Hollingsworth v. Perry
The Supreme Court blocked a federal trial court from streaming the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage trial live to courthouses around the country, ruling that the trial court had changed its no-broadcast rule without giving the public proper notice and a chance to comment, as federal law requires.
The decision does not say whether trials should be televised at all -- it rests entirely on the trial court skipping the required rulemaking steps, and it leaves the broader debate over cameras in federal courtrooms unresolved.
“Courts enforce the requirement of procedural regularity on others, and must follow those requirements themselves.”
The Court's core rationale for blocking the broadcast over the rule-change procedure.
How it got here: Proposition 8's defenders asked the district court and then the Ninth Circuit to block the live broadcast, were denied, and then asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay pending further review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Same-sex couples sued to strike down California's Proposition 8, which limited marriage to a man and a woman, arguing it violated the U.S. Constitution. The trial court agreed to let a group of Proposition 8's supporters defend the law after the state declined to. As the bench trial began, the trial court also decided, after last-minute rule changes, to stream the proceedings live to several other federal courthouses.
The question before the Court
Could a federal trial court broadcast the Proposition 8 trial to other courthouses after changing its no-cameras rule just days before trial began?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that the trial court could not stream the Proposition 8 trial to other federal courthouses because it changed its no-broadcast rule without giving the public the "appropriate" notice and chance to comment that federal law requires. The trial court allowed at most five business days for comment on a rule reversal, far short of the thirty-plus days typically used, and its reliance on an "immediate need" exception did not hold up since no one would have been harmed by waiting.
The Court stressed it was not ruling on whether cameras belong in courtrooms generally — only that this particular rule change was rushed and procedurally improper. Because broadcasting the trial could not be undone later and some witnesses said they would not testify if filmed, the Court found a stay was needed while the challengers pursued their formal appeals.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
The ruling kept the high-profile Proposition 8 trial out of five other federal courthouses, shielding witnesses -- including same-sex couples and campaign participants -- from a wider public audience. It also signals to federal courts nationwide that they must follow notice-and-comment procedures before changing local broadcasting rules, even for a single high-profile case.
What changes now
The stay is temporary: it pauses only the live streaming of the trial to other federal courthouses while the challengers file petitions for writs of certiorari or mandamus. The trial itself proceeds in the original courtroom. The Court did not decide whether broadcasting the trial on the Internet would be lawful, calling that question premature, and it expressed no view on the broader question of cameras in federal courts generally.
What this does not decide
The Court expressly said it was not deciding whether trials should be broadcast in general, nor addressing the separate request to post the trial on the Internet, which it called premature. The ruling rests solely on the trial court's failure to follow required notice-and-comment procedures, not on any First Amendment or due process theory.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Breyer
“It identifies no real harm, let alone “irreparable harm,” to justify its issuance of this stay.”Breyer's central objection that the majority had no real basis for finding irreparable harm.
Justice Breyer argued the majority's stay failed every requirement for emergency relief. He found the notice and comment process adequate given months of public discussion, over 138,000 public comments, and direct notice to the parties since September. He also argued the question was too local and procedural to warrant Supreme Court review, saw no irreparable harm since the trial judge retained full control to halt broadcasting if problems arose, and concluded the balance of equities favored public access to the courts.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Federal law requires a district court to give the public 'appropriate notice and an opportunity for comment' before amending a local rule, with only a narrow exception when there is an 'immediate need' -- and even then the court must promptly open a comment period afterward.
- The Court found the trial court's old rule had clearly barred broadcasting outside the courthouse, and the new exception allowing broadcast under a Ninth Circuit pilot program was adopted through a series of shifting website postings over about two weeks, with a comment period of at most five business days.
- Comparing that period to typical agency practice, which usually allows thirty days or more for comment, the Court concluded the process likely fell short of the 'appropriate' notice and comment the statute demands.
- The Court also rejected the trial court's reliance on the 'immediate need' exception, reasoning that no party would suffer imminent harm if the trial were not broadcast and that the Ninth Circuit's pilot program itself did not require any immediate rule change.
- Applying the standards for a stay -- a fair prospect of success on the merits and a likelihood of irreparable harm -- the Court found that broadcasting could not be undone once it happened and that some witnesses had already said they would not testify if broadcast, tipping the balance toward the challengers.
- Based on this reasoning, the Court concluded the challengers were entitled to emergency relief pausing the courthouse-to-courthouse broadcast while their formal appeals were prepared.