long with religious leaders and other coalition members, Bishop Harry Jackson (4th L), senior pastor of Hope Christian Church and Chairman of the Stand4MarriageDC.com Coalition, listens during a news conference on Capitol Hill January 12, 2010, in Washington, DC. The coalition held a news conference to discuss strategies in saving traditional marriage and to call on congressional members to continue to support it. Alex Wong/Getty Images/AFP

Related

• US policy under spotlight as unemployment expected to rise (9/3/2010)
• Libya releases Islamists including bin Laden driver (9/1/2010)
• Wal-Mart pleads to US court to quash gender ruling (8/26/2010)
• US court halts government funding of stem cell research (8/24/2010)
• Barclays agrees to pay 300-million-dollar US sanctions fine (8/19/2010)
• Man executed for 1993 Texas gang rape, murder (8/18/2010)

In a 5-4 decision that split the top judges along their political leanings, the Supreme Court said the San Francisco courtroom had likely failed to follow regulations when its altered its existing rules to allow the transmissions.

"We do not here express any views on the propriety of broadcasting court proceedings generally," the majority decision said,

"Instead, our review is confined to a narrow legal issue: whether the District Court's amendment of its local rules to broadcast this trial complied with federal law.

"We conclude that it likely did not," the ruling said, adding that it would be "premature" to order a similar halt to a non-live rebroadcast of the proceedings over the Internet.

The California case involves the state's controversial Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage and is being challenged by gay rights activists as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

A few days before the closely-watched case began Monday, the judge overseeing the arguments decided to allow a live broadcast of the proceedings to five other courtrooms.

A plan to rebroadcast the arguments online was not implemented, but the decision to make the proceedings available to viewers outside of the courtroom was vigorously criticized by opponents of gay marriage, who petitioned the Supreme Court to halt the transmissions.

In a dissenting opinion Wednesday, four of the Supreme Court's justices argued that there was no justification for banning the broadcasts.

"I can find no basis for the... conclusion that, were the transmissions to other courtrooms to take place, the applicants would suffer irreparable harm," wrote Justice Stephen Breyer.

He also cited "the public's interest in observing trial proceedings to learn about this case and about how courts work."

Liberal and conservative judges have often found themselves on opposite sides on the question of whether courtroom proceedings should be broadcast.

The Supreme Court in particular has opposed live transmissions of audio or video from inside its Washington courthouse.

lum/sah/arb

© 1994-2009 Agence France-Presse

Most Viewed

+ Commented

1. 1
   Two asteroids to pass close to Earth, but won't hit: NASA
2. 2
   Defiant Florida church says Koran burning to go ahead
3. 3
   US welcomes South Korean sanctions against Iran
4. 4
   US tries to avert Sudan war after 'inevitable' split
5. 5
   Hermine slams northeast Mexico, swirls into US

+ Viewed

Most Commented

1. 1
   New polls spell gloom for Obama's Democrats
2. 2
   Fears US church Koran burning will stoke backlash
3. 3
   Hurricane watch issued for coasts of Mexico, Texas
4. 4
   Young kids who sleep less at risk of obesity: study
5. 5
   Rep. Frank faces town hall foe in Mass. primary