Posthumous Judging: Appeals Courts Allow It, but Not the Supreme Court
By long tradition, the U.S. Supreme Court discounts the votes and opinions of justices upon death.
April 09, 2018 at 05:38 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit died on March 29, but that did not prevent the court on Monday from issuing an en banc ruling he wrote as law of the circuit in an important gender wage gap case.
In a footnote, the court stated, “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.” The en banc panel heard argument in San Francisco on Dec. 12.
But such a footnote would have made no sense at the U.S. Supreme Court. By long tradition, the court discounts the votes and opinions of justices upon death.
“I don't think it is written down anywhere,” retired Supreme Court clerk Bill Suter said Monday. “But at the Supreme Court, before an opinion is issued, it's not an opinion; it can be pulled at the last minute” if justices change their minds or make revisions.
In other words, if a justice can make changes in an opinion up to the time it is issued, a justice's death before then makes the opinion an unfinished product not suitable for being handed down.
After Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, his pending opinions were likely reassigned to another justice in the majority. That justice could use the Scalia writing as a starting point, but it would be regarded as a new opinion entirely, and Scalia's name would not appear on the decision.
Arthur Hellman, professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and an expert on federal courts, said “each court of appeals has its own practice” on how to count the vote of a deceased judge.
Hellman noted that on Dec. 29 of last year, Reinhardt—then alive—added Judge Harry Pregerson's name to a habeas corpus decision. Pregerson had died about a month earlier. A footnote stated, “Prior to his death, Judge Pregerson fully participated in this case and formally concurred in this opinion after deliberations were complete.”
At the time, conservative commentator Ed Whelan wrote, “If you thought that Ninth Circuit judge Harry Pregerson's death in November 2017 would mark the end of his long career of liberal judicial activism, you were wrong.”
Video of the Ninth Circuit's Dec. 12 argument in Rizo v. Yovino is posted below:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump’s DOE Pick Could Spell Trouble for Title IX Enforcement, Higher Ed Funding
- 2Jefferson Doctor Hit With $6.8M Verdict Over Death of 64-Year-Old Cancer Patient
- 3Seven Rules of the Road for Managing Referrals To/From Other Attorneys, Part 1
- 4What Went Wrong With Adeel Mangi's Long, Strange Trip Through the Judicial Nomination Process?
- 5Defense Counsel Turns $2.2 Million Broward Jury Verdict to $500K
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250