Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 367.0

206 

HOLLINGSWORTH  v.  PERRY 

Breyer, J., dissenting 

likely  to  make  them  well known  than  a  closed-circuit  broad­
cast to another federal courthouse. 

The likelihood of any “irreparable” harm is further dimin­
ished by the fact that the court order before us would simply 
increase  the  trial’s  viewing  audience  from  the  occupants  of 
one  courtroom  in  one  courthouse  to  the  occupants  of  ﬁve 
other  courtrooms  in  ﬁve  other  courthouses  (in  all  of  which 
taking  pictures  or  retransmissions  have  been  forbidden). 
By  way  of  comparison  literally  hundreds  of  national  and  in­
ternational  newspapers  are  already  covering  this  trial  and 
reporting in detail the names and testimony of all of the wit­
nesses.  See, e. g., Leff, Woman Recalls Emotional Ordeal of 
Gay  Marriage  Ban,  Associated  Press,  Jan.  11,  2010.  I  see 
no  reason  why  the  incremental  increase  in  exposure  caused 
by  transmitting  these  proceedings  to  ﬁve  additional  court­
rooms  would  create  any  further  risk  of  harm,  as  the  Court 
apparently believes.  See ante, at 195–196.  Moreover, if in 
respect to any particular witness this transmission threatens 
harm,  the  District  Court  can  prevent  that  harm.  Chief 
Judge Walker has already said that he would keep the broad­
cast  “completely  under  the  Court’s  control,  to  permit  the 
Court  to  stop  it  if  [it]  proves  to  be  a  problem,  if  it  proves 
to  be  a  distraction,  [or]  if  it  proves  to  create  problems  with 
witnesses.”  See  Exh.  2,  at  45,  App.  to  Pet.  The  Circuit 
Council  conﬁrmed  in a  press  release  that the  District  Court 
“willfully  control  the  process”  and  that  “Judge  Walker  has 
reserved  the  right  to  terminate  any  part  of  the  audio,  or 
video,  or  both,  for  any  duration”  or  to  terminate  participa­
tion in the pilot program “at any time.”  News Release, Fed­
eral Courthouses To Offer Remote Viewing of Proposition 8 
Trial  (Jan.  8,  2010),  http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ 
general/2010/01/08/Prop8_Remote_Viewing_Locations.pdf 
(as  visited  Jan.  13,  2010,  and  available  in  Clerk  of  Court’s 
case  ﬁle).  Surely  such  ﬁrm  control,  exercised  by  an  able 
District Court  Judge with 20 years  of trial-management ex­