Televising Justice and 28 U.S.C. 332(d)(2)

As most readers probably know, California's Proposition 8 is now the subject of a federal lawsuit that has recently survived a motion to dismiss. Adam Liptak's story about the suit also reported in passing that "[Chief] Judge Walker . . . has hinted that he may allow the proceedings to be televised."  I found this puzzling, because I remembered another recent controversy about televisions in the federal district court.

As reported here, a judge in the Central District of Illinois allowed a local television station to broadcast a hearing over a school integration consent decree.  Chief Judge Easterbrook investigated this as an instance of misconduct and found that the judge had (perhaps accidentally) violated the law:

The judge's action violated a policy established by the Judicial Conference of the United States . . . , a resolution adopted by the Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit . . .  [and] a rule of the district court.  See C.D. Ill. R. 83.7. . . . .

The role of cameras in the courtroom is a subject of ongoing debate in the legislative and judicial branches, and among members of the public.  People of good will advocate photography and broadcasts; other people of good will think that cameras would have ill effects.  No matter what one makes of these contentions, once the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit have adopted a policy, a judge must implement it without regard to his own views.  The Council is authorized to adopt rules binding on all judges within the circuit.  28 U.S.C. 332 (d)(2).  [Our resolution] is such a rule.  A judge who contravenes policies adopted by the Judicial Conference and the Judicial Council has "engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts."  28 U.S.C. 351(a). . . .

The judge confessed error and apologized.  28 U.S.C. 332 (d)(2), in case you were wondering, provides that "[a]ll judicial officers and employees of the circuit shall promptly carry into effect all orders of the judicial council."

Is the Ninth Circuit any different?  If not, wouldn't the same statutes forbid Chief Judge Walker from televising the hearings in the Prop 8 case?  I can't find any comprehensive list of orders from the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, but this letter from the Ninth Circuit Executive earlier this year implies that the Ninth Circuit, like the Seventh Circuit, has adopted the Judicial Conference's recommendations that cameras be forbidden in district courts.  It's a letter advocating that the Judicial Conference ease up on cameras, but it acknowledges that  the "Judicial Conference has . . . specifically urged each circuit judicial council to adopt an order to prohibit such electronic coverage in the United States District Courts," and that "the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit voted to adopt [this] policy," and "specifically prohibited . . . electronic coverage in the United States District Courts."

Has something changed since then?  Has the Ninth Circuit decided to split from the Judicial Conference's recommendations?  Is Chief Judge Walker hinting that he intends to defy the Ninth Circuit's orders, made binding by Section 332(d)(2)?  Or is Liptak mistaken?

[To be sure, the local rules of the Northern District of California do not appear to prohibit broadcasting as they did in the Seventh Circuit case, or as the First Circuit held that they did when it issued a writ of mandamus in In Re Sony BMG.  But if Section 332(d)(2) means what Chief Judge Easterbrook says it does, that doesn't seem to matter.]