ALBANY, June 16 - The State Court of Appeals settled a long-running battle on Thursday over the presence of cameras in New York courtrooms, ruling that the ban on televising or filming most courtroom proceedings violates neither the federal nor state Constitution.
The decision means that New York will be the only state with an absolute ban on televising, broadcasting or making movies of most courtroom events, although a handful of other states place restrictions on those activities. Here, proceedings in which witnesses may be forced to testify are off limits. The ban does not apply to the appellate or Court of Appeals levels, officials said.
In a 7-to-0 decision, the state's highest court decisively upheld the current restrictions on cameras in the courtroom, adopting the state's argument that while members of the media are free to cover trials, their rights do not extend to filming them. The decision sent the question back to the legislative arena, where the state argued the debate belongs.
"This is not a restriction on the openness of court proceedings, but rather on what means can be used in order to gather news," Judge George Bundy Smith wrote for the majority. "The media's access is thus guaranteed." Still photography was not in question.
Proponents of allowing cameras immediately expressed disappointment. As part of a free press, particularly in an electronic age, they said, television news crews must be allowed into courtrooms carrying the tools of their trade. They argued that such restrictions were unconstitutional and merited close scrutiny since free speech was at issue.
Court TV, the cable television network, challenged the law in 2001, when it sued the state and the Manhattan district attorney's office, saying that the ban, set in 1952, denied the media its constitutionally guaranteed freedom to cover court proceedings and noting that at least 43 other states allowed trials to be televised. It argued that public access to courtroom proceedings, even in criminal cases, far outweighed any problems cameras might present.
In separate interviews on Thursday, Henry S. Schleiff, the chairman of Court TV, and A. Vincent Buzard, the president of the New York State Bar Association, said that even if the ban was lifted, individual judges should be able to decide whether to allow cameras in their courtrooms.
"We have complete faith in the judges of our country," Mr. Schleiff said. "If they say there is a part of a proceeding that we don't belong in, we understand that; if they say there is a case we don't belong in, we understand that; what we don't understand is why the citizens of New York are treated differently than the citizens of the other 43 states and why this complete ban, preventing any cameras in any trial courts in any time, makes sense in this day and age."
But the proponents' disappointment was tempered by the court's determination that the larger policy questions were for state lawmakers to decide. As Judge Smith wrote, "We will not circumscribe the authority constitutionally delegated to the Legislature to determine whether audio-visual coverage of courtroom proceedings is in the best interest of the citizens of this state." Mr. Buzard and Mr. Schleiff said they would now focus their attention on the Legislature.
State officials experimented with cameras in the courtroom several times between 1987 and 1997. A spokesman for Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate's Republican majority leader, said, "We believe the cameras should be allowed in as we have in the past," and a spokesman for Sheldon Silver, the Democratic speaker of the Assembly, said legislation to allow cameras would be considered, "with the appropriate safeguards for witnesses and jurors."
Interestingly, Gov. George E. Pataki, a Republican, and Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic attorney general who hopes to replace him, see eye to eye on the issue. Both support cameras in the courtroom.