Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 359.0

198 

HOLLINGSWORTH  v.  PERRY 

Per Curiam 

must  use  the  procedures  prescribed  by  statute  to  amend 
their rules, 28 U. S. C. § 2071. 

If  Local  Rule  77–3  had  been  validly  revised,  questions 
would  still  remain  about  the  District  Court’s  decision  to 
allow  broadcasting  of  this  particular  trial,  in  which  several 
of the witnesses have stated concerns for their own security. 
Even districts that allow trials to be broadcast, see Civ. Rule 
1.8 (SDNY 2009); Civ. Rule 1.8 (EDNY 2009), recognize that 
a  district  judge’s  discretion  to  broadcast  a  trial  is  limited, 
see,  e. g.,  Hamilton  v.  Accu-Tek,  942  F.  Supp.  136,  138 
(EDNY 1996) (broadcast forbidden unless “there is no inter­
ference  with  the  due  process,  the  dignity  of  litigants,  jurors 
and  witnesses,  or  with  other  appropriate  aspects  of  the  ad­
ministration of justice”).  Consequently, courts in those dis­
tricts have allowed the broadcast of their proceedings on the 
basis that those cases were not high proﬁle, E*Trade Finan­
cial  Corp.  v.  Deutsche  Bank  AG,  582  F.  Supp.  2d  528,  535 
(SDNY  2008),  or  did  not  involve  witnesses,  Marisol  A.  v. 
Giuliani,  929  F.  Supp.  660,  661  (SDNY  1996);  Katzman  v. 
Victoria’s  Secret  Catalogue,  923  F.  Supp.  580,  586–587 
(SDNY 1996).  Indeed, one District Court did not allow the 
broadcasting  of  its  proceedings  because  the  case  “involv[ed] 
very sensitive issues.”  Schoeps v.  Museum of Modern Art, 
599  F.  Supp.  2d  532,  534  (SDNY  2009).  This  case,  too,  in­
volves  issues  subject  to  intense  debate  in  our  society.  The 
District  Court  intends  not  only  to  broadcast  the  attorneys’ 
arguments but also witness testimony.  See Sony BMG, 564 
F.  3d,  at  11  (Lipez,  J.,  concurring)  (distinguishing  broadcast 
of attorneys’ arguments from other parts of the trial).  This 
case  is  therefore  not  a  good  one  for  a  pilot  program.  Even 
the studies that have been conducted thus far have not ana­
lyzed the effect of broadcasting in high-proﬁle, divisive cases. 
See  Application  for  Stay  17  (warning  by  Judge  Edward  R. 
Becker  that  in  “ ‘truly  high-proﬁle  cases,’ ”  one  can  “ ‘[j]ust 
imagine what the ﬁndings would be’ ” (quoting Exh. 21, at 2, 
App. to Pet.)).