The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Are Circuit Court Decisions from Before 1892 Binding On The Circuit Courts of Appeals?
The Evarts Act of 1892 established the modern-day circuit courts of appeals.
The Judiciary Act of 1891, commonly known as the Evarts Act, restructured the federal judiciary. This law created the now-familiar circuit courts of appeals. At the time, there were nine circuit courts of appeal. Now there are twelve.
Prior to the Evarts Act, there were circuit courts in the states. For example, there was the U.S. Circuit Court for District of Maryland. (This court may seem familiar to those who've read Ex Parte Merryman). And Justice Bushrod Washington decided Corfield v. Coryell while riding circuit on the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
I have a question, for which I cannot find the answer. Would a pre-1892 decision of the U.S. Circuit Court for District of Maryland, which was in the 4th Circuit, have been binding precedent on the U.S. Circuit Court for the Fourth Circuit after 1891?
In a related context, I know that decisions of the "old" Fifth Circuit are binding precedent on the Eleventh Circuit, which broke off from the Fifth Circuit in 1981. But I am not certain about the relationship between the pre-Evarts Act Circuit Courts and post-Evarts Acts Circuit Courts of Appeals.
If you have any insights, please email me. I never check the comments or tweets. (But you all knew that already).
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
"I never check the comments or tweets. (But you all knew that already)."
A serious shortcoming on your part.
What level of ego drives someone to life blog without reading the comments?
Maybe we should pay as much attention to his posts as he pays to the comments.
Wow. Given what many of you express about his posts, this should be a no-brainer. I guess it's not surprising that you guys are just figuring this out now, and that you got the idea from Josh himself!
I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't know until yesterday that JB ignores comments. That said, there is a collective action problem here: unless almost everyone decides to ignore JB's posts, having half or so of the commenters ignore his posts and drop off accomplishes nothing.
"If you have any insights, please email me."
Maybe comments on his posts should ALL be directed to his email.
That might be fun, clogging up his email.
Huh? What are you trying to accomplish?
Duh. All I did was point out his suggestion and expanded on it.
What's your problem?
Not you.
"That said, there is a collective action problem here: unless almost everyone decides to ignore JB’s posts, having half or so of the commenters ignore his posts and drop off accomplishes nothing."
What are yout trying to accomplish?
I haven’t had time to fully research this, but I would say the answer is “no”. One sees from the discussion in The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900) (on which I commented here Jan. 8) that the Judiciary Act of 1891 (which set up the new courts in 1891, not 1892) relieved the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction of the earlier “Circuit Courts”, which in fact included one trial-level judge. Circuit Courts after 1891 were true appellate courts, and were usually the court of last resort, and wouldn’t seem to be bound by pre-1891 Circuit Court decisions.
That's interesting. So what residual stare decisis is there from those pre-1892 decisions; none?
If we had a new case nearly identical to a pre 1892 case, could the old case be cited as precedent?
If orders were given in the pre-1892 cases, are they now vacated?
1. I don’t think they would be binding, though maybe “persuasive”.
2. I don’t think so, for the reasons I mentioned.
3. The order is still good unless someone moves to vacate it, and if denied, appeal the motion denying vacatur. Given the passage of time, by now you’d have to have a pretty good reason to explain the delay in moving to vacate.
I haven’t found the “magic bullet case” which definitively answers Josh’s question, but I did find Electric Mfg. Co. v. Edison Electric Light, 61 F. 834, a Seventh Circuit case from 1894 which affirmed what was called a Circuit Court case, 57 F. 616 (“Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin”) from 1893, an opinion written by a “District Judge”.
You're the expert, not me. I accept what you're saying.
But I find it remarkable that English Common law from the 15th century has more significance than American law from the 19th century.
I'm no expert.
By "English common law from the 15th century" I assume you're referring to Holmes's famous quote, so that marks you as someone pretty knowledgeable.
Would love to see the qualifications for someone to be an "expert" in any field.
I have certainly seen a panel decision of the United States Court of Appeal describe the opinion of a Supreme Court Justice riding circuit in the same circuit as being binding precedent in that particular circuit. It stuck in my mind because it wasn’t obvious that this would be the case. (And maybe it isn’t the case, and the particular panel author was simply incorrect.)
