Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 1 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

Supreme CourtoftheUnited States

Officeofthe Clerk
W ashington,DC 20543-0001
William K.Suter
ClerkoftheCourt
January13,2010 (202)479-3011

TheodoreB.Ol
son
GibsonDunn& CrutcherLLP
to--7-
:/Lz
1050ConnecticutAvenue,N.W. &
Washington,D.C.20036 pO*
44to
tpco
oe:
*
* > Y#+
ooauy4
lpMp
:ee
je e
iepö
Re: DennisHollingsworth,etal. *Yra z#<,
v.KristinM.Perry,etal.
No.09A648
y dto
Wze
DearMr.Olson: /*044

Theendosedpercuriam intheabove-entitledcaseissuedtoday.

Verytrulyyours,

William K.Suter,Clerk

By(; zr'
DannyBickell
StaffAttorney
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 2 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

RMOELLYccDEWYIV4D
ERCkERK
u.
s.cotiRToFAôpuAus
JA.192C1:
Citeas:558U.S. (2010) Fl* '
PerCuriam nkTi I
gmc
SUPREME COURT OFTHEUNITED STATES
No.09A648
DENNISHOLLINGSWORTH ETAL.p.KRISTIN M.
PERRYETAL.
ONAPPLICATIONFORSTAY
(January13,2010)
PERCURIAM.
Weareaskedtostaythebroadcastofafederaltrial. We
resolve that question without expressing any view on
whether such trialsshould be broadcast. We instead
determinethatthebroadcastinthiscaseshouldbestayed
becauseitappearsthecourtsbelow didnotfollow the
appropriate procedures setforth in federal1aw before
changingtheirrulestoallow suchbroadcasting. Courts
enforcetherequirementofproceduralregularityon oth-
ers,andmustfollowthoserequirementsthemselves.
Thislawsuit,stillin apreliminarystage involvesan
actionchallengingwhatthepartiesrefertoa,sProposition
8,aCaliforniaballotpropositionadoptedbytheelectorate.
Proposition8amendedtheStateConstitutionbyaddinga
new section providingthattsEolnlymarriagebetween a''
man andawomanisvalidorrecognizedin California.
Cal.Const.Art.1,j7.5.TheplaintiffscontendthatPropo-
sition8violatestheUnitedStatesConstitution.A bench
trialinthecasebegan onMonday,January11,2010,in
theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrict
ofCalifornia.
TheDistrictCourthasissuedan orderpermittingthe
trialtobebroadcastliveviastreamingaudioandvideoto
anumberoffederalcourthousesaroundthecountry.The
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 3 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

HOLLINGSWORTHp.PERRY
PerCuriam
orderwasissuedpursuanttoapurportedamendmenttoa
localRuleoftheDistrictCourt.ThatRulehadpreviously
forbiddenthebroadcastingoftrialsoutsidethecourthouse
inwhichatrialtakesplace.TheDistrictCourteffectedits
amendmentvia severalpostingson theDistrictCourt's
Websiteinthedaysimmediatelybeforethetrialinthis
casewastobegin.
Applicantsherearedefendant-intervenorsin thelaw-
suit. TheyobjecttotheDistrictCourt'sorder,arguing
thattheDistrictCourtviolatedafederalstatutebyprom-
ulgatingtheamendmenttoitslocalRulewithoutsuffi-
cientopportunity fornoticeand commentand thatthe
publicbroadcastwouldviolatetheirdueprocessrightstoa
fairandimpartialtrial. Applicantsseek a stay ofthe
orderpendingthefilingofpetitionsforwritsofcertiorari
andmandamus.Wegrantedatemporarystaytoconsider
theissuefurther.Post,p. .Concludingthattheappli-
cantshavemadea sufficientshowing ofentitlementto
relief,wenow grantastay.
Proposition 8 waspassed byCaliforniavotersin No-
vember2008. Itwasaballotproposition designed to
overturn arulingbytheCaliforniaSupremeCourtthat
had'vensame-sexcouplesarighttomarry.Proposition
8wasandisthesubjectofpublicdebatethroughoutthe
Stateand,indeed,nationwide. Itsadvocatesclaim that
theyhavebeensubjecttoharassmentasaresultofpublic
disclosureoftheirsupport. See,e.g.,ReplyBriefforAp-
pellant 28-29 in Citizens United v.FederclElection
Comm'n,No.0>205,now pendingbeforethisCourt.For
example,donorstogroupssupportingProposition8dshave
received death threatsandenvelopescontainingapow-
derywhitesubstance.'' Stone,Prop 8DonorWeb Site
ShowsDisclosureisaz-EdgedSword,N.Y.Times,Feb.8,
2009. Some advocates claim thatthey havereceived
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 4 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

Citeas:588U.S. (2010)
PerCuriam
confrontationalphone calls and e-mailmessagesfrom
opponentsofProposition 8,ibid.,andothershavebeen
forcedtoresigntheirjobsafteritbecamepublicthatthey
had donated to groupssupportingtheamendment,see
BriefforCenterforCompetitivePoliticsasAmicusCuriae
13-14,inCitizensUnitedv.FederalElectionComm' n,No.
08-205,now pending beforethisCourt. Opponentsof
Proposition8alsoareallegedtohavecompiledGlnternet
blacklists''of pro-proposition 8 businesses and urged
otherstoboycottthosebusinessesinretaliationforsup-
portingtheballotmeasure.Carlton,GayActivistsBoycott
BackersofProp8,WallStreetJournal,Dec.27,2008,A3.
Andnumerousinstancesofvandalism andphysicalvio-
lencehavebeen reported againstthosewhohavebeen
identifiedasProposition8supporters.SeeExhs.B,1,and
LtoDefendant-lntervenors'MotionforProtectiveOrderin
Perryv.Schwarzenegger,No.3:09-v-02292 (ND Cal.)
(hereinafterDefendant-lntervenors'Motion).
Respondentsfiled suitin theUnited StatesDistrict
CourtfortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia,seekingto
invalidateProposition8. Theycontendthattheamend-
menttotheState'sConstitutionviolatestheEqualProtec-
tionandDueProcessClausesoftheFourteenthAmend-
mentoftheUnitedStates Constitution. TheStateof
CaliforniadeclinedtodefendProposition8,andthedefen-
dant-intervenors(whoaretheapplicantshere)enteredthe
suittodefenditsconstitutionality.Abenchtrialbeganon
Monday,January11,2010,beforetheChiefJudgeofthe
DistrictCourt,theHonorableVaughnR.Walker.
OnSeptember25,2009,theDistrictCourtinformedthe
partiesatahearingthattherewasinterestinthepossibil-
itythatthetrialwouldbebroadcast.Respondentsindi-
catedtheirsupportfortheidea,whileapplicantsopposed
it.Thecourtnotedthat'sltlhereare,ofcourse,Judicial
Conferencepositionsonthis,''butalsothatS'ltlhisisal1in
flux.''Exh.9,p.72,App.toPet.forMandamusinNo.10-
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 5 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

