Document: 516 U.S. 193116 S.Ct. 611133 L.Ed.2d 571 Anthony Leo STUTSONv.UNITED STATES. Alexis LAWRENCE, Guardian and Next Friend on Behalf of Kemmerlyn D. a Minor, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner Social Security. Nos. 94-8988, 94-9323. Supreme Court the United States Jan. 8. 1996. On Petition for Writ Certiorari to Appeals Eleventh Circuit. Fourth For majority opinions court, see --- ----, 116 600, ---- 604, ----. Justice STEVENS, concurring. The persuasively explains why we have "the power remand lower federal court any case raising issue which is properly before us in our appellate capacity." No. 94-9323, at 606. That conclusion comports with primary characteristic—and, I believe, virtue —of discretionary authority manage certiorari docket: ability apply "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach that SCALIA finds objectionable. Post, __. Court's wise disposition these petitions falls squarely within th e best traditions its administration docket. therefore join opinions. Chief REHNQUIST, concurring 94-9323 dissenting 94-8988. agree, reasons given by SCALIA, mistaken vacating judgment Stutson States. also agree much rest SCALIA's dissent, but do not portion post, __, dealing what he describes as "situations calling forth special deference owed state law courts system federalism." Of three cases cites this proposition, one, Missouri ex rel. Wabash R. Co. Public Serv. Comm'n, 273 126, 47 311, 71 L.Ed. 575 (1927), came writ error was required be decided merits. second, State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Duel, 324 154, 65 573, 89 812 (1945), appeal from Court, thus third, Huddleston Dwyer, 322 232, 64 1015, 88 1246 (1944), had already been granted, argued None them, then, involved choice between denying certiorari, one hand, simply without opinion, other. Vacating explanation when alternative deny involves correction perceived made courts. In connection, would well bear mind admonition William Howard Taft, architects Act 1925, described his biographer: "It vital, said opening drive Judges' bill, reduced limiting function pronouncing 'the last word every important under Constitution statutes States.' A other should tribunal obligated weigh justice among contesting parties. 'They all they right claim,' Taft said, 'when two adjudicated their controversy.' " 2 H. Pringle, Life Times 997-998 (1939). decision announced per curiam vacate Circuit Lawrence Chater. Whether or change position Security Administration "cognizable," words it perfectly reasonable request answer question first instance. whom THOMAS joins, dissenting. 1 dissent because believe dispositions both 94-8988 are improper extensions limited finding below. It sometimes occurs that, after having considered found error, an merely reverses vacates then remands—that is, sets aside sends back further proceedings, rather than entering directing entry appellant petitioner. appropriate course whenever does automatically entitle petitioner judgment, cannot conduct (or chooses conduct) inquiry necessary resolve questions remaining litigation. Our books full such cases, Glass Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall. 6, L.Ed 485 (1794), Clarke Russell, 415, 660 (1799), Vernonia School Dist. 47J Acton, 515 115 2386, 132 564 (1995), Tuggle Netherland, 283, 133 251 (1995). What here, however, dif ferent sort creature, might called "no-fault V & R": vacation determination review, order has acquired acronym "GVR"—for grants below, remands proceedings.1 presented today's whether there limitation (other mandate "do fair") upon practice. "no"; disagree. 4 Title 28 U.S.C. § 2106 provides "[t]he jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set reverse decree, lawfully brought cause direct order, require proceedings just circumstances." This facially unlimited statutory text subject implicit limitations imposed traditional practice nature created laws inferior (to say nothing courts) creatures agents body—as Masters, whose work reject send redoing own pleasure. Inferior separately authorized Constitution, Art. I, 8; III, 1, Acts Congress, see, e.g., Judiciary 1789, Stat. 73; Evarts Act, Mar. 3, 1891, 26 826, staffed judges manner appointment tenure office same own, Const., II, 2; 1; §§ 44, 133, 134. Despite unqualified language 2106, cannot, example, "reverse" "and entry" different disagree done, only can identify controlling law. And think "vacate" "remand" circumstances here. 5 today seeks portray R" traditionally covering kaleidoscopic diversity situations. See - 606-607. my view misportrayal; always few discrete categories cases. began, apparently, situations federalism. find basis constitutional claims raised, remanded so could consider meaning effect statute enacted entered. We reasoned "[w]hile decide [state-law] questions, obliged so, nature, deem refer court." Id., 131, 313. words, left intervening event, follow usual deciding ourselves, Steamship Joliffe, Wall. 450, 456-458, 17 805 (1865). generally Schooner Peggy, Cranch 103, 110, 49 (1801) ("if, subsequent [entered court], intervenes positively changes rule governs, must obeyed, obligation denied"). Later took deferential event consisted See, Tax Comm'n Van Cott, 306 511, 59 605, 83 950 By 1945, "[a] customary procedure" "to [a] where supervening since rendition alters rests, reconsider light changed 161, 577, (1945). Similarly, appeals' point cast doubt supreme decision, became "familiar intricacies trends local practice." 