Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 366.0

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

205 

Breyer, J., dissenting 

courtrooms to take place, the applicants would suffer irrepa­
rable  harm.  Certainly  there  is  no  evidence  that  such  harm 
could  arise  in  this  nonjury  civil  case  from  the  simple  fact  of 
transmission  itself.  By  my  count,  42  States  and  two  Fed­
eral  District  Courts  currently  give  judges  the  discretion  to 
broadcast  civil  nonjury  trials.  See  Media  Privacy  and  Re­
lated  Law  2009–10  (2009)  (collecting  state  statutes  and 
rules);  Civ.  Rule  1.8  (SDNY  2009);  Civ.  Rule  1.8  (EDNY 
2009).  Neither  the  applicants  nor  anyone  else  “has  been 
able to present empirical data sufﬁcient to establish that the 
mere  presence  of  the  broadcast  media  inherently  has  an  ad­
verse  effect  on  [the  judicial]  process,”  Chandler  v.  Florida, 
449 U. S. 560, 578–579 (1981).  Cf. M. Cohn & D. Dow, Cam­
eras in the Courtroom: Television and the Pursuit of Justice 
62–64  (1998) (canvassing  studies,  none  of which  found  harm, 
and one of which found that witnesses “who faced an obvious 
camera, provided answers that were more correct, lengthier 
and  more  detailed”).  And,  in  any  event,  any  harm  to  the 
parties, including the applicants, is reparable through appeal. 
Cf. Chandler, supra, at 581. 

The applicants also claim that the transmission will irrepa­
rably  harm  the  witnesses  themselves,  presumably  by  in­
creasing  the  public’s  awareness  of  who  those  witnesses  are. 
And they claim that some members of the public might har­
ass those witnesses.  But the witnesses, although capable of 
doing so, have not asked this Court to set aside the District 
Court’s  order.  Cf.  Miller  v.  Albright,  523  U. S.  420,  445 
(1998)  (O’Connor,  J.,  joined  by  Kennedy,  J.,  concurring  in 
judgment);  Powers  v.  Ohio,  499  U. S.  400,  411  (1991).  And 
that  is  not  surprising.  All  of  the  witnesses  supporting  the 
applicants  are  already  publicly  identiﬁed  with  their  cause. 
They  are  all  experts  or  advocates  who  have  either  already 
appeared on television or Internet broadcasts, already 
toured  the  State  advocating  a  “yes”  vote  on  Proposition  8, 
or already engaged in extensive public commentary far more