Document: 363 U.S. 685 80 S.Ct. 1336 4 L.Ed.2d 1491 UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner,v.AMERICAN-FOREIGN STEAMSHIP CORP. et al. No. 138. Argued April 25, 1960. Decided June 20, Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. J. Franklin Fort and Arthur M. Becker, respondents. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion Court. 1 The question to be decided here is a narrow one. Judicial Code provides that in United States Courts Appeals '(c)ases controversies shall heard determined by court or division not more than three judges, unless hearing rehearing before banc ordered majority circuit judges who are active service.' It further '(a) consist all circuit.' 28 U.S.C. § 46(c), U.S.C.A. 46(c). sole issue presented whether judge has retired eligible under this statute participate decision case on en banc. We have concluded he not. 2 This litigation arose when respondents, had chartered ships from Government Merchant Ship Sales Act, 50 U.S.C.Appendix, 1735 seq., U.S.C.A.Appendix, sued District Court Southern New York recover amounts allegedly excessive charter hire which been assessed Maritime Commission. moved dismiss libels ground claims were barred two-year limitation period prescribed Suits Admiralty 46 745, 745. dismissed authority Second Circuit decisions Sword Line, Inc., v. States, Cir., 228 F.2d 344; 230 75, affirmed as admiralty jurisdiction 351 976, 76 1047, 100 L.Ed. 1493, American Eastern Corp. 231 664.1 3 Court's thereafter Circuit. That court, consisting Judges Medina Hincks Judge Leibell, held issues controlled earlier Line decisions. court's stated, however, '(i)f subject-matter these appeals res nova, we no means sure our dispositions would coincide with those made Eastern. However, will overrule recent other panels court.' 265 136, 142. Thereafter, December 19, 1957, granted libellants' petition argument thereon confined written briefs submitted within twenty days. On March 1, 1958, pursuant provisions 371(b), 371(b).2 Almost five months later, July 28, issued its decision. Moore joined an ordering three-judge withdrawn remanding causes Court, 144. Clark Waterman dissented.3 In his dissenting expressed doubt judge's eligibility 153. 5 then filed banc, directed primarily raised Clark. was denied Medina, stating view '(s)ince member duly constituted hear determine rehearing, think subsequent retirement did affect competence reached.' 154. separate statement they Medina's participation determination precluded plain language controlling statute. 155. Certiorari consider importance administration their judicial business. 361 861, 117, 101. 6 As preliminary precise us it important make clear way involves hearing, conventional Appeals. Such governed different statutory provisions. explicitly 'judges designated assigned' 'competent sit judges' such court. 43(b), 43(b). Other spell out detail system designations assignments made. §§ 294, 295, 296, 294—296.4 7 Moreover, there involved any procedure followed determining ordered. Western Pacific Railroad Case, Pac. R. Co., 345 247, 73 656, 97 986, largely left intramural each 'The free devise own administrative machinery provide whereby may order hearing.' U.S., at page 250, 658.5 8 Here concerned only specific provision ordains proceedings 'heard determined' 'active involved. literal meaning words seems enough. An 'active' 'from regular 371(b). A controversy 'determined' decided. 9 There nothing history legislation indicate should understood mean anything else what say. Reviser's Note indicates, pointed pages 251, 658, where legislative fully reviewed, added 1948 simply 'legislative ratification Textile Mills Securities Commissioner, 1941, 314 326, 62 272, 86 249—a went sustain power banc.'6 10 thus finds support neither nor circumstances enactment. Indeed, Congress well thought frustrate basic purpose confine permanent membership En courts exception, rule. They convened extraordinary exist call authoritative consideration charged development law circuit. 11 When appear, determinations 'for effective administration. Conflicts avoided. Finality appeal promoted. Those considerations especially fact federal last resort run ordinary cases.' 334—335, 277, 278. principal utility enable maintain integrity institution making possible always control thereby secure uniformity continuity decisions, while enabling same time follow efficient time-saving having decide vast cases exists Maris, Hearing Rehearing Cases Banc, 1954, 14 F.R.D. 91, 96. put present case, evident policy 'that major doctrinal trends future * *.' F.2d, 12 Persuasive arguments could advanced exception permit where, here, took part original yet originally Conference approved suggested changes bill amend introduced Congress.7 But serves emphasize if changed, Congress, us, change it. 13 conclude reasons existing without determination, accordingly judgment must set aside. Construction Co. Jacksonville, T. & K. W.R. 148 372, 387, 758, 764, 37 486; Frad Kelly, 302 312, 316—319, 58 188, 191—192, 82 282. reaching conclusion intimate merits underlying litigation. vacated, remanded consistent opinion. Vacated remanded. 