News Releases

RTDNA Disappointed As Supreme Court Pulls Plug on Prop 8. Trial Broadcast

Contact: Tara Sheehan, 202.834.1270, taras@rtdna.org

For Immediate Release: January 14, 2010

WASHINGTON – RTDNA is disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to ban broadcast of the historic legal challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage – better known as the Proposition 8 trial.

"While the members of RTDNA are obviously disappointed that our nation’s highest court would rule to keep the public from viewing this trial through the combined efforts of traditional and new media, I am encouraged that the court’s ruling did not dismiss outright the idea of broadcasting federal trials, and that four of the justices dissented, seeing the important nature of this case and finding no reason to deny coverage on the grounds of a technicality,” said RTDNA Chairman Stacey Woelfel.

Consistent with the public’s right to witness judicial proceedings, RTDNA has long advocated in favor of opening federal courts to electronic coverage.  RTDNA has supported the passage of federal legislation that would permit cameras and microphones in judicial proceedings from the trial level through the Supreme Court, and has praised attempts by California jurists to end the ban on recording federal court proceedings in certain cases. 

Yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision was based on what the high court termed the Northern District of California’s failure to follow established procedures for amending its rules.  Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco originally planned to allow the proceedings to be posted, on delay, to the court’s Web site via YouTube. That ruling was then challenged by proponents of the same-sex marriage ban, who argued that releasing video could endanger witnesses.

Last month, the members of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit unanimously approved an experimental program to allow “limited use of cameras in federal district courts within the circuit.”  The Ninth Circuit includes federal courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, the U.S. Territory of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Although limited in scope to civil, non-jury proceedings, the Ninth Circuit’s experiment marked a significant shift in the federal judiciary’s approach to audio/video coverage of federal trials.  Audio/video coverage of trial proceedings is not permitted in other federal courts.

While the Supreme Court split on ideological grounds, the conservative majority stated that it was expressing no opinion on the propriety of televised trials, although it noted that the potential for harm is greater in a high-profile case involving “issues subject to intense debate in our society.”  Conversely, Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the minority, emphasized that those members of the public who could not be inside the courthouse were losing an opportunity to view a trial of great public interest.  

The U.S. Supreme Court historically has been resistant to coverage of its own proceedings, and the Judicial Conference of the United States has opposed allowing federal judicial proceedings to be broadcast, televised, recorded or photographed.  Most states now permit some form of electronic coverage of their courts. 

##