Today in Supreme Court History: December 8, 1902

12/8/1902: Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes takes the oath.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U.S. 536 (decided December 8, 1884): Chinese Exclusion Act (requiring certificate for entry) did not apply to those who were in already in the country, left then returned

Shapiro v. McManus, 577 U.S. 39 (decided December 8, 2015): Constitutional challenges to Congressional reapportionments must be referred to three-judge panel (appeal from which is one of the only remaining direct, non-discretionary appeal routes to the Supreme Court, and I think the only one directly from the trial level) (trial court had treated referral as discretionary)

Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (decided December 8, 2009): order denying claim of attorney-client privilege is not immediately appealable (I suppose the only thing to do if disclosure would put your client in some kind of outside jeopardy is to flout the order and get cited for contempt, but that order’s not appealable either)

[Dilan Esper]

If you have a clear claim of privilege you can seek a writ of mandamus, which is available when entitlement to relief is clear and there is no adequate remedy at law (through appeal). And you can seek a stay pending review. So it's unlikely that someone is going to be required produce information that is obviously privileged without appellate review.

Where the rules on appealability have bite is where someone has a claim of privilege that is debatable. In that situation, you aren't going to be able to get mandamus relief, and you are likely to be collaterally barred if you place yourself in contempt. So you have to obey the order and turn it over.

I should add that this rule is more defensible than you might think. The reality is that there are a lot of BS claims of privilege out there, and if you allow all of them to be immediately appealable, there will be more, because people will use these claims to delay litigation and obstruct discovery. So a system that says when the trial court obviously screws up, you get a stay, review, and a writ, but if the trial court's ruling is defensible, you have to produce the information, is obviously not fully protective of the privilege but is still defensible as balancing.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks !

[apedad]

RE: Shapiro v. McManus

Facts of the case

In 2011, the Maryland General Assembly enacted a redistricting plan based on the results of the 2010 census. Several of the districts consisted of de-facto non-contiguous segments—discrete segments that would be wholly unconnected but for one or two narrow strips connecting the two—often with largely inconsistent demographics between the two large segments. The plaintiffs were a group of citizens who sued the Chair of the Maryland State Board of Elections (Board) and the State Administrator of the Board and argued that the new districting plan violated their rights to political association and equal representation under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires that a complaint be plausible on its face and enable the court to draw a reasonable inference of misconduct. The district court granted the motion to dismiss and held that the complaint did no more than imply the mere possibility of misconduct. Therefore, the case did not go before a three-judge panel, as the Three-Judge Court Act requires for cases dealing with congressional districts unless the claim is determined to be insubstantial. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

Question

May a single-judge district court determine that a claim governed by the Three-Judge Court Act need not be heard by a three-judge panel, not because the claim is insubstantial, but because the complaint did not state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)?

Conclusion (Unanimous!)

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion for the unanimous Court, which held that a claim covered by the Three-Judge Court Act must be heard by a three-judge panel. The text of the Act requires that any covered claim be heard by a three-judge panel and does not grant an individual district court judge the discretion to decide otherwise. A district court judge may only decide whether the claim is one that the Three-Judge Court Act covers and may not make any judgments on the merit of the case. The Court also held that the question of whether a claim is “insubstantial” is a jurisdictional one addressing whether the district court can hear the case, and not a question of whether the lawsuit failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Especially for constitutional claims, the “insubstantial” barrier is a high one, and the claim in this case should not have been dismissed as insubstantial. (Oyez)

1. Love the Unanimous decisions.
2. (From the decision) "Whatever the purposes of a three-judge court may be, respondents’ argument needlessly produces a contradiction in the statutory text. That text’s initial prescription could not be clearer: “A district court of three judges shall be convened . . . when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts . . . .” 28 U. S. C. §2284(a), " i.e., a claim covered by the Three-Judge Court Act must be heard by a three-judge panel.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I prefer the Holmes with the deerstalker cap.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

The man that ruined American law.