HOLLINGSWORTHu.PERRY
PerCuriam
70063(CA9)(hereinafterApp.toPet.).
Onemonthlater,ChiefJudgeKozinskioftheUnited
StatesCotzrtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuitappointeda
three-judgecommitteetoevaluatethepossibilityofadopt-
ing a Ninth CircuitRuleregarding therecording and
transmissionofdistrictcourtproceedings.Thecommittee
(ofwhich ChiefJudgeWalkerwasa member)recom-
mendedtotheNinthCircuitJudicialCouncilthatdistrict
courtsbepermittedtoexperimentwithbroadcastingcourt
proceedingson atrialbasis. ChiefJudgeWalkerlater
acknowledgedthatwhilethecommitteewasconsidering
thepilotprogram,fs thiscasewasverymuchin mindat
thattimebecauseithadcometoprominencethenandwas
thoughttobeanidealcandidateforconsideration.''Id.,
Exh.2,at42.Thecommitteedidnotpubliclydiscloseits
consideratiönoftheproposal,nordiditsolicitorreceive
publiccommentsontheproposal.
On December 17,the Ninth CircuitJudicialCouncil
issuedanewsreleaseindicatingthatithadapproveda
pilotprogram ford'thelimiteduseofcamerasinfederal
districtcourtswithinthecircuit.''Id.,Exh.13,at1.The
releaseexplainedthattheCouncil'sdecisionddamendled)a
1996Ninth Circuitpolic/'thathadbannedthephoto-
graphing,aswellasradioandtelevisioncoverage,ofcourt
proceedings. Ibid. The releasefurtherindicated that
caseswouldbeselectedforparticipationintheprogram
sYythechiefjudgeofthedistrictcourtinconsultation
withthechiefcircuitjudge.'Ibid.Nofurtherguidelines
forparticipation in the pilotprogram havesince been
issued.
On December21,acoalition ofmedia companiesre-
questedpermissionfrom theDistrictCourttotelevisethe
trialchallengingProposition8.Twodayslater,thecourt
indicatedonitsWebsitethatithadamendedCivilLocal
Rule77-3,whichhadpreviouslybannedtherecordingor
broadcastofcourtproceedings. Therevised version of
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 6 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

Citeas:588U.S. (2010) 5
PerCuriam
Rule77-3createdanexceptiontothisgeneralprohibition
toallow Wforparticipationinapilotorotherprojectau-
thorizedbytheJudicialCounciloftheNinthCircuit.''1d.,
Exh.14.Applicantsobjectedtotherevision,arguingthat
anychangetoNinthCircuitorlocalruleswouldrequirea
sufficientnoticeandcommentperiod.
OnDecember31,theDistrictCourtreviseditsWebsite
toremovethepreviousannouncementaboutthechangeto
Rule77-3.Anew announcementwaspostedindicatinga
dtproposedrevisionofCivilLocalRule77-3,''whichhad
beend'approvedforpubliccomment.'' Id.,Exh.17. The
proposed revision wasthe same asthepreviously an-
nouncedamendment.Commentsontheproposedrevision
weretobesubmittedbyFriday,January8,2010.
OnJanuary4,2010,theDistrictCourtagainrevisedits
Web site. The announcementregarding the proposed
revisionofRule77-3wasremovedandreplacedwith a
thirdversion oftheannouncement. Thisthird version
statedthattherevisedRulewasfieffectiveDecember22,
2009,''andthat'sltlherevisedrulewasadoptedpursuant
to the dimmediate need'provision ofTitle 28 Section
2071(e).''Id.,Exh.19,at3.
OnJanuary6,2010,theDistrictCourtheldahearing
regardingtherecordingandbroadcastingoftheupcoming
trial.Thecourtannouncedthatanaudioandvideofeedof
trialproceedingswouldbestreamedlivetocertaincourt-
housesinothercities. Italsoannouncedthat,pending
approvaloftheChiefJudgeoftheNinthCircuit,thetrial
wouldberecordedandthenbroadcastontheInternet.A
courttechnicianexplainedthattheproceedingswouldbe
recordedbythreecameras,andthentheresultingbroad-
castwouldbeuploadedforpostingonthelnternet,witha
delayduetoprocessingrequirements.
On January 7,2010,theDistrictCottrtfiledanorder
formally requestingthatClliefJudge Kozinskiapprove
Nnclusionofthetrialinthepilotprojectonthetermsand
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 7 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

HOLLINGSWORTHu.PERRY
PerCuriam
conditionsdiscussedattheJanuary6,2010,hearingand
subjecttoresolutionofcertaintechnicalissues.'Id.,Exh.
1,at2.Applicantsflledapetitionforawritofmandamus
in theCourtofAppeals,seekingtoprohibitorstaythe
DistrictCourtfrom enforcingitsorder.Thefollowingday,
athree- judgepaneloftheCourtofAppealsdeniedthe
petition.
On January 8,2010,ChiefJudgeKozinskiissuedan
orderapprovingtheDistrictCourt'sdecisiontoallow real-
timestreamingofthetrialtocertainfederalcourthouses
listed in a simultaneously issued pressrelease. Five
locationshad been selected:federalcourthousesin San
Francisco,Pasadena,Seattle,Portland,and Brooklyn.
Thepressreleasealsoindicatedthatddlajdditionalsites
maybeannounced.''FederalCourthousestoOfferRemote
Viewing of Proposition 8 Trial, online at
http://ww .cag.uscourts.gov/datastore/generapzolo/ol/o8/
Prop8-Remote-viewing-Locations. pdf(asvisitedJan.13,
2010,andavailableintheClerkofCourt'scasefilel.
ChiefJudgeKozinski'sJanuary8ordernotedthatthe
requesttobroadcastthetrialontheInternetwas'sstill
pending''beforehim. In a laterlettertoChiefJudge
Walker,heexplainedthattherequestwasnotyetS'ripefor
approval''becauseSdthetechnicalstaffencounteredsome
unexpected difficulties preparing a satisfactory video
suitableforon-lineposting.''LetterofJan.9,2010(avail-
ableinClerkofCourt'scasel' ilel.Afinaldecisionwhether
topermitonlinepublicationwouldbemadewhentechni-
caldifficultieswereresolved.
On January9,2010,applicantsfiledinthisCourtan
applicationforastayoftheDistrictCourt'sorder.Their
petition seeksa stay pendingresolution offorthcoming
petitionsforthewritsofcertiorariandmandamus.
11
Thequestionwhethercourtroom proceedingsshouldbe
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 8 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

