## Facts

- Same-sex couples filed a federal constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to recognize only opposite-sex marriages.
- A bench trial began in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 11, 2010.
- The district had a local rule that barred broadcasting trials outside the courthouse where the trial occurred.
- Days before trial, the district court announced, through website postings, a purported amendment to permit live audio-video streaming of the trial to multiple federal courthouses.
- The official proponents of Proposition 8, appearing as defendant-intervenors, objected and sought emergency relief, arguing the last-minute rule change violated federal rulemaking requirements and threatened fair-trial interests.
- The Supreme Court initially entered a temporary stay and then considered whether to stay broadcasting for the duration of the trial.

## Issues

1. Whether a stay should issue to prevent contemporaneous broadcasting of a federal trial to other federal courthouses when the rule authorizing broadcast appeared adopted without required notice-and-comment procedures.
2. Whether the applicants showed entitlement to emergency relief under traditional stay factors, including irreparable harm and the public interest in trial fairness and procedural regularity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court (per curiam) granted the application for a stay.
- The Court concluded the applicants made a sufficient showing under the stay standard.
- The broadcast order was stayed because it appeared the lower courts did not follow federally required procedures before changing local rules to allow broadcasting.
- The Court did not decide the constitutionality of Proposition 8 or adopt any general rule for or against broadcasting federal trials.

## Legal Principles

- Emergency stays turn on traditional equitable factors, including likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest.
- Federal courts must comply with statutory and rules-based procedures (including notice and an opportunity for comment) when adopting or amending local rules.
- Procedural regularity in court rulemaking is a public interest that may justify maintaining the preexisting status quo during litigation.
- Potential fair-trial harms from contemporaneous broadcasting in a highly publicized case may support findings of irreparable injury for stay purposes.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court stayed the planned live broadcast of the Proposition 8 bench trial to other federal courthouses, primarily because the rule change enabling broadcast appeared adopted without required rulemaking procedures and because any broadcast-related harms could not be undone once dissemination occurred.


Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010)