Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 364.0

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

203 

Breyer, J., dissenting 

the  Court  believe  necessary,  particularly  when  the  statutes 
themselves  authorize  the  local  court  to  put  a  new  rule  into 
effect  “without”  receiving  any  “comments”  before  doing  so 
when that local “court determines that there is an immediate 
need”  to  do  so  (and  to  receive  comments  later)?  And  more 
importantly,  what  is  the  legal  source  of  the  Court’s  demand 
for  additional  comment  time  in  respect  to  a  rule  change  to 
conform to Judicial Council policy? 

Second, this legal question is not the kind of legal question 
that  this  Court  would  normally  grant  certiorari  to  consider. 
There is no conﬂict among the state or federal courts regard­
ing the procedures by which a district court changes its local 
rules.  Cf. this Court’s Rules 10(a)–(b).  The technical valid­
ity  of  the  procedures  followed  below  does  not  implicate  an 
open  “important  question  of  federal  law.”  Cf.  Rule  10(c). 
Nor do the procedures below clearly conﬂict with any prece­
dent from this Court.  Cf. ibid. 

It is particularly inadvisable for this Court to consider this 
kind of question because it involves local rules and local judi­
cial  administration.  Here,  for  example,  the  Court  decides 
just  how  a  district  court  should  modify  its  own  local  rules; 
in  a  word,  this  Court  micromanages  district  court  adminis­
trative  procedures  in  the  most  detailed  way.  And,  without 
brieﬁng,  the  Court  imposes  limitations  on  the  judicial  coun­
cils’  ability  to  implement  policy  decisions,  ante,  at  194–195 
(suggesting council policy does not abrogate local rules), with 
consequences  we  cannot  predict.  The  district  councils,  the 
circuit councils, the Judicial Conference of the United States, 
and  The  Chief  Justice  bear  responsibility  for  judicial 
administration,  not  this  Court.  See  28  U. S. C.  §§ 331–332. 
And  those  bodies  have  adequate  authority  to  resolve  dis­
agreements  about  how  to  promulgate  and  apply  local  rules, 
and, particularly, about the use of cameras in the courtroom. 
For  the  past  80  years,  local  judicial  administration  has 
been left to the exclusive province of the circuit judicial coun­
cils, and this Court lacks their institutional experience.  See