The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Ex Parte Quirin: A Precedent When The Outcome Of a SCOTUS Case Is Already Known
What should SCOTUS do when everyone already knows the outcome of a case?
Last night, I flagged a possible path forward for the Court in Dobbs:
For all we know, the Court issues a one sentence per curiam opinion overruling Roe, and remanding the case to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings.
I think there is some precedent for this path.
Ex Parte Quirin considered the validity of a military prosecutions against eight Nazi saboteurs (one of whom was a U.S. Citizen). The Supreme Court heard oral argument on July 29 and 30, 1942. But by that point, the outcome was already preordained. The Germans would be executed. And the Justices knew this outcome.
On July 31, 1942, the Court issued a short per curiam opinion upholding the military tribunal. Nearly three months later, on October 29, 1942, Chief Justice Stone issued a fully-developed majority opinion. But by that point, the saboteurs were already executed.
Whether this is a valid precedent, or not, I will let others judge. Justice Scalia criticized the ruling in his Hamdi dissent:
The Government argues that our more recent jurisprudence ratifies its indefinite imprisonment of a citizen within the territorial jurisdiction of federal courts. It places primary reliance upon Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), a World War II case upholding the trial by military commission of eight German saboteurs, one of whom, Hans Haupt, was a U.S. citizen. The case was not this Court's finest hour. The Court upheld the commission and denied relief in a brief per curiam issued the day after oral argument concluded, see id., at 18—19, unnumbered note; a week later the Government carried out the commission's death sentence upon six saboteurs, including Haupt. The Court eventually explained its reasoning in a written opinion issued several months later.
But Quirin does provide a roadmap.
The Court could issue a brief per curiam opinion stating that Roe and Casey are overruled, and that abortion restrictions should be reviewed with rational basis scrutiny. And at the end of June, the Court could issue a formal opinion. This move will allow the Court, as the Chief Justice maintained, to complete its work.
BREAKING: Roberts confirms authenticity of draft Dobbs opinion, says it doesn't represent anyone's final position. He has directed Supreme Court marshal to investigate. "The work of the Court will not be affected in any way." pic.twitter.com/XuTEjZbU2M
— Greg Stohr (@GregStohr) May 3, 2022
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, of course, he's going to say it won't have any effect, regardless of what effect it might have.
But it being a February version, and this being May, I'm willing to believe it doesn't perfectly reflect where the Court is today.
Roberts is launching an investigation by the fearsome Marshall of the Supreme Court.
https://nypost.com/2022/05/03/chief-justice-roberts-orders-probe-into-abortion-draft-leak/?lctg=607d90f2373dd11b6ec10b87
Does the Marshal have the authority to conduct an investigation?
Maybe an internal review but I don't see any authority to conduct a criminal investigation.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/6121
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/672
Statement doesn't say criminal investigation.
Further, I think you're conflating 'investigation' with 'prosecution'. Even a mere employer can conduct an investigation into, for example, theft from the petty cash drawer. Upon confirming that something bad happened (and maybe even collecting evidence about who did the bad thing), the employer can refer the investigation over to regulators or even the police. They will, of course, have to conduct their own investigation but (assuming it's substantiated) that will build on the original non-criminal investigation.
I meant investigation.
It's a pretty big deal to find a source of a leak and could get into searches of personal cell phones.
While I'm sure the Marshal has authority to search all physical property (even personal belongings), but that's usually for detection purposes (find a bomb, sensitive files, etc.), but those type of searches don't target an individual.
Not sure what authority they have in an investigation of a suspect.
We will definitely find out - and soon.
Every employer in the world has more authority to conduct searches and investigations than you are allowing here. Searches can be general but they also regularly target individuals suspected of doing things inappropriate to their responsibilities as employees. Whether they can include searches of personal cell phones (as an example) depends on the published policies and the explicit and implicit conditions of employment. Our system constrains the government in many ways but those restrictions fall away when the government is acting as employer.
