Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 301.0

524US1

Unit: $U85

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

256

HOHN v. UNITED STATES

Scalia, J., dissenting

Proclaiming the request for a COA to be “in” the Court of
Appeals is the most obvious of the Court’s statutory distor-
tions, but not the one with the most serious collateral conse-
quences. The latter award goes to the Court’s virtually un-
analyzed pronouncement (also essential to its holding) that
the request for a COA was itself a “case” within the meaning
of § 1254(1). The notion that a request pertaining to a case
constitutes its own “case” for purposes of § 1254 is a jaw-
dropper. To support that remarkable assertion, the Court
relies upon circumstantial evidence—that the “application
moved through the Eighth Circuit in the same manner as
cases in general do.” Ante, at 242. Does this mean that a
request for a COA would not be a “case” in those Circuits
that treated it differently—that permitted it to be disposed
of by a single judge as Rule 22 speciﬁcally allows? Does it
mean that a motion for recusal, or a request for televised
coverage, or a motion to ﬁle under seal would be a “case” if
the court of appeals chose to treat it in the manner the
Eighth Circuit treated the request for a COA here? Surely
not.

An application for a COA, standing alone, does not have
the requisite qualities of a legal “case” under any known
deﬁnition.
It does not assert a grievance against anyone,
does not seek remedy or redress for any legal injury, and
It is
does not even require a “party” on the other side.
nothing more than a request for permission to seek review.
Petitioner’s grievance is with respondent for unlawful cus-
tody, and the remedy he seeks is release from that custody
pursuant to § 2255. The request for a COA is not some sepa-
rate “case” that can subsist apart from that underlying suit;
it is merely a procedural requirement that must be fulﬁlled
before petitioner’s § 2255 action—his “case” or “cause”—can
advance to the appellate court. The adversity which the
Court acknowledges is needed for a “case” under § 1254, see
ante, at 241, is not satisﬁed by the dispute between petitioner
and respondent as to whether the COA should be granted—