"New SCOTUS decision regarding 9th circuit. This is important."
New SCOTUS decision regarding 9th circuit.
This is important.
Summary: Judge Reinhardt died while in office. All the cases he participated in prior to death, the 9th circuit released rulings on with his name. SCOTUS ruled what they did was unlawful. A bunch of 2017 and 2018 cases are being send to other districts. The list is long, see attached pdf that has all the cases.
Here’s the ruling
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022519zor_8mjp.pdf
Can the 9TH CIRCUIT judges be impeached for knowingly releasing rulings with the deceased REINHARDT’S name?
I don’t quite understand this. So rulings that happened while Reinhardt was a judge have his name on them but they were released after he died? And so those decisions are null and void? I will read in a bit gotta run.
Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
JIM YOVINO, FRESNO COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF SCHOOLS v. AILEEN RIZO
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 18–272. Decided February 25, 2019
PER CURIAM.
The petition in this case presents the following question:
May a federal court count the vote of a judge who dies
before the decision is issued?
A judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt, died on
March 29, 2018, but the Ninth Circuit counted his vote in
cases decided after that date.* In the present case, Judge
Reinhardt was listed as the author of an en banc decision
issued on April 9, 2018, 11 days after he passed away. By
counting Judge Reinhardt’s vote, the court deemed Judge
Reinhardt’s opinion to be a majority opinion, which means
that it constitutes a precedent that all future Ninth Circuit panels must follow. See United States v. Caperna,
251 F. 3d 827, 831, n. 2 (2001). Without Judge Reinhardt’s
vote, the opinion attributed to him would have
been approved by only 5 of the 10 members of the en banc
panel who were still living when the decision was filed.
Although the other five living judges concurred in the
judgment, they did so for different reasons. The upshot is
that Judge Reinhardt’s vote made a difference. Was that
lawful?
Aileen Rizo, an employee of the Fresno County Office of
Education, brought suit against the superintendent of
schools, claiming, among other things, that the county was
violating the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 77 Stat. 56–57, 29
U. S. C. §206(d). The District Court denied the county’s
motion for summary judgment, and the Ninth Circuit
granted the county’s petition for interlocutory review. A
three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit vacated the decision
of the District Court based on a prior Ninth Circuit decision, Kouba v. Allstate Ins. Co., 691 F. 2d 873 (1982), that the panel “believed it was compelled to follow.” 887 F. 3d 453, 459 (2018) (en banc). The court then granted en banc review “to clarify the law, including the vitality and effect of Kouba.” Ibid. Like other courts of appeals, the Ninth Circuit takes the position that a panel decision like that in Kouba can be overruled only by a decision of the en banc court or this Court, see Naruto v. Slater, 888 F. 3d 418, 421 (2018), and therefore a clear purpose of the en banc decision issued on April 9 was to announce a new binding Ninth Circuit interpretation of the Equal Pay Act issue previously addressed by Kouba. The opinion authored by Judge Reinhardt and issued 11 days after his death purports to do that, but its status as a majority opinion of the en banc court depends on counting Judge Reinhardt’s vote.
The opinions issued by the en banc Ninth Circuit state
that they were “Filed April 9, 2018,” and they were entered
on the court’s docket on that date. A footnote at the
beginning of the en banc opinion states:
“Prior to his death, Judge Reinhardt fully participated
in this case and authored this opinion. The majority opinion and all concurrences were final, and voting
was completed by the en banc court prior to his
death.” 887 F. 3d, at 455, n. *. II
The Ninth Circuit did not expressly explain why it
concluded that it could count Judge Reinhardt’s opinion as
“[t]he majority opinion” even though it was not endorsed
by a majority of the living judges at the time of issuance,
but the justification suggested by the footnote noted above
is that the votes and opinions in the en banc case were
inalterably fixed at least 12 days prior to the date on
which the decision was “filed,” entered on the docket, and
released to the public. This justification is inconsistent
with well-established judicial practice, federal statutory
law, and judicial precedent.
As for judicial practice, we are not aware of any rule or
decision of the Ninth Circuit that renders judges’ votes
and opinions immutable at some point in time prior to
their public release. And it is generally understood that a
judge may change his or her position up to the very moment
when a decision is released.