So, yes, the Chief Justice has every authority needed to authorize the investigation and yes, he has the authority to delegate that investigatory function to the members of the marshal service.
Wow! Even for JB, this is really spinning out of control. He needs a sedative.
Who here thinks a Democrat leaked this, and who thinks a Republican?
And to what ends?
Good question.
Since last night, we can count the number of state legislatures which have actually mobilized so that [state] legislative silence regarding abortion will not enable various [state] courts to opine on the matter: the number is zero. Yes, the leak -- if it is one -- is troubling. But perhaps it fortuitously reveals that the division on the topic is not quite as massive as we have once believed -- and might not be massive enough to steer the mid-term elections in a direction they might otherwise take.
Earlier, Vox mused that the Politico document might be "an exquisite hoax produced by subject-matter experts who are intimately familiar with the Court’s work and with Alito’s writing style, and who were willing to spend hundreds of hours digging into sources that span close to 400 years." Other media outlets remarked that "States commonly ban a wide range of drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, but that’s hardly prevented people who want to obtain these drugs from doing so" and that "the overturning of Roe and subsequent state-level bans likely won’t mean the end of abortion — just legal abortion."
My only assessment is that the course of the nation should not and cannot be guided by the whining of a relatively small (roughly 6%, if we believe instant polling data) minority lacking the political and intellectual fortitude necessary to fully develop and legislatively enact its position. While I'm not "pro-leak," I remain supportive of the analysis of every reaction thereto.
Originally I was sceptical that a conservative had leaked this. But the way that Blackman is reacting leads me more and more to thinking that a conservative did leak this and was hoping for exactly this sort of reaction.
Agreed. Maybe it's as simple as it appears - the leak was an attempt to provoke a flip - but maybe the purpose was to preempt one instead?
Re-reading the WSJ editorial from last week, it could be argued that there is some inside information floating around that one of the majority justices is waffling and the leak was some kind of double-plus 4D chess to keep that from happening. Maybe the WSJ couldn't go so far as to release it but they did what they could with a supportive editorial instead.
Damnit Josh ... I predicted you'd churn out 15 posts on this by the end of the Court's term and you're already at 8! Maybe you could take a break and work on part 37 of the Emoluments Clause.
I'm sure you have enough posts already to make you a top Google result when searching this issue, thus ensuring that news outlets will reach out to you for comment.
You gotta admit though, it’s pretty impressive how quickly the Left can get a couple dozen retards out there with their signs and retard chants.
What was it, 60 minutes after the leak? Where they the FBI night shift or something?
This is absolutely a shit show at this point that Roberts created all by himself by showing how he pays too much attention to politics.
It's the very definition of "irony" that his efforts to protect the court's integrity have actually hastened its decline.
We know it's you, Blackman.
He appointed a position with no power to get phone records etc. This looks like a coverup.
Quirin's a terrible precedent, but even taken on its terms, yes, when we are dealing with alleged wartime saboteurs, we might rule and hang first and explain later. But there's no reason to do that in other cases.
In this context, Chief Justice Roberts is flailing.
He has no idea whether this -- or anything else -- is to affect the Court's work. He's just blustering childishly, perhaps because he understands the Court's legitimacy in the eyes of many or most Americans is about to be severely diminished (and, consequently, the conservative positions he favors are threatened by the tide of the culture war and the relatively weak, declining support for conservative views in modern America).
He also seems unlikely to be stupid enough to believe this is a "singular" development. He and his colleagues seemed not to care (for what now are revealed to be shabby, partisan reasons) about investigating the leak(s) during the Obamacare deliberations, but most Americans are neither as ignorant nor as gullible as the average backwater Republican voter.
Is Chief Justice Roberts auditioning for the Kevin Bacon role in an Animal House remake? Would that really be better than anchoring a six-justice conservative minority on an enlarged, improved Supreme Court?
Do your damnedest while you can, clingers. Then, please refrain from whining and crying like a Josh Blackman when your betters impose a reckoning.