In-chambers opinion

An in-chambers opinion is an opinion by a single justice or judge of a multi-member appellate court, rendered on an issue that the court's rules or procedures allow a single member of the court to decide. The judge is said to decide the matter "in chambers" because the decision can be issued from the judge's chambers without a formal court proceeding.

Supreme Court of the United States

[edit]

Each Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is assigned as the "Circuit Justice" to one or more of the 13 judicial circuits. The role of the Circuit Justice has changed over time, but has included addressing certain types of applications arising within the Circuit.

Under current practice, the Circuit Justice for each circuit is responsible for dealing with certain types of applications that, under the Court's rules, may be addressed by a single Justice. These include emergency applications for stays (including requests for stays of execution in death-penalty cases) and injunctions pursuant to the All Writs Act arising from cases within that circuit, as well as more routine matters such as requests for extensions of time. In the past, Circuit Justices also sometimes ruled on motions for bail in criminal cases, writs of habeas corpus, and applications for writs of error granting permission to appeal.

Most often, a Justice will dispose of such an application by simply noting that it is "Granted" or "Denied," or by entering a standard form of order unaccompanied by a written opinion. However, a Justice may elect to author an opinion explaining his or her reasons for granting or denying relief. Such an opinion is referred to as an "in-chambers opinion" or an "opinion in chambers." On occasion, Justices have also issued single-Justice in-chambers opinions on other matters, such as explaining why they have chosen not to recuse themselves from participating in a particular case before the Court.

The Justices author and publish fewer in-chambers opinions today than they did during the twentieth century; it has been rare in recent years for there to be more than one or two such opinions published per term.

Since 1969, in-chambers opinions that a Justice wishes to have published have appeared in the Court's official reporter, the United States Reports. They appear in a separate section at the back of each volume that contains one or more such opinions. Before 1969, in-chambers opinions did not appear in the U.S. Reports, although they were occasionally published in other reporters or in legal periodicals. During the 1990s, the Supreme Court Clerk's Office compiled a collection of in-chambers opinions contained in the Court's records and other sources. The collection was subsequently published in a three-volume edition by the Green Bag Press, and is supplemented from time to time.