237, 1018, (1944). 6 "intervening event" branch extended seemingly analogous situation (though implicating needs federalism) (ordinarily postjudgment Court) rendered concerning question. Amer Superior Cal., County Los Angeles, 334 813, 68 1069, 92 1744 (1948); Goldbaum States, 348 905, 75 99 710 (1955); Henry City Rock Hill, 376 776, 84 1042, 12 79 (1964). undoubtedly largest category "GVRs" now exists. Exxon Corp. Youell, 43, 9 (1995); Kapoor Edmond 10 Pacesetter Constr. Carpenters 46 Northern Cal. Counties Conference Bd., Doctor's Assocs., Inc. Casarotto, 2552, 807 Calamia Singletary, 514 1995, 131 998 regularly hold involve granted plenary review being conducted (if appropriate) "GVR'd" decided. More recently, indulged remanding ours preceded question, little time unaware it. Grier 419 989, 95 298, 42 261 (1974). These applications federalism, preserve operational premise multitiered judicial (viz., will opportunity governing facts) avoid unseemliness holding judgments did exist were They serve interests efficiency concern dignity tribunals. 7 An entirely separate bran ch jurisprudence, again originates pertains decisions ambiguous state-law federal-law grounds. Rather run risk improperly reversing based law, adopted make clear. Minnesota National Tea Co., 309 551, 60 676, 920 (1940); Department Mental Hygiene Kirchner, 380 194, 85 871, 13 753 (1965).2 8 increasing frequency recent years suggestions representations Solicitor General. Some more examples "intervening-event GVR" discussed above, General pointing out intervened Woods Durr, 336 941, 69 809, 93 1099 (1949); Altiere 382 367, 86 529, 15 420 (1966). GVRs," no development General's confession judgment. relatively new As recently 1942 unanimous (two Justices participating) wrote following: "The public trust reposed enforcement officers Government requires quick confess when, miscarriage result silent. But relieve performance function. reversible committed entitled great weight, obligations compel examine independently errors confessed. . Furthermore, precedents, proper criminal stipulation ." Young 315 257, 258-259, 62 510, 511-512, 832 (1942). Cf. Bancorp Mortgage Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 386, 130 233 (1994) (setting valid turn agreement parties). Many early Government's appear Rs" all, summary merits, proceedings. Chiarella 341 946, 1004, 1370 (1951) ("[u]pon consideration record General," District resentencing) (emphasis added); Penner 399 522, 90 2240, 781 (1970) ("[o]n independent record," "with instructions dismiss indictment"). 11 practice, determining leaving if correct. late 1981, current Justice, joined White, objected Mariscal 449 405, 407, 101 909, 910, 66 616 (1981) (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting) ("I harbor serious adversary served routinely examination merits own"). position. entrenched, however. Reed 510 114 1289, 127 644 (1994); Ramirez 1039, 363 (1994). R." Finally (and most questionably) very conceded acknowledged ground, grounds, relied mistaken. Alvarado 497 543, 110 2995, 111 439 (1990); Chappell 494 1075, 1800, 108 931 (1990). assume legal supported Four sitting disapproved "GVR." Alvarado, supra, 545, 2996 C.J., O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, JJ., dissenting).3 Today's come none R," even questionable one. "in of" remand, Pioneer Investment Services Brunswick Associates Ltd. 507 380, 113 1489, 123 74 (1993), year almost denied rehearing. Moreover, parties specifically established standard applicable petitioner's claim "excusable neglect" Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 4(b), disagreeing taking controlling. ruled against claim; one-sentence contained neither reference nor suggestion viewed turning party's proffered applied. 14 revised though makes Appeals' incorrect—is establish claim. fact party who won below repudiates particular give rise "intervening," factor considered. whatever parties, including argued. metimes has, while still supporting favor, explicitly relied. explained, denies respect entitled. "GVR" present goes further. know agreed repudiated; know, applied standard. declared invalid not) (non-Pioneer ) wrong, affected outcome, abandon (whether wrong) abandoned seems me beyond reason. justifies setting ground "we [do not] place excessive burden [the Circuit], relative [petitioner's] liberty due process interests, inviting clarify ruling." 603. ambiguity justifiable, noted, calls into take case, n. 2. (as here) doubt, quite get better idea "worth" granting review. If reason accompanied well. Or, matter, civil "GVR'd clarification _____" become common form drastically altering role Court. tutelary schoolboy homework again.4 insists declining "immunizing review," so. fully summarily proceeding merits; indeed, warrant, reverse. Hellman, "Granted, Vacated, Remanded"—Shedding Light Dark Corner Practice, 67 Judicature 389, 391-392 (1984) (noting 1970's "increased far earlier years," use reversal precedents decreased dramatically). 