Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 355.0

194 

HOLLINGSWORTH  v.  PERRY 

Per Curiam 

sideration.”  In  re  Sony  BMG  Music  Entertainment,  564 
F.  3d  1,  6  (CA1  2009).  Before  abandoning  its  own  policy— 
one  consistent  with  the  Judicial  Conference’s  longstanding 
views—it  was  incumbent  on  the  District  Court  to  adopt  a 
proposed  rule  only  after  notice  and  an  adequate  period  for 
public comment. 

In dispensing with public notice and comment the District 
Court  invoked  the  “immediate need”  exception.  28  U. S. C. 
§ 2071(e).  It  did  so  through  a  Web  site  posting  on  January 
4—prior to the expiration of the comment period—indicating 
that  Rule  77–3  had  been  revised  to  permit  participation  in 
the  Ninth  Circuit’s  pilot  program.  These  postings  gave  no 
explanation for invoking the exception.  At trial the District 
Court  explained  that  the  immediate  need  here  was  to  allow 
this case to be broadcast pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s new 
pilot  program.  See  Exh.  1,  p.  11,  Supp.  App.  to  Response 
for Perry et al. 

This  does  not  qualify  as  an  immediate  need  that  justiﬁes 
dispensing with the notice-and-comment procedures required 
by federal law.  While respondents (the plaintiffs in the Dis­
trict Court) had indicated their approval of the plan, no party 
alleged that it would be imminently harmed if the trial were 
not  broadcast.  Had  an  administrative  agency  acted  as  the 
District Court did here, the immediate need exception would 
likely not have been available.  See 5 U. S. C. § 553(b)(B) (ad­
ministrative agencies cannot invoke an exception to affording 
notice  and  comment  before  rulemaking  unless  the  notice­
and-comment  procedures  would  be  “impracticable,  unneces­
sary,  or  contrary  to  the  public  interest”).  In  issuing  its 
order the District Court relied on the Ninth Circuit Judicial 
Council’s  pilot  program.  Yet  nothing  in  that  program— 
which  was  not  adopted  after  notice-and-comment  proce­
dures,  cf.  28  U. S. C.  § 332(d)(1)—required  any  “immediate” 
revision  in  local  rules.  The  Ninth  Circuit  Judicial  Council 
did  not  purport  to  modify  or  abrogate  the  District  Court’s