Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Riding Circuit: How Supreme Court Justices Can Act Alone

3/17/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Sebastian Bates
Sebastian Bates is a first-year law student at Keble College, Oxford University.

At some time between 1:52 p.m. and 3:39 p.m. on Wednesday, July 23, 2014, United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy fielded what may have been one of the most harrowing phone calls of his life.

According to the New York Times, the phone call that Justice Kennedy received was part of a three-pronged strategy. The other two were appeals to the District Court of Arizona and a call to three members of the state’s Supreme Court. These strategies were employed by the lawyers of Joseph R. Wood III in their bid to save their client’s life. [1]

Kennedy was asked to halt the execution on the grounds that the nearly two-hour long procedure, during which Mr. Wood appeared to gasp repeatedly, violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Justice Kennedy refused. Mr. Wood died shortly thereafter, at about ten minutes to four. The unusual and distressing circumstances of his death will undoubtedly raise questions about capital punishment, but his lawyers’ attempts to secure a stay of execution likely will provoke curiosity in those unfamiliar with the byzantine procedures of the Supreme Court. Why, reasonable minds may ask, did Justice Kennedy handle the matter? Surely the Court as a whole ought to have been consulted?
For an answer to this question, one must look far back in the history of the American judiciary. All the way, in fact, to Article III of the Constitution, which states that “[t]he judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” [2] 

Thus, when the federal government as we know it came into existence after the ratification of the Constitution, the judicial branch consisted of only one court, the Supreme Court, and only a single judge, the Chief Justice. The position has its roots in Article I, Section 3, which provides, almost in passing, that “[w]hen the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” [3] Congress, however, had the power to expand the federal judiciary in order to make it workable, and it did so by passing one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history: the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Act added four associate justices to the Supreme Court, and erected two subordinate tiers of federal courts – the district courts and the courts of appeal, or circuit courts – in a structure that continues to exist largely unchanged to this day. [4]

One very significant difference from the modern federal court system was that the circuit courts did not have their own judges. Instead, as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor once wrote, “the Act required that Supreme Court justices sit with local district judges twice a year” in an appellate capacity. This duty “commonly referred to as ‘riding the circuits,’ was intended to keep the Justices in tune with local communities and, for that reason, was considered of paramount importance to the newly created judicial system.” [5]

Despite the importance attached to it, the duty of “riding circuit” was heartily disliked by most justices, and in 1869, Congress approved a reform of the judicial system and provided for the appointment of circuit court justices. [6] The “riding circuit” system came to a formal end in 1911.

Today, the Circuit Justices (that is, Supreme Court justices who are assigned to supervise a certain circuit) “no longer sit as judges on appellate panels…[instead], acting alone, [they] have the power to grant stays or injunctions in both civil and criminal cases, to arrange bail before and after conviction, and to provide other ancillary relief, such as extensions of time for various filings and other procedural variances.” [7]

In accordance with a standing Supreme Court “Allotment Order” dating from 2010, Justice Kennedy serves as Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit. [8] This is in accordance with the tradition that justices be assigned to their home circuits: before being appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan, Justice Kennedy served on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and in addition was born, raised, and largely educated in California, which is covered by that Circuit. [9]

Because Arizona also falls within the Ninth Circuit, it was Justice Kennedy who, of all the Supreme Court Justices, was expected to hear Mr. Wood’s lawyers’ plea for an emergency stay of execution. Had he been unavailable, the lawyers could have gone to the next justice down in the order of seniority (in this case, Justice Clarence Thomas) for a stay, and indeed they could have done so even after he turned them down. In fact, they could have gone through the entire Supreme Court bench, looking for a justice to issue the stay. It would have been unusual, however, for a justice to issue a stay after one of his or her colleagues had already refused to do so.

Once Mr. Wood’s defense team contacted Justice Kennedy, he did have a few options. He could, of course, have granted the stay – but typically, justices will do so only if they believe that Supreme Court will eventually intervene in the petitioner’s favor. As Mr. Wood’s appeal had only recently been rejected by the Court, this possibility was remote. He could have referred the appeal to the whole Court for a decision, as is common in capital cases. Most likely, Justice Kennedy understood that time was limited and therefore chose to make a ruling himself (though, confusingly, the full Court issued an order denying certiorari in Wood’s case on Wednesday, which suggests that the Times may have been incorrect in implying that Justice Kennedy acted alone.) Finally, having decided to turn down the request, Justice Kennedy could have issued an opinion explaining his reasoning.

These opinions, known as “in-chambers opinions,” have a long and somewhat confused history. It is difficult to ascertain when they first began to be issued, and they were not regularly reported until well into the latter half of the twentieth century. It was not until 2001 that a concerted effort, put forth primarily by Cynthia Rapp, an attorney in the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, was made to collect and organize these opinions. Nevertheless, they are an interesting and relevant resource for advocates and students of the Supreme Court alike.

Consider, for instance, the 1961 case of Board of Education of New Rochelle v. Taylor. [10] Though little-remembered, this case was historic in that it was the first “to impose a constitutional responsibility on a northern school district to desegregate its schools.” [11] The New Rochelle school district had segregated black elementary students by sending the vast majority of them to a single school, Lincoln Elementary – a move which left the surrounding schools predominantly white. [12] The school district appealed, and petitioned for a stay of the desegregation order until the appeal could be heard. The case came from the Second Circuit, and thus Justice John Marshall Harlan II was responsible for considering the request; because he away for the summer, the case instead fell to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., his immediate junior. [13]

Justice Brennan took the unusual step of ordering an in-chambers oral argument. As his one-time clerk, Professor Frank Michelman of Harvard Law School, later recalled, Justice Brennan welcomed the lawyers into his chambers himself, listened cordially and attentively, and then “effortlessly” wrote an order denying the appeal for a stay. [14] This surprised the lead counsel for the respondent, Thurgood Marshall, who had misinterpreted Justice Brennan’s politeness towards his opponent as sympathy for the school district’s views. The full Court then denied the district’s appeal in short order, and Marshall quickly thereafter became Justice Marshall: in fact, that oral argument was his last in his long career with the NAACP. [15]

In this past Term, only one in-chambers opinion was issued. Authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, the opinion “on application to recall and stay mandate” in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., v. Sandoz, Inc. is only a page long. It is, nevertheless, interesting.

