Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 353.0

192 

HOLLINGSWORTH  v.  PERRY 

Per Curiam 

use  of  electronic  means  to  receive  or  present  evidence 
during Court proceedings.” 

Notably,  the  Rule  excepted  from  its  general  ban  the  trans­
mittal  of  certain  proceedings—but  it  limited  that  exception 
to  transmissions  “within  the  conﬁnes  of  the  courthouse.” 
The  negative  inference  of  this  exception,  of  course,  is  that 
the  Rule  would  have  prohibited  the  streaming  of  transmis­
sions,  or  other  broadcasting  or  televising,  beyond  “the  con­
ﬁnes of the courthouse.” 

Respondents do not dispute that this version of Rule 77–3 
would  have  prohibited  streaming  video  of  the  trial  around 
the  country.  But  they  assert  that  this  is  not  the  operative 
version of Rule 77–3.  In a series of postings on its Web site, 
the  District  Court  purported  to  revise  or  propose  revisions 
to  Local  Rule  77–3.  This  amendment  would  have  created 
an  additional  exception  to  Rule  77–3’s  general  ban  on  the 
broadcasting of court proceedings “for participation in a pilot 
or  other  project  authorized  by  the  Judicial  Council  of  the 
Ninth Circuit.”  Exh. 14, App. to Pet.  Respondents rely on 
this amended version of the Rule. 

The  amended  version  of  Rule  77–3  appears  to  be  invalid. 
In  amending  this  rule,  it  appears  that  the  District  Court 
failed  to  “giv[e]  appropriate  public  notice  and  an  opportu­
nity  for  comment,”  as  required  by  federal  law.  28  U. S. C. 
§ 2071(b).  The ﬁrst time the District Court asked for public 
comments  was  on  the  afternoon  of  New  Year’s  Eve.  The 
court  stated  that  it  would  leave  the  comment  period  open 
until  January  8.  At  most,  the  District  Court  therefore  al­
lowed a comment period spanning ﬁve business days.  There 
is  substantial  merit  to  the  argument  that  this  was  not  “ap­
propriate”  notice and  an opportunity  for comment.  Admin­
istrative agencies, for instance, “usually” provide a comment 
period  of  “thirty  days  or  more.”  Riverbend  Farms,  Inc.  v. 
Madigan, 958 F. 2d 1479, 1484 (CA9 1992); see Petry v. Block, 
737 F. 2d 1193, 1201 (CADC 1984) (“[T]he shortest period in