What happened

On July 1, 2026, the New York Office of Court Administration (OCA) issued a memo titled "Amended — Prohibition Against Smart Glasses in Court Facilities." The ban takes effect on July 20, 2026, and covers all 1,240 courts in New York's Unified Court System across 62 counties — state, county, city, town, and village courts.

The memo was signed by Justin A. Barry, Executive Director of the Unified Court System, and sent to all administrative judges, New York City chief clerks, and district executives. Chief Administrative Judge Joseph A. Zayas and Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Norman St. George were copied but did not author the order.

This is the first time a U.S. state has imposed a blanket smart-glasses ban across its entire court system.

What the ban covers

Devices: Any eyewear or headwear containing a camera, microphone, computer, or other technology that permits recording video or audio. This includes both prescription and non-prescription models.

People: No exemptions. The ban applies to litigants, attorneys, witnesses, family members, court employees, and anyone entering for any reason.

Enforcement: Visitors cannot enter with smart glasses unless they surrender them for safekeeping to uniformed court personnel for the duration of their visit. Courthouse signs advise bringing a conventional backup pair of glasses. The memo does not specify fines or criminal penalties for possession — enforcement is preventive. However, anyone who actually records proceedings faces existing penalties under New York Civil Rights Law Section 52, which makes unauthorized recording of certain proceedings a misdemeanor.

Legal basis: The memo cites the New York Civil Rights Law and existing court rules (22 NYCRR Part 29) that prohibit photographing, filming, videotaping, audiotaping, broadcasting, or telecasting in courthouses without permission.

What prompted it

OCA did not publicly state what triggered the ban. Bloomberg Law reported that OCA did not answer questions about what prompted it. No specific New York courtroom incident has been cited.

The policy appears proactive — closing an enforcement gap as devices that look like ordinary eyewear become harder to distinguish from non-recording glasses. Several high-profile events likely influenced the timing:

February 18, 2026: During a social-media addiction trial in Los Angeles, members of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's team wore Ray-Ban Meta glasses in the courtroom. Judge Carolyn Kuhl ordered them removed and warned that anyone who recorded must delete footage or face contempt. She expressed concern about jurors being covertly recorded.

February 2026: In a London High Court case, a judge rejected a witness's testimony after finding he wore smart glasses connected to his phone for real-time coaching during cross-examination.

2025–2026: Sales of Ray-Ban Meta glasses reached an estimated seven million pairs. The "rizz camming" trend and LED-tampering investigations raised public awareness of covert recording capability.

The wave of court bans nationwide

New York is the most sweeping ban, but it is not the first court to restrict smart glasses:

| Jurisdiction | Effective | Scope | |---|---|---| | U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin | February 2025 | Federal courthouse prohibited-items list includes Meta, Google Glass, all recording-capable eyeglasses | | U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii | June 2025 | All courthouse areas including public spaces; prescription smart glasses included | | Forsyth County, North Carolina | November 2025 | All recording devices including smart glasses banned from courthouse | | Philadelphia First Judicial District | March 30, 2026 | All smart/AI-integrated eyewear banned from all FJD buildings; criminal contempt possible | | Montgomery County, Pennsylvania | May 2026 | Judicial facilities ban without express written permission | | New York Unified Court System | July 20, 2026 | All 1,240 state and local courts statewide |

A Colorado federal court proposed a similar ban in September 2025 with public comment through October 2025; adoption status is unconfirmed.

Opposition and open questions

Accessibility. The memo includes no disclosed accommodation process for people who rely on smart glasses for assistive features — text-to-speech, scene description, navigation aids. Meta launched a program in June 2026 providing free smart glasses to blind veterans. Advocates argue this creates a conflict between privacy enforcement and disability access.

Enforcement difficulty. Smart glasses increasingly look identical to conventional frames. Pennsylvania Bar Association ethics committee chair Daniel Siegel noted the difficulty of enforcement when devices are visually indistinguishable from ordinary eyewear.

Policy consistency. Above the Law published a critique in May 2026 calling court smart-glass bans "knee-jerk" — citing vague definitions, inconsistent treatment of phones versus wearables, and failure to address non-recording assistive uses.

Detection gap. OCA did not respond to Bloomberg Law questions about screening or detection methods. Courts rely on signage and voluntary compliance. There is no disclosed plan for detecting whether visitors' glasses have recording capability.

What this means for other venues

The courthouse ban wave establishes a template that extends beyond courts. Every argument for restricting smart glasses in courtrooms — covert recording capability, visual indistinguishability from regular glasses, inadequacy of the LED indicator — applies equally to gyms, schools, medical facilities, and any private space with an expectation of privacy.

The enforcement challenge these courts face is the same one every venue faces: you cannot reliably identify camera-equipped glasses by looking at them. The same frames that house a camera and microphone are sold as standard non-smart Ray-Bans. Visual inspection is not a detection strategy.

Radio-based detection addresses this gap. Smart glasses broadcast Bluetooth and Wi-Fi signals that distinguish them from conventional eyewear. These signals are present whether or not the LED is visible, whether or not the wearer intends to record. Venue operators who want to enforce a no-smart-glasses policy need a detection mechanism that does not depend on visual identification.

Timeline

| Date | Event | |---|---| | February 2025 | Western District of Wisconsin adds smart glasses to prohibited items | | June 2025 | District of Hawaii bans smart glasses from all courthouse areas | | November 2025 | Forsyth County, NC bans all recording devices from courthouse | | February 2026 | Judge Kuhl orders Meta team to remove smart glasses during Zuckerberg trial | | March 2026 | Philadelphia bans smart glasses from all First Judicial District buildings | | May 2026 | Montgomery County, PA issues administrative ban | | July 1, 2026 | New York OCA issues statewide ban memo | | July 7, 2026 | Syracuse.com first reports the ban publicly | | July 20, 2026 | Ban takes effect across all 1,240 New York courts |