16 position: informs she agrees preliminary favor. here again, respondent concede "ha[s] reached firm conclusion" her recantation accepted) control outcome case. Brief Respondent p. 13.5 There second case: agency head, some deference, Chevron U.S.A. Natural Resour ces Defense Council, Inc., 467 837, 104 2778, 81 694 (1984). clear respondent's problem "GVR"; constitute allowed consider. allow expressed pending litigation not, Anthony, Which Agency Interpretations Should Bind Citizens Courts?, Yale J. Reg. 60-61 cf. Merrill, Judicial Deference Executive Precedent, L.J. 969, 1023 (1992)), surely decent those litigating induce disregard, purposes, stage. frequent, hence calculating, litigants. accord expect advantage wash out, disadvantageous positions embraced below; focus less energy getting "right" Courts Appeals. thinks unnecessary enough, sees it, led "believe [the] interpretation reasonably probably potentially determinative." 609. agree. GVRs" (1) consists going appeals, (2) certain legally cognizable. inadequate colleagues (should stage accorded deference?) Surely declare invalid. Thus, somewhat deference. suppose conclude triggered deference—but assuredly convoluted holding. permissible peculiarly domain Since either petition, grant 18 failure comprehend difference 609, displays lamentable lack appreciation concept adding insult injury. disrespectful enough altered playing field appeal; downright insulting bait-and-switch certainty relevant decision. situation, least, let live consequences fickleness inattention. "defeat purpose GVR'ing" determine "based circumstance issue." Ibid. true (barring unlikely later switches stage). certiorari-stage switch unique individual bound up underlying statute. arises, course, involving statute, itself thoroughly generalizable, general importance. urge vote petitions. Finally, remark assertion issued "just GVR Term, recorded dissent," citing Schmidt Espy, (1994): customary, rare, dissents "GVRs." wrong unsigned unanimous, close unanimous. demonstrate bait-and-switch-deference accepted practice; apparently first-ever "GVR," combined Term another helping, demonstrates accuracy prediction indulgence. 19 momentous us—each extends prior bit—is expansive expression supports judgments. acknowledges, begin with, orders us. presumably means "appellate Jurisdiction" over "Cases arising [and] Laws States," 2, empowers arguably correct, incomplete unworkmanlike; observes personnel wishes justices shot When divides "original Jurisdiction," conveys, latter, accoutrements power. doubtless room innovation, particularly adapt novel federalism; innovation limitless conferred. 20 Not vacate; unwilling submit prudential constraint Even acknowledging potential "unfair[ness] manipulat[ion]" professing "our exercised sparingly," 607, commits power, cloak excesses, equities," id., 607; 610; may, pronounces, events someone (either we) them facts criteria, i t concedes points possibly below) wrong; "a probability rests consideration." 607. "revis[e] correc[t]" Marbury Madison, 137, 175, (1803), void suspicion. Comparing modest origins policy denouement Pollyannish reformer camel's noses, wedges, slippery slopes. 21 "alleviates unequal treatment inherent inability similar issues." 606-607 (internal quotation marks omitted). how promote equal announce pursue plumb "equities" ponder "errors" us—if conduct, decisions, balancing "burden" litigant's "interests" ruling, 603, calculation overall probabilities 609 purport inquiries, basic "error" insist denial suggest Teague Lane, 489 288, 296, 109 1060, 1067, 103 (1989); Singleton Commissioner, 940, 335, 58 335 (1978) (STEVENS, respecting petition certiorari). tried applying evaluation coming us, achieve treatment. Such plastic criterion liable produce inconsistent results series decisions; virtually guaranteed benefit presentation rarely briefed, argued—as accompaniment opinion (we never done today). need afford argues precisely favor standardized 22 Henceforth, shall consideration, arisen bearing where, context governed Michigan Long, 463 1032, 3469, 77 1201 (1983), needed assure jurisdiction, (3) (in acknowledgment necessarily validity) appellee confesses (I note conditions exist.) discussed, meets standards. Accordingly, respectfully emphasize judgment—not, STEVENS' concurrence docket." Ante, latter accepting "[w]henever appeals ., acting merits." Board Trustees Keene College Sweeney, 24, 25-26, 295, 216 added). go STEVENS refers "administration [our certiorari] largely supplanted state-court discussing presumed unless contrary face opinion. 1037-1044, 3474-3478; Arizona Evans, 1185, 34 (1995) (reaffirming approach). Capital Cities Media, Toole, 466 378, 2144, 80 378 (post-Long opinion). misdescribes states limit confessions whole case" "cases concerns 'legal relied.' 608 (quoting infra, 609). Both above sentence immediately following phrase quotes line distinction draw—and long practice—is concession court's aspect reasoning argument Netherland Tuggle, 4, 879 relies, 608, contrary. abuse discretion stay order. Because prepared disagrees controversy subsists. Quite apart difficulties chosen, permit trouble until issue.

Category: 8