The Fulton County, Georgia, judge overseeing the sprawling 2020 election interference racketeering case against former President Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants says that all proceedings in his courtroom related to the case will be livestreamed and allowed to be televised.

The ruling, however, would be subject to change and would not apply to any portions of the case moved to federal court.

In a court hearing Thursday, Superior Court of Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee, who was assigned the case, said he would make all hearings and possible trials available to be broadcast on the Fulton County Court YouTube channel.

McAfee also said that he will allow broadcast news media to have “pool” cameras, where groups of news organizations combine their resources and share camera access, in the courtroom.

Neither defense attorneys nor prosecutors appeared in court Thursday to oppose the news media’s request for cameras.

Thursday, McAfee also ruled to allow members of the media to use cell phones and computer electronics in the courtroom for non-recording purposes such as note-taking.

McAfee’s ruling is limited to the Fulton County state case.

Multiple defendants in Georgia’s sprawling state racketeering case, including former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, are asking for their cases to be moved to federal court, where there are no cameras, computers or smartphones allowed in the court.

US District Judge Steve Jones could rule at any time on Meadows’ bid to move the Fulton County election subversion case to federal court, now that Meadows and the district attorney have filed dueling briefs weighing in on a follow-up legal question posed by the judge after Monday’s hearing on the matter.

Jones had specifically asked the parties whether the case should be moved if the court found that at least one of the episodes described in the racketeering case pertained to conduct Meadows carried out under the color of his federal office.

District Attorney Fani Willis argued in her new brief that such a finding would not be sufficient for the case to be moved. Meadows’ attorneys said it would.