Citeas:588U.S. (2010)
PerCuriam
broadcast has prompted considerable nationaldebate.
Reasonablemindsdifferontheproperresolutionofthat
debateandontherestrictions,circumstances,andproce-
duresunderwhichsuchbroadcastsshouldoccur.Wedo
nothereexpressanyviewsontheproprietyofbroadcast-
ingcourtproceedingsgenerally. '
lnstead,ourreview isconfinedtoanarrow legalissue:
whethertheDistrictCourt'samendmentofitslocalrules
tobroadcastthistrialcomplied with federallaw. We
concludethatitlikelydid notandthatapplicantshave
demonstratedthatirreparableharm wouldlikely result
from theDistrictCourt'sactions. Wethereforestaythe
court'sJanuary7,2010,ordertotheextentthatitpermits
thelivestreamingofcourtproceedingstootherfederal
courthouses. Wedo notaddressotheraspectsofthat
order,suchasthoserelatedtothebroadcastofcourtpro-
ceedingsontheInternet,asthismaybepremature.
A
Toobtainastaypendingthefilinganddispositionofa
petitionforawritofcertiorari,an applicantmustshow
(1)areasonableprobabilitythatfourJusticeswillconsider
theissuesufficientlymeritorioustograntcertiorari;(2)a
fairprospectthatamajorityoftheCourtwillvoteto
reversethejudgmentbelow;and (3)alikelihoodthat
irreparableharm willresultfrom thedenialofastay.In
closecasestheCircuitJusticeortheCourtwillbalance
theequitiesandweightherelativeharmstotheapplicant
and totherespondent. Lucasv.Townsend,486U.S.
1301,1304(1988)(KENNEDY,J.,inchambers);Rostkerv.
Goldberg,448U.S.1306,1308(1980)(Brennan,J.,in
chambers).Toobtainastaypendingthefilinganddispo-
sitionofapetitionforawritofmandamus,anapplicant
mustshowafairprospectthatamajorityoftheCourtwill
votetograntmandamusandalikelihoodthatirreparable
harm willresultfrom thedenialofastay.Beforeawritof
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 9 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

HOLLINGSWORTHu.PERRY
PerCuriam
mandamusmayissue,apartymustestablishthat(1)Gno
otheradequatemeans(exist)toattainthereliefhede-
sires,''(2)theparty's''righttoissuanceofthewritisdclear
andindisputabley'''and(3)Rthewritisappropriateunder
thecircumstances.'' Cheneyv.UnitedStatesDist.Court
forD.C.,542U.S.367,380-381(2004)(someinternal
qpotationmarksomitted). ThisCourtwillissuethewrit
ofmandamusdirectly to a federaldistrictcourtdd only
where a question ofpublicimportance isinvolved,or
wherethequestionisofsuchanaturethatitispeculiarly
appropriate that such action by this courtshould be
taken.'' ExparteUnitedStates,287U.S.241,248-249
(1932).Thesefamiliarstandardsarefollowedhere,where
applicantsclaim thattheDistrictCourt'sorderwasbased
onalocalruleadoptedinviolationoffederallaw.
B
Given theimportanceoftheissuesatstake,andour
conclusionthattheDistrictCourtlikelyviolatedafederal
statuteinrevisingitslocalrules,applicantshaveshowna
fairprospectthatamajorityofthisCourtwilleithergrant
apetition forawritofcertiorariandreversetheorder
beloworwillgrantapetitionforawritofmandamus.
A districtcourthas discretion to adoptlocalrules.
Frczfcrv.Heebe,482U.S.641,645 (1987)(citing28
U.:.C.j2071;Fed.RuleCiv.Proc.83).Thoseruleshave
d
ïtheforceoflaw.' Gef!v.Neay,278U.S.160,169
(1929).Federallaw,however,requlresadistrictcourtto
follow certainprocedurestoadoptoramendalocalrule.
Localrulestypically may notbe amended unless the
districtcourtRgivles)appropriatepublicnoticeand an
oppoaunityforcomment. ' 28U.S.C.5207109;seealso
Fed.RuleCiv.Proc.83(a).A limitedexceptionpermits
dispensing with this notice-and-comment requirement
only where dfthere is an immediate need for a rule.''
j2071(e).Evenwherearuleisamendedbasedonimme-
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 10 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

Citeas:588U.S. (2010) 9
PerCuriam
diateneed,howev'er,theissuing courtmustRpromptly
thereafterafford...noticeandopportunityforcomment.''
Ibid.
BeforelateDecember,thecourt'sLocalRule77-3ex-
plicitlybannedthebroadcastofcourtproceedings:
RunlessallowedbyaJudgeoraMagistrateJudge
withrespecttohisorherownchambersorassigned
courtroom forceremonialpurposes,thetakingofpho-
tographs,public broadcasting or televising,or re-
cordingforthosepurposesinthecourtroom oritsen-
virons,inconnectionwithanyjudicialproceeding,is
prohibited. Electronictransmittalofcourtroom pro-
ceedingsandpresentationofevidencewithinthecon-
finesofthecourthouseispermitted,ifauthorizedby
theJudgeorMagistrateJudge.Theterm Senvirons,'
asusedinthisrule,meansallfloorsonwhichcham-
bers,courtroomsoronwhichOfficesoftheClerkare
located,with theexception ofanyspacespecifically
designatedasaPressRoom.Nothinginthisruleis
intendedtorestricttheuseofelectronicmeanstore-
ceiveorpresenteddenceduringCourtproceedings.''
Notably,theRuleexceptedfrom itsgeneralbanthetrans-
mittalofcertainproceedings-butitlimitedthatexception
totransmissionsdfwithintheconfinesofthecourthouse.''
Thenegativeinferenceofthisexception,ofcourse,isthat
theRulewouldhaveprohibitedthestreamingoftrans-
missions,orotherbroadcastingortelevising,beyondRthe
confinesofthecourthouse.''
RespondentsdonotdisputethatthisversionofRule77-
3 would have prohibited streaming video ofthe trial
aroundthecountry.Buttheyassertthatthisisnotthe
operativeversionofRule77-3.Inaseriesofpostingson
itsWeb site,theDistrictCourtpurported toreviseor
proposerevisionstoLocalRule77-3. Thisamendment
wouldhavecreatedanadditionalexceptiontoRule77-3's
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 11 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

10 HOLLINGSWORTH=.PERRY
PerCuziam
generalbanonthebroadcastingofcourtproceedingsd' for
pahicipationinapilotorotherprojectauthorizedbythe
JudicialCounciloftheNinth Circuit.'' Exh.14,App.to
Pet. Respondentsrely on thisamended version ofthe
Rule.
TheamendedversionofRule77-3appearstobeinvalid.
Inamendingthisrule,itappearsthattheDistrictCourt
failedto''givle)appropriatepublicnoticeandanopportu-
nityforcomment,''asrequiredbyfederallaw.28U.S.C.
5207109.ThefirsttimetheDistrictCourtaskedforpub-
liccommentswason theafternoon ofNew Year'sEve.
Thecourtstatedthatitwouldleavethecommentperiod
openuntilJanuary8.Atmost,theDistrictCourtthere-
fore allowed a commentperiod spanningfive business
days.Thereissubstantialmerittotheargumentthatthis
wasnotdsappropriate''noticeandanopportunityforcom-
ment. Administrativeagencies,forinstance,'susuall/'
provideacommentperiodofHthirtydaysormore.''River-
bendFarms,Inc.v.Madigan,958F.2d1479,1484(CA9
1992);seePetryv.Block,131F.2d1193,1201(CADC
1984)C(T)heshortestperiodinwhichpartiescanmean-
ingfully review a proposed rule and I'
ile informed re-
sponsesisthirtydays').
Tobesure,thepossibilitythatsomeaspectsofthetrial
mightbebroadcastwasfirstraisedtothepartiesbythe
DistrictCourtatan in-courthearingon September25,
somethreemonthsbeforetheRulewaschanged. The
broadcasting,however,wasprohibitedunderbothCircuit
andlocalrulesatthattime. Thefirstpublicindication
thattheDistrictCourtintendedtoadoptaruleofgeneral
ap-plicabilitycameinitsWebsitepostingonDecember23.
AndevenifChiefJudgeWalker'sin-courtallusiontothe
possibilitythattheProposition8trialmightbebroadcast
couldbeconsideredasprovidingnoticetothepartiesin
thiscase-hisstatementthatf'ltlhisisallinflux''notwith-
standing-thedisclosurefallsfarshortofthe(dappropriate
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 12 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

