Does the constitutional mandate to consider alternatives to courtroom closure apply to audio/video streaming?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010), held that, before closing the courtroom during a criminal trial, “courts are required to consider alternatives to closure even when they are not offered by the parties.” Jd. at 214. Does this constitutional mandate apply even if the court intends to stream the trial via audio, video, or both? 2. When no court order is sought or made on a defendant’s right to a public trial, what qualifies as an “opportunity to object” to the denial of that right under Rule 51(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? 3. Should the Court overrule United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886), and hold that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to criminalize conduct between members of the same tribe that occurs on tribal land, or at least clarify the constitutional foundation on which Congress may criminalize such conduct? i