Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 358

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

197 

Per Curiam 

lack  of  a  regular  rule  with  proper  standards  to  determine 
the  guidelines  for  broadcasting  could  compromise  the  or­
derly,  decorous,  rational  traditions  that  courts  rely  upon  to 
ensure the integrity of their own judgments.  These consid­
erations,  too,  are  part  of  the  reasons  leading  to  the  decision 
to grant extraordinary relief. 

In  addressing  a  discrete  instance  authorizing  a  closed-
circuit broadcast of a trial, Congress has illustrated the need 
for  careful  guidelines  and  standards.  The  trial  of  the  two 
defendants  in  the  Oklahoma  City  bombing  case  had  been 
transferred  to  the  United  States District  Court  for  the  Dis­
trict of Colorado, so it was set to take place in Denver.  That 
meant the families of deceased and surviving victims in and 
around  Oklahoma  City  would  not  have  the  opportunity  to 
observe  the  trial.  Congress  passed  a  statute  that  allowed 
victims’  families  to  watch  the  trial  on  closed-circuit  televi­
sion.  42 U. S. C. § 10608.  The statute was drawn with care 
to  provide  precise  and  detailed  guidance  with  respect  to 
the  wide  range  of  issues  implicated  by  the  broadcast.  See 
§ 10608(a) (the statute only applies “in cases where the venue 
of  the  trial  is  changed”  to  a  city  that  is  “out  of  the  State” 
and  “more  than  350  miles  from  the  location  in  which  those 
proceedings originally would have taken place”); §§ 10608(a)– 
(b)  (standards  for  who  can  view  such  trials);  § 10608(c)  (re­
strictions on transmission).  And the statute gave the 
Judicial Conference of the United States rulemaking author­
ity  “to  effectuate  the  policy  addressed  by  this  section.” 
§ 10608(g).  In  the  present  case,  by  contrast,  over  a  span  of 
three  weeks  the  District  Court  and  Ninth  Circuit  Judicial 
Council  issued,  retracted,  and  reissued  a  series  of  Web  site 
postings  and  news  releases.  These  purport  to  amend  rules 
and  policies  at  the  heart  of  an  ongoing  consideration  of 
broadcasting federal trials.  And they have done so to make 
sure  that  one  particular  trial  may  be  broadcast.  Congress’ 
requirement  of  a  notice-and-comment  procedure  prevents 
just  such  arbitrary  changes  of  court  rules.  Instead,  courts