This was years ago that I read the case though, and I can’t remember its name. Since Blackman doesn’t check comments I am disinclined to spend time tracking it down.
On second thought, I may have found the decision I was recalling. If so, it is just a district court decision that refers to a pre-1892 circuit case as a "Fourth Circuit" case. If this was what I was thinking of, then that's even less to write home about than I remembered.
Simple answer for academics... does it support my political view? Then yes.
I have a lot of trouble believing that Josh doesn't look at the comments to see what other people are saying about his writing.
I came across a good discussion of this issue in a 19th / early-20th century source. If you'd like to know the source, just shoot me a reply in the comments section.
Please do post it here. I'm curious about it.
Does his failure -- for a period of years -- to correct his vivid, year-after-year mistakes in Today In Supreme Court History influence this point?
Given that nothing anyone says makes any impact on him, why would it be surprising? Blackman wants to hear himself talk.
Why should they, current decisions don't.
From chatgpt: No, circuit court decisions from before 1892 are not binding on the circuit courts of appeals. The circuit courts of appeals are empowered to review and overturn circuit court decisions that predate 1892. This is because the circuit court of appeals was established at that time, and the power to review and overturn such decisions was not available prior to 1892.
Fun Fact: The "U.S. Circuit Courts" which existed prior to the Evarts Act also existed after passage of the Act. They were eventually abolished under the Judicial Code of 1911.
Thanks. That explains the mystery about the “Circuit Court” in Wisconsin, that I noted above. (Though I'm not sure that's a fun fact!)
That helps to explain -- but in no way excuses or justifies -- the persistently shitty (years-long) performance of Prof. Blackmans and Barnett (Georgetown) with respect to This Day In Supreme Court History.
Why don't any of the friends of these "scholars" alert the professors to the false and humiliating content with which their names are regularly and publicly associated? There is plenty of shame for Georgetown and South Texas in this context, too.
Not sure why they would be binding. Being bound by panel decisions seems to be a choice made by individual circuits and is documented in their IOP's. The 11th circuit's IOP's discusses the issue of being bound by the old 5th by reference to and en-banc case where they chose to be so bound, but they clearly viewed it as an exercise of their own discretion.
So unless there's evidence of circuit courts binding themselves to the old courts, I'd say the answer is no, unless a case comes up and the particular circuit court elects to bind itself.
This analysis and $15 will get you a cup of coffee.
I don't see how they could be binding, given that there might be more than one and they might be conflicting. (That is, there might be precedents out of Maryland and Virginia, and they might not agree.)
Like when people say it "isn't the money" it's always the money, when people say they "don't check the comments" they check the comments.
The check's in your mouth, and I promise not to come in the mail.
Man, this post sent me down a rabbit hole of federal-courts history from which I may never return. Fascinating...if you're a huge nerd like me. I won't be able to say I didn't learn something today.
Aside from the fact the the law is a ass, what did you learn?
Well, for one, I'd never heard of a "certificate of division" before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_division
I also learned a lot more about the original circuit courts that I originally knew. They were rather odd in their composition and jurisdiction. I can't believe they survived as long as they did. The streamlining of the federal judiciary is certainly a welcome development.
Adequate for the times.
Try to imagine SC Justices "riding" Circuit.
I don't believe one has to go back so far in time to find the issue of importation of binding precedents.
When the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (an Article I tribunal) was replaced with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (an Article III tribunal) in 1982, the first general order of the CAFC made all precedents of CCPA into precedents of the CAFC.
I would normally be reluctant to provide free legal research for Prof. Blackman, but since I've been assured he'll never know:
Why in the world would it be, when
1. The circuit courts of appeal created by the Evarts Act were different from the circuit courts for individual districts;
2. The Evarts Act didn't eliminate the circuit courts for individual districts; and
3. The Evarts Act expressly gave the new circuit courts of appeal appellate jurisdiction over the circuit courts?
Well put.
Chapter 62 of Garner's text Judicial Precedent is the closest I have found but it's focused on situations like the 5/11 split. There are some older, turn-of-the-century cases listed in the footnotes but I have not pulled them.
But he won't read these comments anyway.