Supreme Court Blocks Broadcast of California Proposition 8 Trial

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, blocked the broadcast by a California federal district court of the non-jury trial challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8-- California's ban on same-sex marriage. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, (Sup. Ct., Jan. 13, 2010), the per curiam majority opinion concluded that the federal district court did not follow the proper procedures in amending its rules to permit broadcast of the trial. It did not give enough time for public comment on its proposal. The majority said:

The trial will involve various witnesses, including members of same-sex couples; academics, who apparently will discuss gender issues and gender equality, as well as family structures; and those who participated in the campaign leading to the adoption of Proposition 8. This Court has recognized that witness testimony may be chilled if broadcast.... Some of applicants' witnesses have already said that they will not testify if the trial is broadcast, and they have substantiated their concerns by citing incidents of past harassment....

The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than 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 contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well.

Technically the court granted a stay of the district court's order pending filing of petitions for a writ of certiorari and mandamus. The decision only related to the proposal to broadcast the trial live to a number of other courthouses around the country. It did not relate to the proposal to post recordings of the trial on YouTube at the end of each day. The 9th Circuit never approved that portion of the district court's poposal because the district court's technical staff encountered difficulties in preparing video that was suitable for online posting. Justice Breyer dissenting, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor said:

The majority’s action today is unusual. It grants a stay in order to consider a mandamus petition, with a view to intervening in a matter of local court administration that it would not (and should not) consider. It cites no precedent for doing so. It identifies no real harm, let alone “irreparable harm,” to justify its issuance of this stay.

The New York Times reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)