

Even if the California Supreme Court did not find that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensures the right of internet access to court proceedings, the state’s high court could find that the California Constitution enshrines broader rights and creates a presumptive right for the public and press to use any audio or video feed that the courts provide to lawyers and their clients.

The California Supreme Court is expected to decide whether it will hear USA Today‘s case in the next few months. 

Professor Seager supervises the Press Freedom and Transparency practice at UC Irvine Law School’s Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology law clinic.