15 HARLAN, whom FRANKFURTER BRENNAN join, dissenting. 16 I can find 46(c) requires made, commends itself sound For convenience again quote 46(c): 17 'Cases service. 18 need hardly read, now holds be, saying judges; still less does say until announced. says ordinarily law-suits panel but service 'hearing rehearing' sitting 19 clause relies appears sentence whose purposes codify doctrine 249, usual panel.1 unknown phenomenon adjudication though entire tribunal, according vote all. Cf. I.R.C., 7460, 26 7460; see Casey, Federal Tax Practice, 274—280. traditional term, determined,' my designed do reflect obvious inappropriateness deliberations necessity finding light context appears, Congressional direction regarding constitution 20 requirements governing composition found All include judges. reason hard discern. required return bench attend and, between leaving matter discretion individual limiting surprising—in varying degrees activity undesirability having, purposes, unpredictable size complement—that chosen latter course. 21 context, then, given full effect holding, would, members status argued submitted. construction, supra, difficult reach. predecessor conferring appellate prevented composed constituting particular holding not, wise 'sacrifice literalness common sense,' 334, difficulty rising above arithmetic so achieve sensible result. Still accommodating needs So construed, complied here.2 22 even accept premises—a reading into requirement 'determination' cases, expressing against setting 'major trends' court—I agree justify Choice date announcement cause touchstone disappointed litigant searching grounds reversal easily apply. singularly infelicitous construction language.3 '(L)aws abstract propositions. expressions arising situations addressed attainment ends.' Frankfurter, Some Reflections Reading Statutes, 47 Col.L.Rev. 527, 533. exact point is, informed lawyers know, answer varies known instance themselves. Certainly, opinion—all argument, reflection, deliberation, explication completed only—is clerk morning following one members, remotely discernible counted. If reflected statute, taken requiring judge, comes meaningful things process remain done, withdraw participation. require precipitous termination affairs undoing adjudications properly nature effectuation various Appeals, indeed conscience good taste concerned, most instances disqualification reasons. 455, 455. 23 objection test outsider, reviewing apply.4 observed: 'In view, litigants. Appeals.' 657, 986. hesitated adopt faithfully reflects merely because hampered voicing objections. 24 express definite question, since regard claim noncompliance untenable, presents substantial permitting overturn through sort collateral attack sit. Had found, lawsuit, petitioner respondents prevailed appeal, resulted affirmance, equally divided favor Government. Of course, litigant, greater injury lose understanding just legal error committed petitioner, warrant vacation below, giving opportunity retrieve loss Clearly, mere interloper, usurper. He was, bearing commission signed President. Abstractions about 'competence' becloud matter. happened exercised right conferred (28 371(b)) retire Nothing action, said concerning scope renders below vulnerable attack. cited dealt disqualifications based called judgments rendered there.5 No why here. 25 affirm. 141 F.Supp. 58. Two upon another district unreported. 'Any justice appointed hold office during behavior retain after attaining age seventy years serving least ten continuously otherwise, sixty-five fifteen otherwise.' Lumbard prior connection Attorney. accord flexible scheme, country over devoted trial voluntarily economic incentive kind. enlightening discussion Maris thorough worked Third 91. worth noting carefully distinguished retired. 327, 274. At Annual Meeting September, 1959, received joint report Committees Administration Revision Laws, proceedings. 'However, proper sat, assignment, originally.' agreed draft bill, Committees, add 'A also competent sat thereof.' Report Proceedings (1959), pp. 9—10. House Representatives Representative Celler 5, 1960, H.R. 11567, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 106 Cong.Rec. 6865. shows true. 'This section preserves interpretation established subsection (c) provided continues tradition makes division, available assignments, permits rotation manner give maximum preparation opinions.' granting respondents' briefs, Jan. 8, 1958. action refers (363 690, 1340, note 7), course bear us. broadly deciding case. recommendation goes far dilute force attribution design leave hands alone courts. construing amenable technical approach, recently rejected analogous word 'determined.' Price, 304, 307, 328, 334. cannot standard followed. Although announced nearly (265 144), reargument almost retirement. write 282, motion discharge probation entertained imposed. matters sentencing develop integrated probation. Id., 318, 192. To policy, vacated. dictum K.W.R. 486, violation entered. elucidation recognize disregard infects rendered.

Category: 8