Hollingsworth v. Perry

130 S.Ct. 705 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The lawsuit involves an action challenging Proposition 8, a California ballot proposition adopted by the electorate. It amends the State Constitution by adding a new section providing that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Ps contend that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution. Ps contend that the amendment violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The defendant-intervenors (who are the applicants here) entered the suit to defend its constitutionality. The Chief Judge Kozinski of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appointed a three-judge committee to evaluate the possibility of adopting a Ninth Circuit Rule regarding the recording and transmission of district court proceedings. The committee recommended to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council that district courts be permitted to experiment with broadcasting court proceedings on a trial basis. The Ninth Circuit Judicial Council issued a news release indicating that it had approved a pilot program for “the limited use of cameras in federal district courts within the circuit.” On December 21, a coalition of media companies requested permission from the District Court to televise the trial challenging Proposition 8. Two days later, the court indicated on its Web site that it had amended Civil Local Rule 77-3, which had previously banned the recording or broadcast of court proceedings. The District Court issued an order permitting the trial to be broadcast live via streaming audio and video to a number of federal courthouses around the country. Ds object to the District Court’s order. D filed an application for a stay of the District Court’s order.