Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 356.0

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

195 

Per Curiam 

local Rule.  Nor could it, as the Judicial Council only has the 
power  to  modify  or  abrogate  local  rules  that  conﬂict  with 
federal law.  See § 332(d)(4) (permitting a circuit court coun­
cil  to  modify  a  local  rule  that  is  “found  inconsistent”  with 
rules  promulgated  by  the  Supreme  Court).  No  federal  law 
requires that the District Court broadcast some of its cases. 
The  District  Court’s  local  Rule,  in  addition,  was  not  a  con­
forming amendment to Ninth Circuit policy, because that pol­
icy does not require district courts to broadcast proceedings. 
Applicants  also  have  shown  that  irreparable  harm  will 
likely result from the denial of the stay.  Without a stay, the 
District  Court  will  broadcast  the  trial.  It  would  be  difﬁ­
cult—if  not  impossible—to  reverse  the  harm  from  those 
broadcasts.  The trial will involve various witnesses, includ­
ing members of same-sex couples; academics, who apparently 
will  discuss  gender  issues  and  gender  equality,  as  well  as 
family  structures;  and  those  who  participated  in  the  cam­
paign  leading  to  the  adoption  of  Proposition  8.  This  Court 
has  recognized  that  witness  testimony  may  be  chilled  if 
broadcast.  See Estes v.  Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 547 (1965); id., 
at  591  (Harlan,  J.,  concurring).  Some  of  applicants’  wit­
nesses have already said that they will not testify if the trial 
is  broadcast,  and  they  have  substantiated  their  concerns  by 
citing  incidents  of  past  harassment.  See,  e. g.,  Exh. K to  
Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion (71 news articles detailing in­
cidents of harassment related to people who supported Prop­
osition  8).  These  concerns  are  not  diminished  by  the  fact 
that  some  of  applicants’  witnesses  are  compensated  expert 
witnesses.  There  are  qualitative  differences  between  mak­
ing  public  appearances  regarding  an  issue  and  having  one’s 
testimony  broadcast  throughout  the  country.  Applicants 
may not be able to obtain adequate relief through an appeal. 
The trial will have already been broadcast.  It is difﬁcult to 
demonstrate or analyze whether a witness would have testi­
ﬁed  differently  if  his  or  her  testimony  had  not  been  broad­