Citeas:588U.S. (2010)
PerCuriam
publicnoticeandanopponunityforcomment''requiredby
j2071(b).lndeed,therewasnoproposedpolicyonwhich
tocomment.
Theneedforameaningfulcommentperiodwasparticu-
larlyacuteinthiscase.Bothcourtsandlegislatureshave
proceeded with appropriate caution in addressing this
question.In1996,theJudicialConferenceoftheUnited
Statesadoptedapolicyopposingthepublicbroadcastof
courtproceedings.Thispolicywasadoptedafteramulti-
yearstudy oftheissuebytheFederalJudicialCenter
which drew on datafrom six districtandtwoappellate
courts,aswellasstate-courtdata.Inlightofthestudy's
findings,the Judicial Conference concluded that ddthe
intimidating effectofcameras on somewitnessesand
jurors(is)causeforconcern.''ReportoftheProceedingsof
theJudicialConferenceoftheUnitedStates47(Sept.20,
1994).
ln morethan adecadesinceitsadoptiontheJudicial
Conferencehascontinuedtoadheretoitspositiononthe
broadcastofcourtproceedings. Whilethepolicyconclu-
sionsoftheJudicialConferencemaynotbebindingonthe
lowercourts,theyare$$attheveryleastentitledtorespect-
fulconsideration.''InreSonyBMGMusicEntertainment,
564F.3d 1,6(CAI2009). Beforeabandoningitsown
policy--one consistent with the Judicial Conference's
longstanding views-itwasincumbent on the District
Courttoadoptaproposedruleonlyafternoticeandan
adequateperiodforpubliccomment.
lndispensingwithpublicnoticeandcommenttheDis-
trictCouz'tinvokedtheGimmediateneed''exception. 28
U.S.C.j2071(e).ItdidsothroughaWebsitepostingon
January zl-priortotheexpiration ofthecommentpe-
riod-indicatingthatRule77-3hadbeenrevisedtoper-
mitparticipation in theNinth Circuit'spilotprogram.
Thesepostingsgavenoexplanation forinvokingtheex-
ception. AttrialtheDistrictCourtexplained thatthe
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 13 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

12 HOLLINGSWORTHu.PERRY
PerCuriam
immediateneedherewastoallow thiscasetobebroad-
castpursuanttotheNinth Circuit'snew pilotprogram.
SeeExh.1,p.11,Supp.App.toResponseforPerryetal.
Thisdoesnotqualifyasanimmediateneedthatjusti-
fiesdispensingwiththenoticeandcommentprocedures
requiredbyfederallaw.Whilerespondents(theplaintiffs
intheDistrictCourt)hadindicatedtheirapprovalofthe
plan,nopartyallegedthatitwouldbeimminentlyharmed
ifthetrialwerenotbroadcast. Hadan administrative
agencyactedastheDistrictCourtdidhere,theimmediate
needexceptionwouldlikelynothavebeenavailable.See
5 U.S.C.j553(b)(B) (administrative agencies cannot
invoke an exception to affording notice-and-comment
beforerulemakingunlessthenotice-and-commentproce-
dureswouldbeSsimpracticable,unnecessary,orcontraryto
thepublicinteresf).In issuing its order the District
CourtreliedontheNinth CircuitJudicialCouncil'spilot
program. Yetnothinginthatprogram-which wasnot
adopted after notice and comment procedures,cf.28
U.S.C.j33ztdltll-requiredanyNmmediate''revisionin
localrules. TheNinth CircuitJudicialCouncildid not
purporttomodifyorabrogatetheDistrictCourt'slocal
Rule. Norcouldit,astheJudicialCouncilonlyhasthe
powertomodifyorabrogatelocalrulesthatconflictwith
federallaw. Seej332(d)(4)(permittingacircuitcourt
counciltomodifyalocalrulethatisS'foundinconsistent''
withrulespromulgatedbytheSupremeCourt).Nofed-
erallawrequiresthattheDistrictCourtbroadcastsomeof
itscases.TheDistrictCourt'slocalRule,inaddition,was
not a conforming amendmentto Ninth Circuitpolicy,
because thatpolicy doesnotrequire districtcourtsto
broadcastproceedings.
Applicantsalsohaveshownthatirreparableharm will
likelyresultfrom thedenialofthestay.Withoutastay,
theDistrictCourtwillbroadcastthetrial. Itwouldbe
difficult-ifnotimpossible-to reverse the harm from
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 14 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

Citeas:588U.S. (2010)
PerCuriam
thosebroadcasts.Thetrialwillinvolvevariouswitnesses,
including membersofsame-sexcouples;academics,who
apparentlywilldiscussgenderissuesandgenderequality,
aswellasfamilystructtzres;andthosewhoparticipatedin
thè campaign leadingtotheadoption ofProposition 8.
ThisCourthasrecognizedthatwitnesstestimonymaybe
chilledifbroadcast.SeeEstesv.Texas,381U.S.532,547
(1965);id.,at591(Harlan,J.,concurring).Someofappli-
cants'witnesseshavealreadysaidthattheywillnottes-
tifyifthetrialisbroadcast,andtheyhavesubstantiated
theirconcernsbycitingincidentsofpastharassment.See,
c.g.,Exh.K toDefendant-lntervenors'Motion(71news
articlesdetailingincidentsofharassmentrelatedtopeople
whosupportedProposition 8). Theseconcernsarenot
diminishedbythefactthatsomeofapplicants'witnesses
arecompensatedexpertwitnesses.Therearequalitative
differencesbetweenmakingpublicappearancesregarding
anissueandhavingone'stestimonybroadcastthroughout
thecountry. Applicantsmaynotbeabletoobtain ade-
quatereliefthroughanappeal.Thetrialwillhavealready
beenbroadcast.Itisdifficulttodemonstrateoranalyze
whetherawitnesswouldhavetestifieddifferentlyifhisor
hertestimony had notbeen broadcast. And witnesses
subjecttoharassmentasaresultofbroadcastoftheir
testimonymightbelesslikelytocooperateinanyfuture
proceedings.
Thebalanceofequitiesfavorsapplicants.Whileappli-
cantshavedemonstratedthethreatofharm theyfaceif
thetrialisbroadcast,respondentshavenotallegedany
harm ifthetrialisnotbroadcast. Theissue,moreover,
mustberesolvedatthisstage,fortheinjurylikelycannot
beundoneoncethebroadcasttakesplace.
ThisCourtalsohasasignificantinterestinsupervising
theadministrationofthejudicialsystem.SeethisCourt's
Rule10(a)(theCourtwillconsiderwhetherthecourts
below have$dsofardepartedfrom theacceptedandusual
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 15 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

