Hollingsworth v. Perry

2010-01-13

Headline: Court stays live streaming of a high-profile federal trial challenging California’s Proposition 8, blocking broadcasts to other federal courthouses because lower courts likely failed to follow required rulemaking procedures.

Holding: The Court granted a stay blocking the District Court’s live streaming of the Proposition 8 bench trial to other federal courthouses because the district likely amended its local rule without the notice-and-comment procedures required by federal law.

Real World Impact:

Stops live streaming to remote federal courthouses pending review.
Protects witnesses by preventing broadcasts that could chill testimony.
Forces courts to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking before changing broadcast rules.

Topics: courtroom broadcasting, rulemaking procedures, Proposition 8 trial, judicial administration

Summary

Background

Supporters and opponents of California’s Proposition 8 were in a federal bench trial that began January 11, 2010. The District Court posted changes to its local rule on its website and issued an order to stream audio and video of the trial to several other federal courthouses. A group defending Proposition 8 objected, saying the court changed its rule without the public notice-and-comment steps required by federal law, and asked this Court to stay the broadcasts while they seek further review.

Reasoning

The narrow question was whether the district court followed the statute governing how local court rules are changed. The Court concluded the district likely violated that law because the rule revision was announced and adopted too quickly and the “immediate need” exception did not apply. The Court also found that broadcasting could cause irreparable harms, such as chilling witness testimony, and that those harms were difficult to undo. For those reasons the Court granted a stay of the order permitting live streaming to other federal courthouses. The opinion did not decide whether internet publication should proceed.

Real world impact

The stay immediately stops live streaming of the trial to the named remote courthouses while petitions for further review proceed. It protects witnesses and requires courts to follow formal rulemaking steps before changing rules that affect public broadcasts. The decision is temporary and does not resolve the broader question of broadcasting trials in general; lower courts and judicial councils may need clearer procedures.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer (joined by three Justices) dissented, arguing there was adequate notice and public comment, that harm was speculative, and that local judicial administration should not be preempted by this Court.