United States v. Babichenko, 508 F.Supp.3d 774

Nine-defendant federal criminal trial designated complex and expected to last ~10 weeks; trial rescheduled to begin June 8, 2021 amid COVID-19 concerns.
Courtroom 3 will be reconfigured for social distancing, jurors and parties will occupy most courtroom space leaving no physical room for public/press.
Pretrial Order No. 1 initially contemplated streaming the trial broadly (e.g., YouTube), but Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 prohibits broadcasting judicial proceedings from the courtroom.
To preserve public-trial values while protecting health, the court ordered a partial closure plan: a closed‑circuit live audio/video feed to a courthouse viewing room, two-way video so the courtroom can see viewers, and limited remote access upon a particularized showing.
The court found an overriding safety interest (jury and participant health), relied on epidemiological advice and courtroom ventilation, rejected satellite locations as inferior, and reserved flexibility to admit limited in‑court spectators if conditions permit.
The court declined public livestreaming to the internet, will prohibit recording, will issue limited remote authorizations, and set a hearing (with press amicus briefing) to address public‑trial objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restricting in‑court public/press access (partial closure) violates the public‑trial right	United States: restrictions safeguard health and are narrowly tailored to permit trial to proceed	Defendants: exclusion from courtroom and limited access impair public‑trial protections and community participation	Court: Partial closure upheld under Waller; safety is overriding interest; two‑way live feed + viewing room preserves core public‑trial values
Whether alternatives (satellite venue, expanded in‑court spectators) are adequate	United States: alternatives either increase health risks or provide inferior viewing; Courtroom 3 has superior ventilation and functionality	Defendants: travel to viewing room or remote access inadequate to replicate in‑person observation	Court: alternatives considered and rejected as less effective or more risky; viewing room and limited remote access are reasonable and narrowly tailored
Whether broad public livestreaming (e.g., YouTube) is permitted despite pandemic	United States: broad broadcast would maximize access but must conform to rules	Defendants: sought broad livestream to satisfy openness	Court: Rule 53 bars public broadcasting; therefore no internet livestreaming—closed‑circuit feed and limited remote authorizations allowed; recording/broadcasting prohibited

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (establishes 4‑part test for courtroom closures)
Press‑Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (presumption of openness and standards for overcoming it)
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (public exclusion during jury selection addressed)
Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (closure during jury selection and related due‑process concerns)
United States v. Sherlock, 962 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir. standard distinguishing partial vs total closures)
United States v. Ivester, 316 F.3d 955 (public‑trial safeguards and partial‑closure analysis)
Conway v. United States, 852 F.2d 187 (upholding Rule 53 restrictions)
Rice v. Kempker, 374 F.3d 675 (limitations on cameras do not violate First Amendment)
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (importance of courtroom dignity and integrity)