Hollingsworth v. Perry

The California Supreme Court issued a ruling that gave same-sex couples the right to marry. In response, California voters passed Proposition 8, overturning the high court’s ruling and defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Opponents of Proposition 8 (the opponents) (plaintiffs) sued proponents of Proposition 8 (the proponents) (defendants) to invalidate the proposition. A bench trial was scheduled to begin on January 11, 2010. In September 2009, the district court informed the parties of public interest in having the trial broadcast. The opponents supported the idea. At the time, Local Rule 77-3 (Rule 77-3) and a Ninth Circuit policy prohibited the recording or broadcast of court proceedings. Soon thereafter, the Ninth Circuit changed its policy. Media companies requested permission to televise the Proposition 8 trial. In late December 2009, the district court indicated on its website that it had amended Rule 77-3 to allow for recording or broadcasting of court proceedings. The proponents objected. A few days later, the court seemingly corrected its website post by noting that a “proposed revision” to Rule 77-3 was available for public comment until January 8, 2010. However, on January 4, 2010, the district court posted that amended Rule 77-3 had become effective as of December 22, 2009, pursuant to an “immediate need” for the amendment. The district court announced that the trial would be broadcast to five other courthouses. To stop the broadcast, the proponents filed a petition for writ of mandamus to the Ninth Circuit, which was denied. The proponents filed an application to stay the district court’s order in the United States Supreme Court while they prepared petitions for writs of certiorari and mandamus. It was still undetermined whether the trial would be broadcast on the internet.