List of in-chambers opinions since 1990

[edit]
Case Opinion citation[a] Justice Request Action Date Alternate citation[b]
Navarro v. United States 601 U.S. ___ Roberts On application for release pending appeal Denied March 18, 2024
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. 573 U.S. 1301 Roberts Recall and stay mandate Denied April 18, 2014 5 Rapp no. 16
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius 568 U.S. 1401 Sotomayor Injunction Denied December 26, 2012 5 Rapp no. 15
Maryland v. King 567 U.S. 1301 Roberts Stay Granted July 30, 2012 5 Rapp no. 14
Gray v. Kelly 564 U.S. 1301 Roberts Stay (capital) Denied August 21, 2011 5 Rapp no. 13
Lux v. Rodrigues 561 U.S. 1306 Roberts Injunction Denied September 30, 2010 4 Rapp 1626
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Scott 561 U.S. 1301 Scalia Stay Granted September 24, 2010 4 Rapp 1622
Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics 559 U.S. 1301 Roberts Stay Denied March 2, 2010 4 Rapp 1620
O'Brien v. O'Laughlin 557 U.S. 1301 Breyer Stay Denied August 26, 2009 4 Rapp 1591
Conkright v. Frommert 556 U.S. 1401 Ginsburg Stay Denied April 30, 2009 4 Rapp no. 1589
Boumediene v. Bush;
Odah v. United States
550 U.S. 1301 Roberts Extension of time and suspension of order denying certiorari Denied April 26, 2007 4 Rapp 1563
Stroup v. Willcox 549 U.S. 1501 Roberts Stay Denied December 18, 2006 4 Rapp 1562
San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial v. Paulson;
City of San Diego v. Paulson
548 U.S. 1301 Kennedy Stays Granted;
Denied
July 7, 2006 4 Rapp 1539
Doe v. Gonzales 546 U.S. 1301 Ginsburg Vacate stay Denied October 7, 2005 4 Rapp 1533
Multimedia Holdings Corp. v. Circuit Court of Florida 544 U.S. 1301 Kennedy Stay Denied April 15, 2005 4 Rapp 1499
Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee (2004) 543 U.S. 1304 Souter Vacate stay Denied November 2, 2004 4 Rapp 1498
Spencer v. Pugh 543 U.S. 1301 Stevens Vacate stays Denied November 2, 2004 4 Rapp 1496
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC 542 U.S. 1306 Rehnquist Injunction Denied September 14, 2004 4 Rapp 1458
Associated Press v. Colorado District Court 542 U.S. 1301 Breyer Stay Denied July 26, 2004 4 Rapp 1455
Cheney v. United States District Court 541 U.S. 913 Scalia Recuse Denied March 18, 2004 4 Rapp 1441
Prato v. Vallas 539 U.S. 1301 Stevens Extension of time Denied June 9, 2003 4 Rapp 1440
Kenyeres v. Ashcroft 538 U.S. 1301 Kennedy Stay Denied March 21, 2003 4 Rapp 1435
Chabad of Southern Ohio v. City of Cincinnati 537 U.S. 1501 Stevens Vacate stay Granted November 29, 2002 4 Rapp 1434
Bartlett v. Stephenson[1] 535 U.S. 1301 Rehnquist Stay Denied May 17, 2002 4 Rapp 1431
Bagley v. Byrd 534 U.S. 1301 Stevens Stay (capital) Denied November 6, 2001 4 Rapp 1429
Brown v. Gilmore 533 U.S. 1301 Rehnquist Injunction Denied September 12, 2001 4 Rapp 1426
Microsoft Corp. v. United States;
New York ex. rel. Spitzer v. Microsoft Corp.
530 U.S. 1301 Rehnquist Recuse[c] Denied September 26, 2000 4 Rapp 1424
Murdaugh v. Livingston 525 U.S. 1301 Rehnquist Vacate stay Denied November 18, 1998 3 Rapp 1391
Rubin v. United States (1998) 524 U.S. 1301 Rehnquist Stay Denied July 17, 1998 3 Rapp 1389
Netherland v. Gray 519 U.S. 1301 Rehnquist Vacate stay (capital) Denied December 23, 1996 3 Rapp 1387
Netherland v. Tuggle 517 U.S. 1301 Rehnquist Vacate stay (capital) Denied May 15, 1996 3 Rapp 1386
FCC v. Radiofone, Inc. 516 U.S. 1301 Stevens Vacate stay Granted October 25, 1995 3 Rapp 1385
McGraw-Hill v. Procter & Gamble 515 U.S. 1309 Stevens Stay Denied September 21, 1995 3 Rapp 1382
Rodriguez v. Texas 515 U.S. 1307 Scalia Stay (capital) Denied August 31, 1995 3 Rapp 1381
Penry v. Texas 515 U.S. 1304 Scalia Extension of time (capital) Denied August 28, 1995 3 Rapp 1377
Foster v. Gilliam 515 U.S. 1301 Rehnquist Stay Granted in part August 17, 1995 3 Rapp 1374
O'Connell v. Kirchner 513 U.S. 1303 Stevens Stays Denied January 28, 1996 3 Rapp 1372
In re Dow Jones and Company, Inc. 513 U.S. 1301 Rehnquist Stay Denied December 5, 1994 3 Rapp 1370
Edwards v. Hope Medical Group for Women 512 U.S. 1301 Scalia Stay Denied August 17, 1994 3 Rapp 1367
Packwood v. Senate Select Committee on Ethics 510 U.S. 1319 Rehnquist Stay Denied March 2, 1994 3 Rapp 1364
CBS Inc. v. Davis 510 U.S. 1315 Blackmun Stay Granted February 9, 1994 3 Rapp 1360
Planned Parenthood v. Casey 510 U.S. 1309 Souter Stay Denied February 7, 1994 3 Rapp 1354
Capital Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette 510 U.S. 1307 Stevens Stay Denied December 23, 1993 3 Rapp 1352
INS v. Legalization Assistance Project 510 U.S. 1301 O'Connor Stay Granted November 26, 1993 3 Rapp 1346
DeBoer v. DeBoer 509 U.S. 1301 Stevens Stay Denied July 26, 1993 3 Rapp 1343
Blodgett v. Campbell 508 U.S. 1301 O'Connor Vacate order (capital) Dismissed May 14, 1993 3 Rapp 1338
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC 507 U.S. 1301 Rehnquist Injunction Denied April 29, 1993 3 Rapp 1335
Grubbs v. Delo[2] 506 U.S. 1301 Blackmun Stay (capital) Granted October 20, 1992 3 Rapp 1334
Reynolds v. IAAF 505 U.S. 1301 Stevens Stay Granted June 20, 1992 3 Rapp 1332
Campos v. City of Houston 502 U.S. 1301 Scalia Injunction and stay Denied October 29, 1991 3 Rapp 1330
Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Plan 501 U.S. 1301 Scalia Stay Granted August 2, 1991 3 Rapp 1325
Cole v. Texas 499 U.S. 1301 Scalia Stay (capital) Granted March 18, 1991 3 Rapp 1324
Mississippi v. Turner 498 U.S. 1306 Scalia Extension of time (capital) Denied March 2, 1991 3 Rapp 1323
Madden v. Texas 498 U.S. 1301 Scalia Extension of time (capital) Granted February 20, 1991 3 Rapp 1317

