Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 347.0

186 

HOLLINGSWORTH  v.  PERRY 

Per Curiam 

have been identiﬁed as Proposition 8 supporters.  See Exhs. 
B, I, and L to  Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion for Protective 
Order  in  Perry  v.  Schwarzenegger,  No.  3:09–cv–02292  (ND 
Cal.) (hereinafter Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion). 

Respondents ﬁled suit in the United States District Court 
for the Northern District of California, seeking to invalidate 
Proposition  8.  They  contend  that  the  amendment  to  the 
State’s  Constitution  violates  the  Equal  Protection  and  Due 
Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United 
States Constitution.  The State of California declined to de­
fend  Proposition  8,  and  the  defendant-intervenors  (who  are 
the  applicants  here)  entered  the  suit  to  defend  its  constitu­
tionality.  A bench trial began on Monday, January 11, 2010, 
before  the  Chief  Judge  of  the  District  Court,  the  Honorable 
Vaughn R. Walker. 

On  September  25,  2009,  the  District  Court  informed  the 
parties at a hearing that there was interest in the possibility 
that  the  trial  would  be  broadcast.  Respondents  indicated 
their support for the idea, while applicants opposed it.  The 
court  noted  that  “[t]here  are,  of  course,  Judicial  Conference 
positions  on  this,”  but  also  that  “[t]his  is  all  in  ﬂux.”  Exh. 
9,  p.  72,  App.  to  Pet.  for  Mandamus  in  No.  10–70063  (CA9) 
(hereinafter App. to Pet.). 

One  month  later,  Chief  Judge  Kozinski  of  the  United 
States  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Ninth  Circuit  appointed  a 
three-judge committee to evaluate the possibility of adopting 
a  Ninth  Circuit  Rule  regarding  the  recording  and  transmis­
sion of district court proceedings.  The committee (of which 
Chief  Judge  Walker  was  a  member)  recommended  to  the 
Ninth Circuit Judicial Council that district courts be permit­
ted to experiment with broadcasting court proceedings on a 
trial  basis.  Chief  Judge  Walker  later  acknowledged  that 
while the committee was considering the pilot program, “this 
case was very much in mind at that time because it had come 
to prominence then and was thought to be an ideal candidate 
for  consideration.”  Id.,  Exh.  2,  at  43.  The  committee  did