Legal News

In 5-4 Vote, High Court Nixes Prop. 8 Broadcast

By Ashby Jones

This just in: The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday afternoon ruled 5-4 that San Francisco federal judge Vaughn Walker, currently presiding over the Prop. 8 trial concerning same-sex marriage, erred in ruling that a video feed of the trial could be broadcast in a handful of other federal courts. In other words, the trial will not be televised. Click here for the per curiam decision.

The 5-4 vote was straight down those oh-so-familiar lines. The “conservatives,” Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, signed onto the opinion. Justice Breyer wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

The signers to the per curiam decision ruled that Judge Walker failed to follow proper procedures in amending a local rule stating that proceedings should not be broadcast beyond “the courtroom or its environs.” They continued:

In amending this rule, it appears that the District Court failed to "giv[e] appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment," as required by federal law. 28 U. S. C. §2071(b). The first time the District Court asked for public comments was on the afternoon of New Year's Eve. The court stated that it would leave the comment period open until January 8. At most, the District Court there-fore allowed a comment period spanning five businessdays. There is substantial merit to the argument that this was not "appropriate" notice and an opportunity for comment.

The dissenters saw it differently, however, finding that “Certainly the parties themselves had more than adequate notice and opportunity to comment before the Rule was changed.”

The dissenters go on to articulate a larger beef, however, that the court should never have waded into this dispute to begin with.

[T]his legal question is not the kind of legal question that this Court would normally grant certiorari to consider. There is no conflict among the state or federal courts regarding the procedures by which a district court changes its local rules. Cf. this Court's Rules 10(a)–(b). The technical validity of the procedures followed below does not implicate an open "important question of federallaw." . . . Nor do the procedures below clearly conflict with any precedent from this Court. . . .

It is particularly inadvisable for this Court to consider this kind of question because it involves local rules and local judicial administration. Here, for example, the Court decides just how a district court should modify its own local rules; in a word, this Court micromanages district court administrative procedures in the most detailed way.

Is this ruling a harbinger of how the Court might rule on the merits if and when Perry v. Schwarzenegger makes its way to One First St., N.E.? Given the split, it’s hard not to wonder.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on January 13, 2010 (boomark / email).