IN RE SLAGLE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court dismissed a certificate of questions from the Fifth Circuit regarding whether a petition for mandamus to compel a judge's disqualification from a three-judge court lies in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Justice White, joined by Justices Blackmun and Stevens, argued in a separate statement that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over such mandamus petitions, consistent with the Court's narrow view of its appellate jurisdiction over three-judge court cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1253.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certificate dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 19.3; Wisniewski v. United States, 353 U. S. 901 (1957).
Justice White,
with whom Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens join,
regarding dismissal.
In dismissing the certificate of question from the Court of Appeals, the Court expresses no opinion whether a petition for mandamus to compel disqualification of an individual member of a three-judge court who has denied a motion to disqualify himself lies in the United States Court of Appeals or in this Court. I think it evident that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction in such a situation. Our cases have indicated that we narrowly view our appellate jurisdiction in three-judge court cases pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253. See Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 U. S. 90, 96 (1974). We have thus declined to review the actions, orders, and rulings of a single judge sitting on a three-judge court, see id., at 96, n. 14; dismissed an appeal of a temporary restraining order by a single judge of a three-judge court for want of jurisdiction, see, e. g., Hicks v. Pleasure House, Inc., 404 U. S. 1 (1971) (per curiam); and stated that a court of appeals is not powerless to “give any guidance when a single judge has erroneously invaded the province of a three-judge court,” Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U. S. 713, 716 (1962) (per curiam). See also Schackman v. Arnebergh, 387 U. S. 427 (1967) (per curiam). In light of these cases, I think it clear that jurisdiction over a petition for mandamus in a case such as this rests in the first instance in the Court of Appeals.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dillard v. Baldwin Cnty. Comm'rs, 376 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2004)…impaired.”); Rodriguez, 308 F. Supp. 2d at 378; Illinois Legislative Redistricting Comm’n v. LaPaille, 786 F.Supp. 704, 715-17 (N.D.Ill.1992) (three-judge panel); Turner v. Arkansas, 784 F.Supp. 558, 568-72 (E,D.Ark.l991) (three-judge panel), aff'd, 504 U.S. 952, 112 S.Ct. 2296, 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992); Hastert v. State Bd. of Elections, 111 F.Supp. 634, 652-54 (N.D.Ill.1991) (three-judge panel). The clear message of these eases, consistent with Gingles, is that a minority group cannot be awarded relief on…
-
Tennant v. Jefferson Cnty. Comm'n, 567 U.S. 758 (U.S. 2012)…some variance, including, for instance, . . . ”). The desire to minimize population shifts between districts is clearly a valid, neutral state policy. See, [*765] e. g., Turner v. Arkansas, 784 F. Supp. 585, 588-589 (ED Ark. 1991), summarily aff’d, 504 U.S. 952 (1992). S. B. 1008 achieves significantly lower population shifts than the alternative plans—more than 4 times lower .than the closest alternative, and more than 25 times lower than others. None of the alternative plans came close to vindicating al…
Authorities Cited
- Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713 (U.S. 1962)
- Gonzalez v. Automatic Emps. Credit Union, 419 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1974)
- Schackman v. Arnebergh, 387 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1967)
- Hicks v. Pleasure House, Inc., 404 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1971)
- Wisniewski v. United States, 353 U.S. 901 (U.S. 1957)