It turns out that Justice Breyer dissented from the Court’s order blocking Judge Walker’s YouTube order. (The text of the order that I had received didn’t include Breyer’s dissent.) I think that Breyer’s dissent is best read as objecting to the Court’s order only insofar as it bars transmission of the trial video and audio to other federal courthouses (and not insofar as it bars posting on YouTube). But it’s far from clear on that point. Here is its full text:
I agree with the Court that further consideration is warranted, and I am pleased that the stay is time limited. However, I would undertake that consideration without a temporary stay in place. This stay prohibits the transmission of proceedings to other federal courthouses. In my view, the Court’s standard for granting a stay is not met. See Conkright v. Frommert, 556 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 1–2) (Ginsburg, J., in chambers). In particular, the papers filed, in my view, do not show a likelihood of “irreparable harm.”
With respect, I dissent.