Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 348

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

187 

Per Curiam 

not publicly disclose its consideration of the proposal, nor did 
it solicit or receive public comments on the proposal. 

On December 17, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council issued 
a  news  release  indicating  that  it  had  approved  a  pilot  pro­
gram  for  “the  limited  use  of  cameras  in  federal  district 
courts  within  the  circuit.”  Id.,  Exh.  13,  at  1.  The  release 
explained  that  the  Council’s  decision  “amend[ed]  a  1996 
Ninth Circuit policy” that had banned the photographing, as 
well  as  radio  and  television  coverage,  of  court  proceedings. 
Ibid.  The release further indicated that cases would be se­
lected  for  participation  in  the  program  “by  the  chief  judge 
of  the  district  court  in  consultation  with  the  chief  circuit 
judge.”  Ibid.  No  further  guidelines  for  participation  in 
the pilot program have since been issued. 

On December 21, a coalition of media companies requested 
permission from the District Court to televise the trial chal­
lenging  Proposition  8.  Two  days  later,  the  court  indicated 
on  its  Web  site  that  it  had  amended  Civil  Local  Rule  77–3, 
which  had  previously  banned  the  recording  or  broadcast  of 
court  proceedings.  The  revised  version  of  Rule  77–3  cre­
ated  an  exception  to  this  general  prohibition  to  allow  “for 
participation  in  a  pilot  or  other  project  authorized  by  the 
Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit.”  Id., Exh. 14.  Appli­
cants  objected  to  the  revision,  arguing  that  any  change  to 
Ninth Circuit or local rules would require a sufﬁcient notice­
and-comment period. 

On  December  31,  the  District  Court  revised  its  Web  site 
to  remove  the  previous  announcement  about  the  change  to 
Rule  77–3.  A  new  announcement  was  posted  indicating  a 
“proposed revision of Civil Local Rule 77–3,” which had been 
“approved  for  public  comment.”  Id.,  Exh.  17.  The  pro­
posed  revision  was  the  same  as  the  previously  announced 
amendment.  Comments  on  the  proposed  revision  were  to 
be submitted by Friday, January 8, 2010. 

On  January  4,  2010,  the  District  Court  again  revised 
its  Web  site.  The  announcement  regarding  the  proposed