Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 360.0

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

199 

Breyer, J., dissenting 

III 

The  District  Court  attempted  to  change  its  rules  at  the 
eleventh hour to treat this case differently from other trials 
in  the  district.  Not  only  did  it  ignore  the  federal  statute 
that  establishes  the  procedures  by  which  its  rules  may  be 
amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-proﬁle 
trial  that  would  include  witness  testimony  about  a  conten­
tious issue.  If courts are to require that others follow regu­
lar procedures, courts must do so as well.  The Court grants 
the  application  for  a  stay  of  the  District  Court’s  order  of 
January  7,  2010,  pending  the  timely  ﬁling and disposition  of 
a petition for a writ of certiorari or the ﬁling and disposition 
of a petition for a writ of mandamus. 

It is so ordered. 

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice 

Ginsburg, and Justice Sotomayor join, dissenting. 

The  Court  today  issues  an  order  that  will  prevent  the 
transmission  of  proceedings  in  a  nonjury  civil  case  of  great 
public  interest  to  ﬁve  other  federal  courthouses  located  in 
Seattle,  Pasadena,  Portland,  San  Francisco,  and  Brooklyn. 
The  Court  agrees  that  it  can  issue  this  extraordinary  legal 
relief  only  if  (1)  there  is  a  fair  chance  the  District  Court 
was wrong about the underlying legal question, (2) that legal 
question  meets  this  Court’s  certiorari  standards,  (3)  refusal 
of the relief would work “irreparable harm,” (4) the balance 
of  the  equities  (including,  the  Court  should  say,  possible 
harm  to  the  public  interest)  favors  issuance,  (5)  the  party’s 
right  to  the  relief  is  “clear  and  undisputable,”  and  (6)  the 
“question  is  of  public  importance”  (or  otherwise  “peculiarly 
appropriate”  for  such  action).  See  ante,  at  190;  Rostker  v. 
Goldberg,  448  U. S.  1306,  1308  (1980)  (Brennan,  J.,  in  cham­
bers)  (stay  standard);  Cheney  v.  United  States  Dist.  Court 
for  D.  C.,  542  U. S.  367,  380  (2004)  (noting  that  mandamus 
is  a  “drastic  and  extraordinary  remedy  reserved  for  really 
extraordinary  causes”  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted)).