14 HOLLINGSWORTHv.PERRY
PerCuriam
courseofjudicialproceedings...astocallforanexercise
ofthisCourt'ssupervisorypowern).TheCourtmayuseits
supervisoryauthoritytoinvalidatelocalrulesthatwere
promulgatedinviolationofanActofCongress.SeeFrc-
zier,482U.S.,at645-646;id.,at652,654(Rehnquist,
C.J.,dissenting).TheCourt'sinterestinensuringcom-
pliancewith properrulesofjudicialadministration is
particularlyacutewhenthoserulesrelatetotheintegrity
ofjudicialprocesses.TheDistrictCourthereattemptedto
reviseitsmzlesinhaste,contrarytofederalstatutesand
thepolicyoftheJudicialConferenceoftheUnitedStates.
Itdid sotoallow broadcastingofthishigh-profiletrial
withoutanyconsideredstandardsorguidelinesin place.
Thear>mentsinfavorofdevelopingproceduresandrules
to allow broadcastofcertain caseshave considerable
merit,andreasonablemindscan surely differoverthe
generalandspecifictermsofrulesandstandardsadopted
forthatpurpose. Here,however,theorderin question
complied neitherwith existingrulesorpoliciesnorthe
requiredproceduresforamendingthem.
Byinsistingthatcourtscomplywith thelaw,parties
vindicatenotonlytherightstheyassertbutalsothelaw's
own insistence on neutrality and fidelity to principle.
Thosesystematicinterestsareallthemoreevidenthere,
wherethelackofaregularrulewithproperstandardsto
determinetheguidelinesforbroadcastingcouldcompro-
misetheorderly,decorous,rationaltraditionsthatcourts
relyupontoensuretheintegrityoftheirownjudgments.
Theseconsiderations,too,arepartofthereasonsleading
tothedecisiontograntextraordinaryrelief.
Inaddressingadiscreteinstanceauthorizingaclosed-
circuitbroadcastofatrial,Congresshasillustratedthe
needforcarefulguidelinesandstandards.Thetrialofthe
twodefendantsintheOklahomaCitybombingcasehad
been transferredtotheUnitedStatesDistrictColzrtfor
theDistrictofColorado,soitwassettotakeplacein
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 16 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

Citeas:588U.S. (2010)
PerCuriam
Denver.Thatmeantthefamiliesofdeceasedandsurviv-
ingvictimsinandaroundOklahomaCitywouldnothave
theopportunitytoobservethetrial. Conresspasseda
statutethatallowedvictims'familiestowatchthetrialon
closed-circuittelevision.42U.S.C.j10608.Thestatute
wasdrawnwithcaretoprovidepreciseanddetailedgazid-
ancewithrespecttothewiderangeofissuesimplicatedby
thebroadcast.Seej10608(a)(thestatuteonlyappliesIsin
caseswherethevenueofthetrialischanged''toacity
thatisdsoutoftheState''andSsmorethan350milesfrom
thelocationinwhichthoseproceedingsoriginallywould
havetakenplacen);jj10608(a)-(b)(standardsforwhocan
viewsuchtrials);510608(c)(restrictionsontransmission).
AndthestatutegavetheJudicialConferenceoftheUnited
States rulemaking authority ïdto effectuate the policy
addressedbythissection.''j10608(g).lnthepresentcase,
bycontrast,overaspanofthreeweekstheDistrictCourt
andNinthCircuitJudicialCouncilissued,retracted,and
reissuedaseriesofWebsitepostingsandnewsreleases.
Thesepurporttoamendrulesandpoliciesattheheartof
an ongoingconsideration ofbroadcastingfederaltrials.
Andtheyhavedonesotomakesurethatoneparticular
trialmaybebroadcast.Congress'requirementofanotice
and commentprocedure preventsjustsuch arbitrary
changesofcourtrules.Instead,courtsmustusethepro-
ceduresprescribed by statutetoamend theirrules,28
U.S.C.j2071.
lfLocalRule77-3hadbeenvalidlyrevised,questions
wouldstillremainabouttheDistrictCotlrt'sdecisionto
allowbroadcastingofthisparticulartrial,inwhichseveral
ofthewitnesseshavestatedconcernsfortheirownsecu-
rity. Evendistrictsthatallow trialstobebroadcast,see
Civ.Rule1.8(SDNY2009);Civ.Rule1.8(EDNY2009),
recognizethatadistrictjudge'
sdiscretiontobroadcasta
trialis limited,see,e.g.,Hamilton v.Accu-Tek,942
F.Supp.136,138 (EDNY 1996)(broadcastforbidden
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 17 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

HOLLINGSWORTHu.PERRY
PerCuriam
unless'sthereisnointerferencewiththedueprocess,the
dignityoflitigants,jurorsandwitnesses,orwithother
appropriate aspectsoftheadministration ofjusticen).
Consequently,courtsinthosedistrictshaveallowedthe
broadcastoftheirproceedingson thebasisthatthose
caseswerenothigh profile,E'
kTradeFinancialCorp.v.
DeutscheBankWG,582 F.Supp.2d 528,535 (SDNY
2008),ordidnotinvolvewitnesses,Marisol.A.v.Giuliani,
929F.Supp.660,661(SDI NY1996);Katzmanv.Victoria%
SecretCatalogue,923F.Supp.580,586-587(SDNY1996).
lndeed,oneDistrictCourtdidnotallow thebroadcasting
ofitsproceedingsbecausethecase<finvolvled)verysensi-
tiveissues.'' Schoepsv.Museum ofModernArt,599
F.Supp.2d532,534(SDNY2009). Thiscase,too,in-
volvesissuessubjecttointensedebateinoursociety.The
DistrictCourtintendsnotonlytobroadcasttheattorneys'
argumentsbutalsowitnesstestimony. SeeSonyBMG,
564F.3d,at11(Lipez,J.,concurring)(distinguishing
broadcastofattorneys'argumentsfrom otherpartsofthe
trial). Thiscaseisthereforenotagoodoneforapilot
program.Eventhestudiesthathavebeenconductedthus
farhavenotanalyzedtheeffectofbroadcastinginhigh-
profile,divisivecases.SeeApplicationforStay17(warn-
ingbyJudgeEdwardR.Beckerthatinffdtrulyhigh-profile
cases,'''onecanEsdjlustimaginewhatthefindingswould
be'''(quotingExh.21,at2,App.toPet.)).
III
TheDistrictCourtattemptedtochangeitsrulesatthe
eleventh hourtotreatthiscase differently than other
trialsinthedistrict. Notonlydiditignorethefederal
statutethatestablishestheproceduresbywhichitsrules
maybeamended,itsexpresspurposewastobroadcasta
high-profile trialthatwould include witnesstestimony
aboutacontentiousissue. lfcouz' tsaretorequirethat
othersfollow regularprocedures,courtsmustdo soas
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 18 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

