Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 290.0

524US1

Unit: $U85

[09-14-00 16:49:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 236 (1998)

245

Opinion of the Court

28 U. S. C. App., p. 609.

nition that decisions made by individual circuit judges re-
main subject to correction by the entire court of appeals re-
inforces our determination that decisions with regard to an
application for a certiﬁcate of appealability should be re-
garded as an action of the court itself and not of the individ-
ual judge. We must reject the suggestion contained in the
Advisory Committee’s Notes on Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 22(b) that “28 U. S. C. § 2253 does not authorize
the court of appeals as a court to grant a certiﬁcate of proba-
ble cause.”
It is more consistent
with the Federal Rules and the uniform practice of the
courts of appeals to construe § 2253(c)(1) as conferring the
jurisdiction to issue certiﬁcates of appealability upon the
court of appeals rather than by a judge acting under his or
her own seal. See In re Burwell, 350 U. S. 521, 522 (1956).
Some early cases from this Court acknowledged a distinc-
tion between acting in an administrative and a judicial capac-
ity. When judges perform administrative functions, their
decisions are not subject to our review. United States v.
Ferreira, 13 How. 40, 51–52 (1852); see also Gordon v. United
States, 117 U. S. Appx. 697, 702, 704 (1864). Those opinions
were careful to say it was the nonjudicial character of the
judges’ actions which deprived this Court of jurisdiction.
Ferreira, supra, at 46–47 (tribunal not judicial when the pro-
ceedings were ex parte and did not involve the issuance of
process, summoning of witnesses, or entry of a judgment);
Gordon, supra, at 699, 702 (tribunal not judicial when it lacks
power to enter and enforce judgments). Decisions regard-
ing applications for certiﬁcates of appealability, in contrast,
are judicial in nature.
It is typical for both parties to enter
appearances and to submit briefs at appropriate times and
for the court of appeals to enter a judgment and to issue a
mandate at the end of the proceedings, as happened here.
App. 4–6. Construing the issuance of a certiﬁcate of appeal-
ability as an administrative function, moreover, would sug-
gest an entity not wielding judicial power might review the