Hollingsworth v. Perry
Supreme Court of the United States
1Per curiam
We are asked to stay the broadcast of a federal trial. We resolve that question without expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast. We instead determine that the broadcast in this case should be stayed because it appears the courts below did not follow the appropriate procedures set forth in federal law before changing their rules to allow such broadcasting. Courts enforce the requirement of procedural regularity on others, and must follow those requirements themselves.
This lawsuit, still in a preliminary stage, involves an action challenging what the parties refer to as…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Estes v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Cheney v. United States District Court for District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Ex Parte United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Frazier v. HeebeSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Weil v. NearySupreme Court of the United States · 1929
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by276 opinions
- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2010
- Leiva-Perez v. HolderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Leif Hinterberger v. City of IndianapolisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2020
- Trump v. CASA, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2025
- Balintulo v. Daimler AGCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
271 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.