Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 344.0

OCTOBER  TERM,  2009 

183 

Syllabus 

HOLLINGSWORTH  et al.  v.  PERRY  et al. 

on application for stay 

No. 09A648.  Decided January 13, 2010 

While a lawsuit  challenging  the  constitutionality  of  Proposition  8—which 
provides  that  “[o]nly  marriage  between  a  man  and  a  woman  is  valid 
or  recognized  in  California”—was  pending,  the  Federal  District  Court 
ordered real-time streaming of the trial pursuant to a purported amend­
ment  to  a  local  Rule  that  had  banned  such  broadcasts.  Applicants, 
defendant-intervenors in the suit, seek to stay the District Court’s order 
pending  the  resolution  of  forthcoming  petitions  for  writs  of  certiorari 
and mandamus. 

Held:  The  trial’s  broadcast  is  stayed.  Applicants  have  made  a  sufﬁcient 
showing of entitlement.  There is a fair prospect that a majority of this 
Court will either grant certiorari and reverse the order below or grant 
mandamus, because the District Court likely violated 28 U. S. C. 
§ 2071(b),  which  requires  appropriate  public  notice  and  an  opportunity 
for comment before a district court can amend a local rule.  Even where 
a  rule  is  amended  based  on  immediate  need,  a  court  must  promptly 
thereafter  afford  notice  and  opportunity  for  comment.  The  purported 
need here—to allow the trial to be broadcast pursuant to a Ninth Circuit 
pilot  program  permitting  limited  camera  use  in  district  courts  within 
the  Circuit—does  not  qualify  as  an  immediate  need  that  justiﬁes  dis­
pensing with the notice-and-comment procedures, since no party alleged 
that it would be imminently harmed if the trial were not broadcast, and 
since  the  Ninth  Circuit  program  did  not  require  immediate  revision  of 
local  rules  or  broadcast  of  proceedings.  Applicants  also  have  shown 
that  irreparable  harm  will  likely  result  from  the  denial  of  the  stay. 
Without  a  stay,  the  District  Court  will  broadcast  the  trial.  And  it 
would  be  difﬁcult—if  not  impossible—to  reverse  the  harm  from  those 
broadcasts,  which  may  chill  some  witness  testimony  and  deter  others 
from  testifying.  Thus,  the  balance  of  equities  favors  applicants.  In 
addition,  this  Court’s  signiﬁcant  interest  in  ensuring  compliance  with 
proper  rules  of  judicial  administration  is  particularly  acute  when  those 
rules  relate  to  the  integrity  of  the  judicial  process.  Here,  the  District 
Court  attempted  to  revise  its  Rule  in  haste,  contrary  to  a  federal  stat­
ute, in order to allow broadcast of a high-proﬁle trial without any consid­
ered standards or guidelines in place. 

Application for stay granted.