Citeas:588U.S. (2010) 17
PerCuriam
well. TheCotzrtgrantstheapplicationforastayofthe
DistrictCourt'sorderofJanuary 7,2010,pendingthe
timelyfiling and disposition ofa petition forawritof
certiorariorthefilinganddispositionofapetitionfora
writofmandamus.
Itissoordered.
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 19 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

Citeas:558U.S. (2010)
BREYER,J.,dissenting
SUPREME COURTOFTHE UNITED STATES
No.09A648
DENNISHOLLINGSWORTH ETAL.u.M ISTINM.
PERRYETM,.
ONAPPLICATIONF0RSTAY
(January13,20104
JUSTICEBREYER,withwhom JUSTICESTEVENS,JUSTICE
GINSBURGandJUSTICESOTOMAYORjoin,dissenting.
TheCourttodayissuesanorderthatwillpreventthe
transmissionofproceedingsinanonjurycivilcaseofgreat
publicinteresttofiveotherfederalcourthouseslocatedin
Seattle,Pasadena,Portland,SanFrancisco,andBrooklyn.
TheCourtagreesthatitcanissuethisextraordinarylegal
reliefonlyif(1)thereisafairchancetheDistrictCourt
waswrongabouttheunderlyinglegalquestion,(2)that
legalquestionmeetsthisCourt'scertioraristandards,(3)
refusalofthereliefwouldworkRirreparableharm,''(4)the
balanceoftheequities(including,theCourtshouldsay,
possibleharm tothepublicinterest)favorsissuance,(5)
theparty'srighttothereliefisSklearandundisputable,''
and(6)theddquestionisofpublicimportance''(orotherwise
Rpeculiarlyappropriate''forsuchaction).Seeante,at6-.
7;
Rostkerv.Goldberg,448U.S.,1306,1308(1980)(Bren-
nan,J.,inchambers)(staystandard);Cheneyv.United
StatesDist.CourtforD.C. ,542U.S.367,380(2004)
(notingthatmandamusisaRdrasticandextraordinary
remedyreservedforreallyextraordinarycauses''(internal
quotationmarksomittedl).Thiscase,inmyview,doesnot
satisfy asingleoneofthesestandards,letaloneallof
them.Consequently,lmustdissent.
First,considerthemeritsofthelegalissue:TheUnited
StatesCode,inachapterentitled'tRulesofCourts,''states
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 20 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

2 HOLLINGSWORTHu.PERRY
BREYRR,J.,dissenting
thatRlalnyrule...shallbeprescribedonlyaftergiving
appropriate public notice and an opportunity for com-
ment.''28U.S.C.52071(b).Thequestionhereiswhether
the DistrictCourtaccompanied the modification ofits
antivideo rule with ddappropriate public notice and an
opportunityforcomment.''
Certainly thepartiesthemselveshadmorethan ade-
quatenoticeandopportunitytocommentbeforetheRule
waschanged. OnSeptember25,2009,thetrialjudge,
ChiefJudgeVaughnWalker,discussedthepossibilityof
broadcastingtrialproceedingsbothwithinthecourthouse
andbeyond,andaskedfortheparties'views. Noparty
objectedtothepresenceofcamerasinthecourtroom for
transmissionswithinthecouzthouse,Exh.9,p.70,App.to
Pet.forMandamusin No.10-70063(CA9)(hereinafter
App.toPet.).CNoobjection.Noneata1l''),andbothsides
made written submissionstothecourtregarding their
viewsonothertransmissions.Thecourtagainraisedthe
issueatahearingonDecember16.
Nor,inpractice,didothermembersoftheJudiciarylack
information abouttheissue. In May 1996 theCircuit
Counciladoptedapolicypermittingvideoin connection
with appellateproceedings,butprohibitingitsuseinthe
districtcourt. Subsequently,appellatecourtpanelshave
frequently permitted electronic coverage. Judges,the
press,lawyers,andothershavediscussedthematter.In
2007thelawyersandjudgespresentattheNinthCircuit
JudicialConferenceconsideredaresolution thatfavored
theuseofcamerasindistrictcourtcivilnonjuryproceed-
ings. And,votingseparately,bothlawyersandjudges
Sdapprovedtheresolutionbyresoundingmargins.''Letter
from ChiefJudgeKozinskitoJudgeAnthonyScirica(Jan.
10,2010),Exh.8,p.4,Supp.App.toResponseforPel' ry
etal.(hereinafterSupp.App.toResponse).Subsequently,
acommitteeofjudgeswascreatedtostudythematter.
AndonDecember17,2009,theCircuitCouncilvotedto
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 21 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

Citeas:558U.S. (2010) 3
BREYER,J.,dissenting
authorizeapilotprogram permittingtheuseofvideoin
nonjurycivilcasesaspartofan tsexperimentwiththe
disseminationofvideorecordingsincivilnonjurymatters'
(specificallythoseselectedbytheChiefJudgeoftheCir-
cuitandtheChiefJudgeoftheDistrictCourt).Andit
issuedapressrelease.NewsRelease,NinthCircuitJudi-
cialCouncilApprovesExperimentalUseofCamerasin
DistrictCourts(Dec.17,2009),Exh,13.App.toPet.
lnthiscontexttheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe
NorthernDistrictofCaliforniaamendeditslocalruleson
December22,2009tobringthem intoconformitywith
Ninth Circuitpolicy. lnparticular,theCourtamended
thelocalRuleforbiddingthepublicbroadcastingortele-
visingofcourtproceedingsbycreatingan exception S'
for
participationinapilotorotherprojectauthorizedbythe
JudicialCouncilofthe Ninth Circuit.'' Public Notice
ConcerningRevisionsofCivilLocalRule77-3,id.,Exh.
14.TheCourtinitiallyreliedonaprovisionintheUnited
StatesCodethatpermitsDistrictCourtstoprescriberules
R
withoutpublicnoticeandopportunityforcomment''d'lilf
theprescribingcourtdeterminesthatthereisanimmedi-
ateneedforarule,''andifthecourtddpromptlythereafter
affordls)such noticeandopportunityforcomment,''28
U.S.C.52071(e).SeeExh.1,at11,Supp.App.toRe-
sponse. Then,on December31,the Courtrevised its
publicnoticetoaskforcommentsdirectly.ByJanuary8,
2010,theCourthadreceived138,574comments,al1but32
ofwhichfavoredtransmittingtheproceedings.Id.,at12.
Viewedinlightofthishistory,theCourtsatisfiedthe
statute'sinsistencethat'snotice''beï'appropriate.'' Cf.28
U.S.C.j52071(b),(e).Theparties,thejudges,andthe
interestedpublicwereawareoftheproposalstochange
Ninth Circuitpolicy thatculminated in the ddpilotpro-
gram''wellbeforethechangeinthelocalrulesthaten-
abled participation in thepmject. TheNinth Circuit
issuedapressreleaseinmid-Decemberexplainingitsnew
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 22 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