The case, which was heard in October 2014, involves patent protection for Copaxone, a drug used to reduce the frequency of relapse in patients suffering a relapsing-remitting course of multiple sclerosis. [16] The question before the Court is [17]

           [w]hether a district court’s factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be 
           reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit requires (and as the panel explicitly did in this case), or only for
           clear error, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires.


Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling was made, and his opinion issued, in response to an attempt by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA to have him (or the Court, if the Chief Justice chose to refer the issue to the full bench) bring back into force a district court injunction preventing the launch of a generic version of Copaxone. [18] The Chief Justice refused to do this, writing that while Teva had fulfilled two of his requirements to “obtain such relief” – by convincing the full Court to grant certiorari and by demonstrating that there is a “‘fair prospect’ that the Court will reverse the decision below” – he is “not convinced that [Teva] has shown a likelihood of irreparable harm from denial of stay.” Pointing out that Teva will be able to recover damages from Sandoz if the Court rules in its favor next Term (and thus revives the key Copaxone patent), Chief Justice Roberts found that the “extraordinary relief” Teva sought was “unwarranted,” and denied the application. [19] Teva did, in fact, receive patent protection for Copaxone, as its appeal was successful in the Court’s January 2015 ruling.

The most fascinating aspect of an in-chambers opinion is that it “offer[s] a unique opportunity to study the reasoning of an individual justice sans input from the rest of the Court.” [20] It is, admittedly, unlikely that much can be gleaned from Chief Justice Roberts’ single paragraph. That said, we can perhaps draw a few conclusions. For instance, many (including the man himself) identify Chief Justice Roberts as a judicial minimalist. In this light, his order in this case makes sense: rather than interfere with the mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which invalidated the district court’s injunction), the Chief Justice allowed the status quo to remain, pending the Court’s eventual resolution of the case. One might say he also showed respect for precedent: about half of the brief opinion was taken up in reciting the standards for relief set in an in-chamber opinion issued in Maryland v. King (an opinion authored, perhaps unsurprising, by Chief Justice Roberts). [21] A glance at that opinion reveals, interestingly, that Chief Justice Roberts originally adapted his three-pronged test from an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who herself cited another of Justice Brennan’s in-chambers opinions. [22] That Chief Justice Roberts is willing to rely on the reasoning of Justice Brennan – the architect of some of the Warren Court’s greatest victories, and of much of the liberal resistance under Chief Justice Burger – says something about his pragmatism: ultimately, Justice Brennan’s reasoning is used because it works, by clearly and cogently setting out a standard that applicants must meet.

Ultimately, this brief opinion has been forgotten in the tumult of a contentious term. It will not be long remembered – nor should it be. As a brief, even inconsequential piece of legal reasoning emanating from an institution that deals with some of the most important legal issues of our time, it is deservedly set to the side. Nevertheless, this single page allows us a small glimpse into the mind of the Chief Justice of the United States, and hints at a long tradition of Supreme Court administration: a tradition that dates back to 1789 and which was brought to mind, in horrific circumstances, when Justice Kennedy picked up the phone in the early afternoon and was called upon to make what must have been a truly painful decision.


[1] Erik Eckholm, “Arizona Takes Nearly 2 Hours to Execute Inmate,” New York Times, July 23, 2014, accessed July 26, 2014,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/us/arizona-takes-nearly-2-hours-to-execute-inmate.html.
[2] U.S. Const., art. III, sec. 1.
[3] U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 3, cl. 6.
[4] An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States. Public Law 73, U.S. Statutes at Large 1 (1789).
[5] Sandra Day O’Connor, “Foreword: The Changing Role of the Circuit Justice,” Toledo Law Review 17 (1985): 521.
[6] O’Connor, “The Changing Role,” 523.
[7] O’Connor “The Changing Role,” 523 – 524.
[8] Supreme Court of the United States, “Allotment Order,” effective September 28, 2010, accessed July 26, 2014, http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/ALLOTMENTORDER9-28-10.pdf
[9] “Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court,” Supreme Court of the United States, accessed July 26, 2014, http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx.
[10] Board of Education of New Rochelle v. Taylor, 82 S. Ct. 10 (1961) (Brennan, J., in-chambers)
[11] Frank I. Michelman, Brennan and Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 139.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Seth Stern and Stephen Wermiel, Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010), 211.
[14] Michelman, Brennan, 143.
[15] Stern and Wermiel, Liberal Champion, 213.
[16] The National Multiple Sclerosis Society, “Copaxone,” accessed July 26, 2014, http://www.nationalmssociety.org/Treating-MS/Medications/Copaxone.
[17] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854
[18] Application to Recall and Stay the Federal Circuit’s Mandate Pending This Court’s Judgment in No. 13-854, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854.
[19] 572 U.S. __ (2014) (Roberts, C.J., in chambers)
[20] Cynthia Rapp, “Introduction,” A Collection of In Chambers Opinions by the Justices of the Supreme Court, volume I (Washington, DC: Green Bag Press, 2001), v.
[21] Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. __ (2012) (Roberts, C.J., in-chambers)
[22] Conkright v. Frommert, 556 U.S. __ (2009) (Ginsburg, J., in-chambers)
Photo credit: Flickr user Supermac1961
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​