Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 357

196 

HOLLINGSWORTH  v.  PERRY 

Per Curiam 

cast.  And  witnesses  subject  to  harassment  as  a  result  of 
broadcast of their testimony might be less likely to cooperate 
in any future proceedings. 

The  balance  of  equities  favors  applicants.  While  appli­
cants have demonstrated the threat of harm they face if the 
trial  is  broadcast,  respondents  have  not  alleged  any  harm 
if  the  trial  is  not  broadcast.  The  issue,  moreover,  must  be 
resolved at this stage, for the injury likely cannot be undone 
once the broadcast takes place. 

This  Court  also  has  a  signiﬁcant  interest  in  supervising 
the  administration  of  the  judicial  system.  See  this  Court’s 
Rule 10(a) (the Court will consider whether the courts below 
have “so far departed from the accepted and usual course of 
judicial  proceedings  .  .  .  as  to  call  for  an  exercise  of  this 
Court’s supervisory power”).  The Court may use its super­
visory  authority  to  invalidate  local  rules  that  were  promul­
gated  in  violation  of  an  Act  of  Congress.  See  Frazier,  482 
U. S.,  at  645–646;  id.,  at  652,  654  (Rehnquist,  C.  J.,  dissent­
ing).  The  Court’s  interest  in  ensuring  compliance  with 
proper  rules  of  judicial  administration  is  particularly  acute 
when those rules relate to the integrity of judicial processes. 
The  District  Court  here  attempted  to  revise  its  rules  in 
haste, contrary to federal statutes and the policy of the Judi­
cial  Conference  of  the  United  States.  It  did  so  to  allow 
broadcasting of this high-proﬁle trial without any considered 
standards or guidelines in place.  The arguments in favor of 
developing  procedures  and  rules  to  allow  broadcast  of  cer­
tain cases have considerable merit, and reasonable minds can 
surely differ over the general and speciﬁc terms of rules and 
standards  adopted  for  that  purpose.  Here,  however,  the 
order in question complied neither with existing rules or pol­
icies nor the required procedures for amending them. 

By insisting that courts comply with the law, parties vindi­
cate  not  only  the  rights  they  assert  but  also  the  law’s  own 
insistence on neutrality and ﬁdelity to principle.  Those sys­
tematic  interests  are  all  the  more  evident  here,  where  the