Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 362.0

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

201 

Breyer, J., dissenting 

Judge  Anthony  Scirica  (Jan.  10,  2010),  Exh.  8,  p.  4,  Supp. 
App. to Response for Perry et al. (hereinafter Supp. App. to 
Response).  Subsequently,  a  committee  of  judges  was  cre­
ated  to  study  the  matter.  And  on  December  17,  2009,  the 
Circuit  Council  voted  to  authorize  a  pilot  program  permit­
ting  the  use  of  video  in  nonjury  civil  cases  as  part  of  an 
“experiment  with  the  dissemination  of  video  recordings  in 
civil  non-jury  matters”  (speciﬁcally  those  selected  by  the 
Chief Judge of the Circuit and the Chief Judge of the District 
Court).  And it issued a press release.  News Release, 
Ninth  Circuit  Judicial  Council  Approves  Experimental  Use 
of Cameras  in District Courts  (Dec. 17, 2009), Exh.  13, App. 
to Pet. 

In  this  context  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the 
Northern  District  of  California  amended  its  local  rules  on 
December 22, 2009, to bring them into conformity with Ninth 
Circuit  policy.  In  particular,  the  court  amended  the  local 
Rule forbidding the public broadcasting or televising of court 
proceedings  by  creating  an  exception  “for  participation  in  a 
pilot  or  other  project  authorized  by  the  Judicial  Council  of 
the  Ninth  Circuit.”  Public  Notice  Concerning  Revisions  of 
Civil Local Rule 77–3, id., Exh. 14.  The court initially relied 
on  a  provision  in  the  United  States  Code  that  permits  dis­
trict courts to prescribe rules “without public notice and op­
portunity  for  comment”  “[i]f  the  prescribing  court  deter­
mines that there is an immediate need for a rule,” and if the 
court “promptly thereafter afford[s] such notice and opportu­
nity  for  comment,”  28  U. S. C.  § 2071(e).  See  Exh.  1,  at  11, 
Supp.  App.  to  Response.  Then,  on  December  31,  the  court 
revised  its  public  notice  to  ask  for  comments  directly.  By 
January  8,  2010,  the  court  had  received  138,542  comments, 
all  but  32  of  which  favored  transmitting  the  proceedings. 
Id., at 12. 

Viewed  in  light  of  this  history,  the  court  satisﬁed  the 
statute’s  insistence  that  “notice”  be  “appropriate.”  Cf.  28 
U. S. C.  §§ 2071(b),  (e).  The  parties,  the  judges,  and  the  in­