Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 361.0

200 

HOLLINGSWORTH  v.  PERRY 

Breyer, J., dissenting 

This  case,  in  my  view,  does  not  satisfy  a  single  one  of  these 
standards, let alone all of them.  Consequently, I must 
dissent. 

First,  consider  the  merits  of  the  legal  issue:  The  United 
States  Code,  in  a  chapter  entitled  “Rules  of  Courts,”  states 
that  “[a]ny  rule  .  .  .  shall  be  prescribed  only  after  giving 
appropriate  public  notice  and  an  opportunity  for  comment.” 
28  U. S. C.  § 2071(b).  The  question  here  is  whether  the 
District  Court  accompanied  the  modiﬁcation  of  its  antivideo 
rule  with  “appropriate  public  notice  and  an  opportunity  for 
comment.” 

Certainly  the parties  themselves had  more than  adequate 
notice  and  opportunity  to  comment  before  the  Rule  was 
changed.  On  September  25,  2009,  the  trial  judge,  Chief 
Judge Vaughn Walker, discussed the possibility of broadcast­
ing trial proceedings both within the courthouse and beyond, 
and  asked  for  the  parties’  views.  No  party  objected  to  the 
presence  of  cameras  in  the  courtroom  for  transmissions 
within the courthouse, Exh. 9, p. 70, App. to Pet. for Manda­
mus  in  No.  10–70063  (CA9)  (hereinafter  App.  to  Pet.)  (“No 
objection.  None  at  all”),  and  both  sides  made  written  sub­
missions  to  the  court  regarding  their  views  on  other  trans­
missions.  The  court  again  raised  the  issue  at  a  hearing  on 
December 16. 

Nor,  in  practice,  did  other  members  of  the  Judiciary  lack 
information about the issue.  In May 1996 the Circuit Coun­
cil  adopted  a  policy  permitting  video  in  connection  with  ap­
pellate  proceedings,  but  prohibiting  its  use  in  the  district 
court.  Subsequently, appellate court panels have frequently 
permitted  electronic  coverage.  Judges,  the  press,  lawyers, 
and  others  have  discussed  the  matter.  In  2007  the  lawyers 
and  judges present  at the  Ninth Circuit  Judicial Conference 
considered  a  resolution  that  favored  the  use  of  cameras  in 
district  court  civil  nonjury  proceedings.  And,  voting  sepa­
rately, both lawyers and judges “approved the resolution by 
resounding margins.”  Letter from Chief Judge Kozinski to