Document: 516 U.S. 163116 S.Ct. 604133 L.Ed.2d 545 Alexis LAWRENCE, Guardian and Next Friend on Behalf of Kemmerlyn D. a Minor,v.Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner Social Security. No. 94-9323. Supreme Court the United States Jan. 8, 1996. PER CURIAM Under Security Act, unmarried minor "child" deceased individual who was insured under Act may receive survivors' benefits if she "dependent upon such individual" prior to his death. 49 Stat. 623, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1)(C) (1988 ed.). In order determine whether claimant is, for these purposes, deceased, and, such, eligible benefits, "shall apply law would be applied in determining devolution intestate personal property by courts State which [the] . domiciled at time death." 416(h)(2)(A) The petitioner this case, Lawrence, asserts an entitlement provisions. so doing, acknowledges that relevant state law, North Carolina, appears its face defeat her claim imposing procedural requirements proof paternity (which it requires prerequisite succession) cannot meet. She contends, however, difficulties can overcome case they were Handley v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 999 (1983). Appeals Eleventh Circuit held only against insofar are constitutional, Alabama similar Carolina involved here unconstitutional. contrast, before us, Fourth upheld Administration's Council's denial Lawrence. expressly adopted rationale rejecting Government advanced brief court: constitutionality need not considered applying federal statutory scheme. Lawrence petitioned certiorari review decision. response, Solicitor General advises us "Social Administration has re-examined" role intestacy laws scheme, now interprets "requir[ing] determination, least some circumstances, statute is constitutional." Brief Respondent 8. He also correctly notes directs Security—not, first instance, courts—to "apply State" concerned. 416(h)(2)(A). Without conceding Lawrence's ultimate he invites grant certiorari, vacate judgment below, remand (GVR) either decide light Commissioner's new interpretation or reconsideration interpretation. We conclude both we have power issue GVR order, appropriate exercise our discretionary jurisdiction. Title 28 2106 confer broad GVR: "The any other court appellate jurisdiction judgment, decree, lawfully brought review, cause require further proceedings had just circumstances." dissent issued today Stutson States, 94-8988, --- ----, 116 611, another Justice SCALIA contends "traditional practice" "the Constitution States" impose "implicit limitations" power. Post, __. respectfully disagree. perceive no textual basis limitations. limits "appellate Jurisdiction" issues "[federal] Law Fact," see Art. III, 2, but leaves Congress "ordain establish inferior Courts," 1, make "Exceptions" "Regulations" limiting controlling Insofar authorized action, believe lower raising properly capacity. Our past practice affirms conclusion. Although, SCALIA'S explains, post, __-__, was, until recent times, rare, infrequent early use explained large part smaller size docket earlier times. Regardless history, has, over 50 years, become integral Court's practice, accepted employed all sitting Justices. GVR'd wide range developments, including own decisions, __-__ (SCALIA, J., dissenting), supreme see, e.g., Conner Simler, 367 486, 81 1679, 6 1241 (1961), statutes, Sioux Tribe Indians 329 685, 67 364, 91 L.Ed. 602 (1946), administrative reinterpretations Schmidt Espy, 513 115 43, 130 5 (1994), Louisiana Hays, 512 114 2731, 129 L.Ed .2d 853 changed factual National Labor Relations Bd. Federal Motor Truck Co., 325 838, 65 1412, 89 1965 (1945) (demilitarization employees), confessions error positions newly taken General, Wells 511 1609, 128 337 (1994); Reed 510 1289, 127 644 Ramirez 1039, 363 Chappell 494 1075, 110 1800, 108 931 (1990); Polsky Wetherill, 403 916, 2232, 29 693 (1971), attorneys general, Cuffle Avenenti, 498 996, 111 553, 112 560 Nicholson Boles, 375 25, 84 89, 11 43 (1963). This virtues. conserves scarce resources might otherwise expended plenary consideration, assists below flagging particular does appear fully considered, procuring benefit court's insight rule merits, alleviates "[p]otential unequal treatment" inherent inability pending cases issues, Johnson, 457 537, 555, n. 16, 102 2579, 2591, 73 202 (1982); cf. Griffith Kentucky, 479 314, 323, 107 708, 713, 93 649 (1987) ("we fulfill judicial responsibility instructing retroactively yet final"). Where intervening developments reason did consider, reveal reasonable probability decision rests premise reject given opportunity where redetermination outcome litigation, believe, potentially appropriate. Whether ultimately depends equities case: development, confession aspects unfair manipulative litigation strategy, delay cost entailed justified potential consideration court, inappropriate. approach flexibility longstanding applications stays summary remedies granted without merits All Writs 1651. See, Heckler Lopez, 463 1328, 104 10, 77 1431 (1983) (REHNQUIST, chambers) (staying District Appeals). (Naturally, because orders premised matters standard deciding somewhat more liberal than standard, relief showing eventual reversal probable, id., 1330, S.Ct., 12.) Used accordance with approach, improve fairness accuracy outcomes while same serving cautious deferential alternative whose precedential significance merit review. confine GVR's three categories 1 "(1) factor arisen legal bearing decision, (2) where, context governed Michigan Long, [463 1032, 103 3469, 1201 ], clarification opinion needed assure jurisdiction, (3) respondent appellee confesses below." 