HOLLINGSWORTHw.PERRY
BREYER,J.,dissenting
d'pilotprogram.''Then,oncetheDistrictCourtamended
itslocalrule,itissueditsownnoticenearlythreeweeks
beforethetransmissionsthattherulechangeauthorized
weretobegin. And therulechangeitselfissimply a
changethatconformslocalruletoCircuitpolicy-acon-
formitythatthelaw maywellrequire. (TheJudicial
Councilhad longbeforevotedtomakeitsvideopolicy
dêbindingon a1lcouz'
tswithin theNinth Circuit,''Letter
from ChiefJudgeHugtoAllNinthCircuitJudges(June
21,1996)(availableinClerkofCourt'scasefile);itan-
nounceditsnew dspilotprogram''policyinDecember2009,
App.toApplication,Exh.13,App.toPet.;and federal
statutesrenderdistrictcourtrulesvoidinsofarasthey
havebeen ddmodifiedorabrogated''by the Council,see
j2071(c)(1).Compareante,at11Ccouncilonlyhasthe
powertomodifyorabrogatelocalrulesthatconflictwith
federallaw''),with28U.S.C.j332(d)(1)Cloouncilshall
makeallnecessaryandappropriateordersfortheeffective
andexpeditiousadministrationofjusticewithinitscir-
cuit'').
) Theapplicantspointtonointerestedpersonun-
awareofthechange. How cantheMajorityreasonably
demandyetmorenoticeinrespecttoalocalrulemodifica-
tionthatastatutelikelyrequiresregardless?
Therewas alsosufficientï'opportunity forcomment.''
Theparties,theintervenors,otherjudges,thepublic-all
hadanopportunitytocomment.Thepartieswerespecifi-
callyinvitedbyChiefJudgeWalkertocommenton the
possibilityofbroadcastasearlyasSeptember.Andthe
entirepublicwasinvitedbytheDistrictCourttosubmit
commentsaftertherulechangewasannounced,rightup
totheeveoftrial.AsIsaid,thecourtreceived 138,574
commentsduringthattime.How muchmoreS fopportunity
forcomment''doestheCourtbelievenecessary,particu-
larly when thestatutesthemselvesauthorizethelocal
courttoputanew ruleintoeffectddwithout''receivingany
d'comments''beforedoingso whenthatlocal''courtdeter-
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 23 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

Citeas:558U.S. (2010)
BRKYER,J.,dissenting
minesthatthereisanimmediateneed''todoso(andto
receivecommentslater)?Andmoreimportantly,whatis
the legalsource ofthe Court's demand for additional
commenttimeinrespecttoarulechangetoconform to
JudicialCouncilpolicy?
Second,thislegalquestionisnotthekindoflegalques-
tion thatthisCourtwould normallyg' rantcertiorarito
consider.Thereisnoconflictamongthestateorfederal
courtsregardingtheproceduresbywhichadistrictcourt
changesitslocalrules. Cf.thisCourt'sRules10(a)-(b).
Thetechnicalvalidityoftheproceduresfollowed below
doesnotimplicateanopen(simportantquestionoffederal
law.''Cf.Rule10(c).Nordotheproceduresbelowclearly
conflictwithanyprecedentfrom thisCourt.Cf.ibid.
ltisparticularlyinadvisableforthisCourttoconsider
thiskindofquestionbecauseitinvolveslocalrulesand
localjudicialadministration.Here,forexample,theCourt
decidesjusthow adistrictcourtyhouldmodifyitsown
localrules;in aword,thisCourtmicromanagesdistrict
courtadministrativeproceduresinthemostdetailedway.
And,withoutbriefing,theCourtimposeslimitationson
theJudicialCouncils'abilityto implementpolicy deci-
sions,ante,at11-12(suggestingCouncilpolicydoesnot
abrogatelocalrules),withconsequenceswecannotpre-
dict. The DistrictCouncils,the Circuit Councils,the
JudicialConferenceoftheUnitedStates,andtheChief
Justicebearresponsibilityforjudicialadministration,not
thisCourt.See28U.S.C.55331-332.Andthosebodies
haveadequateauthoritytoresolvedisagreementsabout
howtopromulgateandapplylocalrules,and,paaicularly,
abouttheuseofcamerasinthecourtroom.
Forthepast80years,localjudicialadministrationhas
beenlefttotheexclusiveprovinceoftheCircuitJudicial
Councils,andthisCourtlackstheirinstitutionalexperi-
ence.SeegenerallyP.Fish,ThePoliticsofFederalJudi-
cialAdministration152-153(1973)(From theircreation,
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 24 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

HOLLINGSWORTHu.PERRY
BREYER,J.,dissenting
Gltlhecouncilsconstituted...amechanismthroughwhich
there could be a concentration ofresponsibility in the
variousCircuits-immediateresponsibilityfortheworkof
thecourts,withpowerandauthority...toinsurecompe-
tenceinthleir)work...'').Forthatreasonitisinappro-
priateaswellasunnecessaryforthisCourttointervenein
theproceduralaspectsoflocaljudicialadministration.
Perhapsthatiswhylhavenotbeenabletofindanyother
caseinwhichthisCourthaspreviouslydoneso,through
emergencyrelieforotherwise.Cf.BankofNovaScotiav.
UnitedStates,487U.S.250,264(1988)(SCALIA,J.,con-
curring)CIdonotseethebasisforanydirectauthorityto
supezviselowercourts''(citingFrczfcrv.Heebe,482U.S.
641,651-652(1987)mehnquist,C.J.,dissentingll).Nor
am IawareofanyinstanceinwhichthisCourthaspre-
emptivelysoughttomicromanagedistrictcourtproceed-
ingsasitdoestoday.
IrecognizethattheCourtmayseethismatternotas
oneofpromulgatingandapplyingalocalrulebut,rather,
aspresentingthelargerquestionoftheplaceofcameras
inthecourtroom.Butthewisdom ofacamerapolicyis
primarilyamatterfortheproperadministrativebodiesto
determine.See28U.S.C.j332.ThisCourthasnolegal
authority to addressthatlargerpolicy question except
insofarasitimplicatesaquestionoflaw. Therelevant
questionoflawhereconcernstheprocedureforamending
localnzles. Andtheonlyrelevantlegalprinciplesthat
allow usheretotakeaccountoftheimmediatesubject
matterofthatlocalrule,namelycameras,arethoselegal
principlesthatpermitus-indeedrequireus-tolook to
thenatureoftheharm atissueandtobalanceequities,
includingthepublicinterest.Iconsequentlyturntothose
twomatters.
Third,considertheharm:lcan find nobasisforthe
Court'sconclusion that,werethetransmissionstoother
courtrooms to take place,the applicantswould suffer
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 25 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

