Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 354

Cite as: 558 U. S. 183 (2010) 

193 

Per Curiam 

which  parties  can  meaningfully  review  a  proposed  rule  and 
ﬁle informed responses is thirty days”). 

To  be  sure,  the  possibility  that  some  aspects  of  the  trial 
might  be  broadcast  was  ﬁrst  raised  to  the  parties  by  the 
District Court at an in-court hearing on September 25, some 
three months before the Rule was changed.  The broadcast­
ing,  however,  was  prohibited  under  both  Circuit  and  local 
rules  at  that  time.  The  ﬁrst  public  indication  that  the  Dis­
trict  Court  intended  to  adopt  a  rule  of  general  applicability 
came  in  its  Web  site  posting  on  December  23.  And  even  if 
Chief Judge Walker’s in-court allusion to the possibility that 
the  Proposition  8  trial  might  be  broadcast  could  be  consid­
ered  as  providing  notice  to  the  parties  in  this  case—his 
statement  that  “[t]his  is  all  in  ﬂux”  notwithstanding—the 
disclosure falls far short of the “appropriate public notice and 
an opportunity for comment” required by § 2071(b).  Indeed, 
there was no proposed policy on which to comment. 

The  need  for  a  meaningful  comment  period  was  particu­
larly  acute  in  this  case.  Both  courts  and  legislatures  have 
proceeded with appropriate caution in addressing this ques­
tion.  In  1996,  the  Judicial  Conference  of  the  United  States 
adopted a policy  opposing the public broadcast  of court pro­
ceedings.  This  policy  was  adopted  after  a  multiyear  study 
of  the  issue  by  the  Federal  Judicial  Center  which  drew  on 
data  from  six  district  and  two  appellate  courts,  as  well  as 
state-court  data.  In  light  of  the  study’s  ﬁndings,  the  Judi­
cial  Conference  concluded  that  “the  intimidating  effect  of 
cameras on some witnesses and jurors [is] cause for concern.” 
Administrative  Ofﬁce  of  United  States  Courts,  Report  of 
Proceedings  of  Judicial  Conference  of  the  United  States  47 
(Sept. 20, 1994). 

In more than a decade since its adoption the Judicial Con­
ference has continued to adhere to its position on the broad­
cast  of  court  proceedings.  While  the  policy  conclusions  of 
the  Judicial  Conference  may  not  be  binding  on  the  lower 
courts, they are “at the very least entitled to respectful con­