Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 350.0

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

189 

Per Curiam 

(as  visited  Jan.  13,  2010,  and  available  in  Clerk  of  Court’s 
case ﬁle). 

Chief Judge Kozinski’s January 8 order noted that the re­
quest  to  broadcast  the  trial  on the  Internet  was  “still  pend­
ing” before him.  In a later letter to Chief Judge Walker, he 
explained  that  the  request  was  not  yet  “ripe  for  approval” 
because  “the  technical  staff  encountered  some  unexpected 
difﬁculties preparing a satisfactory video suitable for on-line 
posting.”  Letter  of  Jan.  9,  2010  (available  in  Clerk  of 
Court’s case ﬁle).  A ﬁnal decision whether to permit online 
publication  would  be  made  when  technical  difﬁculties  were 
resolved. 

On January 9, 2010, applicants ﬁled in this Court an appli­
cation for a stay of the District Court’s order.  Their petition 
seeks  a  stay  pending  resolution  of  forthcoming  petitions  for 
the writs of certiorari and mandamus. 

II 

The  question  whether  courtroom  proceedings  should  be 
broadcast has prompted considerable national debate.  Rea­
sonable minds  differ on  the proper  resolution of  that debate 
and on the restrictions, circumstances, and procedures under 
which  such  broadcasts  should  occur.  We  do  not  here  ex­
press  any  views on  the  propriety  of broadcasting  court  pro­
ceedings generally. 

Instead,  our  review  is  conﬁned  to  a  narrow  legal  issue: 
whether the District Court’s amendment of its local rules to 
broadcast this trial complied with federal law.  We conclude 
that  it  likely  did  not  and  that  applicants  have  demonstrated 
that  irreparable  harm  would  likely  result  from  the  District 
Court’s  actions.  We  therefore  stay  the  court’s  January  7, 
2010,  order  to  the  extent  that  it  permits  the  live  streaming 
of  court  proceedings  to  other  federal  courthouses.  We  do 
not address other aspects of that order, such as those related 
to the broadcast of court proceedings on the Internet, as this 
may be premature.