페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 289.1 The few types of situations in which this emergency power is exercised are described in Chapter IV, pp. 116-17, infra.

A likely exception to the Court's power to issue a writ of certiorari before judgment is the class of cases coming to the courts of appeals directly from administrative agencies. In such circumstances it could be said that the Supreme Court, by injecting itself into the case prior to any judicial action by a lower court, would be exercising original jurisdiction outside the constitutional pattern. Cf. United States v. Rice, 327 U. S. 742, 747. This point has not been determined, however, and it can be argued that from a practical standpoint many quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies are such as not to make the initial court review an exercise of original jurisdiction. Cf. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U. S. 716, 722-723, 728-729.

Section 1254 (1) also permits "any party" to a case in the court of appeals to apply for a writ of certiorari. This provision had its genesis in the legislative desire to make clear that the Court has jurisdiction to review criminal cases by certiorari

1 In the United Mine Workers' case the judgment of the district court granting a preliminary injunction against a nation-wide coal strike and fining the United Mine Workers and John L. Lewis for contempt of court was entered December 4, 1946. The appeal was docketed in the court of appeals on December 5, and a petition for certiorari filed by the United States, the winning party in the district court, on December 6. The Supreme Court granted the petition on December 9, heard argument on January 14, 1947, and rendered its decision on March 6.

An even speedier schedule was followed in the wartime saboteurs' case, Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, in which the district court denied an application for habeas corpus on July 28, 1942; an appeal was perfected in the court of appeals and a petition for certiorari filed in the Supreme Court on July 30, after argument had commenced before a special summer term of that Court on petitioners' application for leave to file an original writ of habeas corpus. The petition was granted and the Court's judgment entered on July 31, 1942.

on the petition of the United States where it is the losing party in the court of appeals. United States v. Gulf Refining Co., 268 U. S. 542, 544-545. But the Court has given literal effect to the words "any party," in holding that if the losing party in a United States district court appeals to a United States court of appeals, and the record is docketed therein, the successful party can, prior to judgment in the court of appeals, petition the Supreme Court to hear the case in lieu of the court of appeals. United States v. Bankers' Trust Co., 294 U. S. 240, 243; United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258.

Although the literal language of $1254 (1) is broad enough to allow it, we know of no case in which, after judgment in the court of appeals, the victorious party has asked the Supreme Court to review the case by certiorari. While counsel for a private client would seldom wish further review of a case he had won, counsel for a governmental body (state, local, or federal) might conceivably believe final resolution by the Supreme Court of a doubtful question of general consequence to be more important than winning the particular case. But to allow such a petition would seem to be inconsistent with the Court's settled refusal to entertain an appeal by a party successful in obtaining a final judgment in his favor in the lower court. Public Service Commission v. Brashear Lines, 306 U. S. 204, 206.

Appeals

The Supreme Court also possesses a jurisdiction, rarely used, to review two types of decisions of the United States courts of appeals by appeal instead of by certiorari.

Where federal statute held unconstitutional. Under 28 U.S.C. §1252, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a decision of "any court of the United States" holding an Act of Congress unconstitutional in a suit to which the United States is a party. Although the primary purpose of this provision

v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 289.1 The few types of situations in which this emergency power is exercised are described in Chapter IV, pp. 116-17, infra.

A likely exception to the Court's power to issue a writ of certiorari before judgment is the class of cases coming to the courts of appeals directly from administrative agencies. In such circumstances it could be said that the Supreme Court, by injecting itself into the case prior to any judicial action by a lower court, would be exercising original jurisdiction outside the constitutional pattern. Cf. United States v. Rice, 327 U. S. 742, 747. This point has not been determined, however, and it can be argued that from a practical standpoint many quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies are such as not to make the initial court review an exercise of original jurisdiction. Cf. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U. S. 716, 722-723, 728-729.

Section 1254 (1) also permits "any party" to a case in the court of appeals to apply for a writ of certiorari. This provision had its genesis in the legislative desire to make clear that the Court has jurisdiction to review criminal cases by certiorari

1 In the United Mine Workers' case the judgment of the district court granting a preliminary injunction against a nation-wide coal strike and fining the United Mine Workers and John L. Lewis for contempt of court was entered December 4, 1946. The appeal was docketed in the court of appeals on December 5, and a petition for certiorari filed by the United States, the winning party in the district court, on December 6. The Supreme Court granted the petition on December 9, heard argument on January 14, 1947, and rendered its decision on March 6.

An even speedier schedule was followed in the wartime saboteurs' case, Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, in which the district court denied an application for habeas corpus on July 28, 1942; an appeal was perfected in the court of appeals and a petition for certiorari filed in the Supreme Court on July 30, after argument had commenced before a special summer term of that Court on petitioners' application for leave to file an original writ of habeas corpus. The petition was granted and the Court's judgment entered on July 31, 1942.

on the petition of the United States where it is the losing party in the court of appeals. United States v. Gulf Refining Co., 268 U. S. 542, 544-545. But the Court has given literal effect to the words "any party," in holding that if the losing party in a United States district court appeals to a United States court of appeals, and the record is docketed therein, the successful party can, prior to judgment in the court of appeals, petition the Supreme Court to hear the case in lieu of the court of appeals. United States v. Bankers' Trust Co., 294 U. S. 240, 243; United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258.

Although the literal language of $1254 (1) is broad enough to allow it, we know of no case in which, after judgment in the court of appeals, the victorious party has asked the Supreme Court to review the case by certiorari. While counsel for a private client would seldom wish further review of a case he had won, counsel for a governmental body (state, local, or federal) might conceivably believe final resolution by the Supreme Court of a doubtful question of general consequence to be more important than winning the particular case. But to allow such a petition would seem to be inconsistent with the Court's settled refusal to entertain an appeal by a party successful in obtaining a final judgment in his favor in the lower court. Public Service Commission v. Brashear Lines, 306 U. S. 204, 206.

Appeals

The Supreme Court also possesses a jurisdiction, rarely used, to review two types of decisions of the United States courts of appeals by appeal instead of by certiorari.

Where federal statute held unconstitutional. Under 28 U.S.C. §1252, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a decision of "any court of the United States" holding an Act of Congress unconstitutional in a suit to which the United States is a party. Although the primary purpose of this provision

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
« 이전계속 »