Vermont Public is independent, community-supported media, serving Vermont with trusted, relevant and essential information. We share stories that bring people together, from every corner of our region. New to Vermont Public? Start here.

© 2024 Vermont Public | 365 Troy Ave. Colchester, VT 05446

Public Files:
WVTI · WOXM · WVBA · WVNK · WVTQ · WVTX
WVPR · WRVT · WOXR · WNCH · WVPA
WVPS · WVXR · WETK · WVTB · WVER
WVER-FM · WVLR-FM · WBTN-FM

For assistance accessing our public files, please contact hello@vermontpublic.org or call 802-655-9451.
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Explore our coverage of government and politics.

Adrian: Secret Justice

Ed Adrian
The architecture of the courthouse in Newfane, Vermont, is also strongly traditional.

Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803, established the American Judiciary as a co-equal branch of government.

It cemented the power of judicial review, enabling the courts to check the powers of the legislative and executive branches by striking down statutes, rules and actions antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.

But despite this co-equal status, the judiciary is steeped in what at times appears to be antiquated tradition and secrecy - perpetuated by the relative slowness it takes to change law though the judicial process, and perhaps contributing to the current showdown in Washington.

Maybe the most obvious example is the prohibition on photography and video cameras in almost all Federal Courtrooms, including the Supreme Court – leaving the proceedings to be visualized through artist renderings that may be quaint, but not very useful.

Our current Supreme Court justices have a variety of opinions on whether or not cameras should continue to be banned. In 1993 Justice Ginsburg admitted she didn’t mind having proceedings televised, saying “I think it would be good for the public.” And Justice Kagan has suggested that cameras “would make people feel so good about this branch of government and how it’s operating ...”

Another likely factor is the use of Latin in the courtroom. Legal decisions are full of code – and nowhere is the code more apparent than in the use of ancient Latin phrases. For example, judges often review documents and sometimes discuss cases with attorneys “in camera” which roughly translates to – in the judge’s private chambers. And both the language and the action it describes can be opaque. Some argue in favor of this lack of transparency by saying the need for secrecy is “res ipsa loquitur” – meaning “it speaks for itself” - but I’m not so sure.

Wearing black robes, addressing the judge as “your honor” and elevating the judge or justices above the courtroom add to the atmosphere of secrecy and deference. And while this is all quite intentional, perhaps we should take a fresh look at whether it’s still really necessary.

In any case, we can be grateful that neither jurists nor attorneys in this country have to wear the powdered wigs still favored in the British Commonwealth.
 

Ed Adrian is an attorney at the law firm Monaghan Safar Ducham PLLC. He previously served on the Burlington City Council for five years and currently sits on the Burlington Library Commission.
Latest Stories