Citeas:558U.S. (2010) 1
BREYER,J.,dissenting
irreparableharm. Certainlythereisnoevidencethat
suchharm couldariseinthisnonjurycivilcasefrom the
simplefactoftransmissionitself.Bymycount,42States
andtwoFederalDistrictCourtscurrentlygivejudgesthe
discretiontobroadcastcivilnonjurytrials. SeeMedia
PrivacyandRelatedLaw 2009-10(2009)(collectingstate
statutesandrules);Civ.Rule1.8(SDNY2009);Civ.Rule
1.8(EDNY2009).Neithertheapplicantsnoranyoneelse
Oasbeen able to presentempiricaldata sufficientto
establishthatthemerepresenceofthebroadcastmedia
inherentlyhasanadverseeffecton(thejudicial)process,
'
Chandlerv.Florida,449U.S.560,578-579(1981).Cf.M.
Cohn & D.Dow,CamerasintheCourtroom:Television
andthePursuitofJustice62-64(1998)(canvassingstud-
ies,noneofwhichfoundharm,andoneofwhich found
thatwitnessesSdwhofaced an obviouscamera,provided
answersthatweremorecorrect,lengthierandmorede-
tailer).And,inanyevent,anyharm totheparties,in-
cludingtheapplicants,isreparablethroughappeal. Cf.
Chandler,supra,at581.
The applicantsalso claim thatthe transmission will
irreparably harm thewitnessesthemselves,presumably
by increasingthepublic'sawarenessofwhothosewit-
nessesare. Andtheyclaim thatsomemembersofthe
publicmightharassthosewitnesses. Butthewitnesses,
althoughcapableofdoingso,havenotaskedthisCourtto
setasidetheDistrictCourt'sorder.Cf.Millerv.Albright,
523 U.S.420,445 (1998) (O'connor,J.,joined by
KENNEDY,J.,concurringinjudgment);Powersv.Ohio,
499U.S.400,411(1991).Andthatisnotsurprising.All
ofthewitnesses supportingthe applicantsare already
publiclyidentifiedwiththeircause.Theyareallexperts
oradvocateswhohaveeitheralreadyappearedontelevi-
sion or lnternetbroadcasts,already toured the State
advocatingaSsyes''voteonProposition 8,oralreadyen-
gagedinextensivepubliccommentaryfarmorelikelyto
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 26 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

8 HOLLINGSWORTHu.PERRY
BREYER,J.,dissenting
makethem wellknownthanaclosed-circuitbroadcastto
anotherfederalcourthouse.
The likelihood ofany Girreparable''harm is further
diminished by thefactthatthecourtorderbefore us
wouldsimplyincreasethetrial'sviewingaudiencefrom
theoccupantsofonecourtroom inonecourthousetothe
occupantsoffive othercourtroomsin fiveothercourt-
houses(inallofwhichtakingpicturesorretransmissions
havebeen forbidden). Bywayofcomparison literally
hundredsofnationaland internationalnewspapersare
already covering this trialandreporting in detailthe
namesandtestimonyofallofthewitnesses. See,e.g.,
Leff,Woman RecallsEmotionalOrdealofGayMarriage
Ban,AssociatedPress,Jan.11,2010.1seenoreasonwhy
theincrementalincreaseinexposurecausedbytransmit-
tingtheseproceedingstol' iveadditionalcourtroomswould
createanyfurtherriskofharm,astheCourtapparently
believes. Seeante,at13.Moreover,ifinrespecttoany
particularwitnessthistransmissionthreatensharm,the
District Court can prevent that harm. ChiefJudge
Walkerhasalreadysaidthathewouldkeepthebroadcast
RcompletelyundertheCourt'scontrol,topermittheCourt
tostopitif(itlprovestobeaproblem,ifitprovestobea
distraction,(or)ifitprovestocreateproblemswithwit-
nesses.''SeeExh.2,at45,App.toPet.TheCircuitCoun-
ci1confzrmedin apressreleasethattheDistrictCourt
dswillfullycontroltheprocess''andthatYudgeWalkerhas
reserved therightto terminateany partofthe audio
orvideo,orboth,foranyduration''ortoterminatepar-
ticipation in the pilot program dsatany time.'' News
Release,FederalCourthousestoOfferRemoteViewing
of Pro-position 8 Trial (Jan.8,2010),http://www.
cag.uscourts.gov/datastore/generavzolo/ol/o8&rop8-
Remote-viewing-Locations. pdf(asvisitedJan.13,2010,
andavailableinClerkofCourt'scaseI' ile).Surelysuch
firm control,exercisedbyanabledistrictcourtjudgewith
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 27 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

Citeas:558U.S. (2010)
BREYER,J.,dissenting
20yearsoftrial-managementexperience,willbesufficient
toaddressanypossibleharm,eithertothewitnessesorto
theintegrityofthetrial.
Fourth,nofairbalancingoftheequities(includingharm
tothepublicinterest)couldsupportissuanceofthestay.
See Times-picayunePublishing Corp.v.Schulingkamp,
419 U.S.1301,1305 (1974)(Powell,J.in Chambers)
(recognizing ddsignificant public and private interests
balancedonbothsides''whenGpresentledwithlafunda-
mentalconfrontationbetweenthecompetingvaluesoffree
pressandfairtriar).As1havejustexplained,theappli-
cants'equitiesconsistofpotentialharm towitnesses-
harm thatiseither nonexistentor thatcan be cured
throughprotectivemeasuresbytheDistrictCourtasthe
circumstanceswarrant.Thecompetingequitiesconsistof
notonlyrespondents'interestinobtainingthecourthouse-
to-courthousetransmissionthattheydesire,butalsothe
public'sinterestin observing trialproceedingstolearn
aboutthiscaseandabouthow courtswork.SeeNebraska
PressAssn.v.Stuart,427U.S.539,587(1976)(Brennan,
J.,concurringinjudgment);seealsoExh.2,at42,App.to
Pet.(statementofChiefJudgeWalker)C(1Jfthepublic
couldseehowthejudicialprocessworks,theywouldtake
asomewhatdifferentview ofit.''Rlthinktheonlytime
thatyou'regoingtodraw sufficientinterestin thelegal
processiswhenyouhaveanissuesuchastheissueshere,
thatpeoplethink about,talk about,debate aboutand
consider').Withtheseconsiderationsinthebalance,the
scalestipheavilyagainst,notinfavor,ofissuingthestay.
Themajority'sactiontodayisunusual.Itgrantsastay
inordertoconsideramandamuspetition,withaview to
interveninginamatteroflocalcourtadministrationthat
itwouldnot(andshouldnot)consider.ltcitesnoprece-
dentfordoingso. Itidentifiesnorealharm,letalone
Sd
irreparableharmy''tojustifyitsissuanceofthisstay.
Andthepublicinterestweighsinfavorofprovidingaccess
Case: 10-70063 01/19/2010 Page: 28 of 28 ID: 7203616 DktEntry: 11

HOLLINGSWORTHu.PERRY
BREYER,J.,dissenting
tothecourts.Tojustifythisextraordinaryintervention,
themajorityinsiststhatcourtsmustRenforcethere-
quirementofproceduralregtzlarityon others,andmust
follow thoserequirementsthemselves.''Ante,at1.Andso
Ibelieve this Courtshould adhere toitsinstitutional
competence,its historical practice,and its governing
precedent-allofwhichcounselstronglyagainsttheissu-
anceofthisstay.
Irespectfullydissent.