We endorsed this rule in United States v. AmericanForeign
S. S. Corp., 363 U. S. 685 (1960), which interpreted
an earlier version of 28 U. S. C. §46(c), the statutory provision authorizing the courts of appeals to hear cases en banc. The current version of this provision permits a
circuit to adopt a rule allowing a senior circuit judge to sit on an en banc case under certain circumstances, but at the time of our decision in American-Foreign S. S. Corp., this was not allowed. Instead, only active judges could sit en banc. See 28 U. S. C. §46(c) (1958 ed.).
In American-Foreign S. S. Corp., Judge Harold Medina
was one of the five active judges on the Second Circuit
when the court granted a petition for rehearing en banc.
After briefing was complete but before an opinion issued, Judge Medina took senior status. When the en banc court
issued its decision, the majority opinion was joined by
Judge Medina and two active Circuit Judges; the two
other active Circuit Judges dissented. We vacated the
judgment and remanded the case, holding that “[a]n ‘active’
judge is a judge who has not retired ‘from regular
active service,’” and “[a] case or controversy is ‘determined’
when it is decided.” 363 U. S., at 688. Because
Judge Medina was not in regular active service when the
opinion issued, he was “without power to participate” in
the en banc decision. Id., at 687, 691; cf., id., at 691–692
(Harlan, J., dissenting).
Our holding in American-Foreign S. S. Corp. applies
with equal if not greater force here. When the Ninth
Circuit issued its opinion in this case, Judge Reinhardt
was neither an active judge nor a senior judge. For that
reason, by statute he was without power to participate in
the en banc court’s decision at the time it was rendered.
In addition to §46(c), §46(d) also shows that what the
Ninth Circuit did here was unlawful. That provision
states:
“A majority of the number of judges authorized to constitute
a court or panel thereof, as provided in paragraph
(c), shall constitute a quorum.”
Under §46(c), a court of appeals case may be decided by a
panel of three judges, and therefore on such a panel two
judges constitute a quorum and are able to decide an
appeal—provided, of course, that they agree. Invoking
this rule, innumerable court of appeals decisions hold that
when one of the judges on a three-judge panel dies, retires, or resigns after an appeal is argued or is submitted for decision without argument, the other two judges on the panel may issue a decision if they agree. See, e.g., United .... 47 (CA2 1994); Singh v. Ashcroft, 121 Fed. Appx. 471, 472, n. (CA3 2005); ASW Allstate Painting & Constr. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 188 F. 3d 307, 309, n. (CA5 1999); Clark v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 67 F. 3d 299, n. ** (CA6 1995); Kulumani v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Assn, 224 F. 3d 681, 683, n. ** (CA7 2000). See also Nguyen v. United States, 539 U. S. 69, 82 (2003) (“[S]ettled law permits a quorum to proceed to judgment when one member of the panel dies or is disqualified.”). With the exception of one recent decision issued by the Ninth Circuit after Judge Reinhardt’s death but subsequently withdrawn, see supra,
at 1 n., we are aware of no cases in which a court of appeals panel has purported to issue a binding decision that was joined at the time of release by less than a quorum of the judges who were alive at that time.
* * *
Because Judge Reinhardt was no longer a judge at the
time when the en banc decision in this case was filed, the
Ninth Circuit erred in counting him as a member of the
majority. That practice effectively allowed a deceased
judge to exercise the judicial power of the United States
after his death. But federal judges are appointed for life,
not for eternity.
We therefore grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, and remand the case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR concurs in the judgment.
Bkmrk
(PLEASE SEE THIS, AND THE COMMENTS ATTACHED TO POST #292):
New SCOTUS decision regarding 9th circuit.
“This is important.
Summary: Judge Reinhardt died while in office. All the cases he participated in prior to death, the 9th circuit released rulings on with his name. SCOTUS ruled what they did was unlawful. A bunch of 2017 and 2018 cases are being send to other districts. The list is long, see attached pdf that has all the cases.”
Here’s the ruling
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022519zor_8mjp.pdf
Love this line from the opinion:
“federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity.”.
It is also interesting that they issue this at the current time, while Ginsberg’s status is in doubt. The opinion was “by the court” which means no one puts their name to it, the whole court issues it. Sotomayor concurred, no one else had a separate concurrence or dissent, meaning it was unanimous.
I didn’t see an indication in the opinion what they are doing with all the opinions that involved Reinhardt. This opinion only involved one case.
"New SCOTUS decision regarding 9th circuit. This is important."