2 While proportion fall within categories, find that, especially construes them, too narrow account full extent actual practice. two dissent's restrictive. First, insist "opportunity" consider orders. Second, special restrictions when changes position litigants. 3 concedes—correctly, —that category—"intervening factor[s]" —must extended include decisions rendered shortly them. __-__. explain, why what should decisive, how assessed. Robinson Story, 469 1081, 105 583, 83 694 (1984), almost months affirmance subject petition certiorari. Were those sufficient apprise itself (or apprised parties) new, decision? If GVR'd, difficulty understanding objection Stutson, Robinson, wrote show precedent ours consider. cases, "might not) relied [nonapplication decision] wrong [and] affected outcome." dissenting). pertinent difference discern between briefed never briefing bar vacatur shows sign having precedents briefed. Compare __ (asserting "we power" after sum mary below) with, Netherland Tuggle, 515 4, 132 879 (1995) (per curiam) (vacating Appeals' staying execution probable failure 12-year-old parties Appeals; stay week later, precedent, Tuggle Netherland, 38, 918 (1995)). As prevalence dispositions Courts continues increase burgeoning docket—in 1994, 11% merits,1 many summary—such will, doubt, arise frequently. context, important meaningful powers precluded uncertainty on." And well aware, practitioners courts, immune from ambiguous tend, their very nature, lack generally look discr etion therefore ready events cast substantial doubt correctness disposition. 4 With regard litigants, agree several points. Members agreed "should [not] mechanically accept suggestion favor error," Mariscal 449 405, 406, 101 909, 910, 66 616 (1981) "well entrenched," GVR'ing plausible merits. Moreover, principle agency entitled deference Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 837, 2778, (1984). respects, approaches litigants diverge. disapproves (although acknowledges) established based do purport concede whole case. __, 616; cf., Moore 429 20, 97 29, 25 (1976) (GVR'ing General's error, notwithstanding unresolved harmless). apparently confined concerns "legal point explicitly relied," "know" certain rested. But, legitimacy understand suffice. explained, supra, change result nonconfession supra. why, certainty question necessary giving anew will alter result. Similarly, requirement founded Government. accepts charged implementing party. But must "certain legally cognizable," (emphasis added), sense "entitled deference," despite timing, requirement, too, event Government, __-__; not, example, contend "lega[l] cognizab[ility]" habeas corpus recognized Teague Lane, 489 288, 109 1060, 334 (1 989), apply. Again, position. reasonably reveals genuine determinative appropriate; similarly, probably determinative, it. It precisely GVR. treated differently application Indeed, owed interpretation, circumstance—i.e., timing respect hand—that present issue, purpose GVR'ing. Rather, think normal "reasonable probability" test, defer about strategic litigating behavior raised Government's equities. neither position, accepted, outcome-determinative, nor preclude overall probabilities support order. last Term, recorded dissent. See (1994) (GVR representation "[a]fter examination regulation Department Agriculture determined petitioners' leaseback/buyback reconsidered good faith requirement," O.T.1994, 93-1707, p. 7; (maintaining obstacles remain)). 7 differences overshadow level agreement shared Court. On one hand, justify exercised sparingly. "because finds opinion, though arguably correct, incomplete unworkmanlike; observes there been postjudgment personnel wishes give justices shot case." dissenting); accord, Alvarado 497 543, 545, 2995, 2996-2997, 439 (1990) C.J., Respect public interest finality judgments, concern expanding counsel undisciplined remains principles facts 8 feature view, makes informs Administration, adopted. notes, settled due interpretation—its —in already reached appeal stage deed, uncertain, undertaking analysis, impact one, present, Here, Schmidt, recommended petitioner's applied, deference, future nationwide. leads conclusion agency's receive, outcome-determinative A therefore, appropriate, 9 equities, seems clear here. That disposition express support, contrary self-interest. informed intends Giving chance furthers treating like applicants. acknowledge postlitigation interpretations product strategies, view late skepticism. general deprive favorable reinterpretation circumstances. uncertainties together order.2 10 Accordingly, motion leave proceed forma pauperis writ granted. vacated remanded filed August 17, 1995. Administrative Office Courts, Reports Proceedings Judicial Conference table S-3 (3,080 out 27,219 merits). letter October 24, 1995, advised July 1995 amendment statute, N.C.Gen.Stat. 49-14(c). unnecessary development independently justifies free remand.

Category: 8