Other American appellate courts

[edit]

The rules of some other multi-member American appellate courts sometimes authorize a single judge or justice to take certain actions. Sometimes these actions are procedural in nature, such as granting extensions of time or granting or denying permission to file an amicus curiae brief. In other courts, the powers of a single judge can be more extensive; for example, in the New York Court of Appeals, a single judge rules on a defendant's motion for leave to appeal in a criminal case, and his or her decision is final.

It is relatively unusual for single judges or justices of lower courts to issue opinions explaining their rulings on these matters, but when they do, the designation "in chambers" is sometimes used.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ The opinions may be accessed from the Supreme Court's website by selecting the appropriate volume (the first number) then scrolling to the appropriate starting page (the second number). For example, 573 U.S. 1301 refers to Volume 573, page 1301 of the United States Reports.
  2. ^ These are citations to Rapp's Reports, the collection of in-chambers opinions compiled by The Green Bag.
  3. ^ Rehnquist raised sua sponte the question of whether he should recuse.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Rehnquist, William (May 17, 2002). "Bartlett v. Stephenson" (PDF). Justia.
  2. ^ Blackmun, Harry (October 20, 1992). "Grubbs v. Delo" (PDF). Library of Congress.
  • Frank Felleman & John C. Wright, Note, "The Powers of a Supreme Court Justice Acting in an Individual Capacity", 112 U. Pa. L. Rev. 981 (1964).
  • Daniel Gonen, "Judging in Chambers: The Powers of a Single Justice of the Supreme Court", 76 U. Cinn. L. Rev. 1159 (2008).
  • Stephen M. Shapiro et al., Supreme Court Practice, ch. 17 (10th ed. 2013).
  • Ira Brad Matetsky, "The Publication and Location of In-Chambers Opinions", introduction to 4 Cynthia Rapp & Ross E. Davies, eds., In Chambers Opinions by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (Green Bag Press supp. 2, 2005).
  • Sandra Day O'Connor, "The Changing Role of the Circuit Justice", 17 U. Toledo L. Rev. 521 (1986).
  • Cynthia Rapp, "In Chambers Opinions by Justices of the Supreme Court", 5 Green Bag 2d 175 (2002).
  • Cynthia Rapp, Introduction to 1 Cynthia Rapp & Ross E. Davies, eds., In Chambers Opinions by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, p. v (2004).
  • Stephen M. Shapiro & Miriam R. Nemetz, "An Introduction to In-Chambers Opinions", 2 Cynthia Rapp & Ross E. Davies, eds., In Chambers Opinions by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (2004).