Recording court proceedings
Maggitti v. Pennsylvania
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Urve Maggitti asked the Supreme Court to review whether a state may criminalize a party’s accurate audiovisual recording of public court proceedings to document errors in the official transcript.
- Who it affects
- The Supreme Court proceeding ended, but Maggitti’s constitutional question about recording court proceedings was not decided.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case (denied review) and did not decide that constitutional question.
Maggitti framed the dispute under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and said the recordings could document inaccuracies in the official transcript.
Question presented
Whether, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a state may Constitutionally permit a State to arbitrarily criminalize the creation of an accurate audiovisual record of judicial proceedings by a party to those proceedings when those proceedings are open to the public and document inaccuracies in the official transcript?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.