Court Opinion

ID: 9439944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 07:01:28.728206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:49.954190
License: Public Domain

BOWNES, Senior Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I write separately because I think that the court has brushed aside the holding of Steel Co. v. Citizens For A Better Environment, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998), and its effect on our approach to difficult jurisdictional issues in the future. The panel says that it is “not entirely clear as to whether (or to what extent) Steel Co. undermines our earlier practice.” It is entirely clear to me that the Court has generally prohibited our prior practice of avoiding difficult jurisdictional issues when the case could alternatively be resolved easily on the merits in favor of the same party.
A full understanding of the Court’s view on this issue requires a close reading of Justice O’Connor’s concurrence, as well as Justice Sealia’s majority opimon.
In its majority opinion, the Court noted that several courts of appeals
find it proper to proceed immediately to the merits question, despite jurisdictional objections, at least where (1) the merits question is more readily resolved, and (2) the prevailing party on the merits would be the same as the prevailing party were jurisdiction denied____
We decline to endorse such an approach because it carries the courts beyond the bounds of authorized judicial action and thus offends fundamental principles of separation of powers.
— U.S. at-, 118 S.Ct. at 1012 (citations and footnote omitted).
Justice O’Connor, joined by Justice Kennedy, made it clear that she joined the majority *31opinion, and that she explicitly “agreefd]” with the general rule that “federal courts should be certain of their jurisdiction before reaching the merits of a ease.” Id. at-, 118 S.Ct. at 1020 (emphasis added). But then she went on to note, “fa]s the Court acknowledges, ... several ... decisions ‘have diluted the absolute purity of the rule that Article III jurisdiction is always an antecedent question.’ ” Id. (quoting id. at-, 118 S.Ct. at 1016). Finally, Justice O’Connor explained that she was writing separately “to note that, in [her] view, the Court’s opinion should not be read as cataloging an exhaustive list of circumstances under which federal courts may exercise judgment in ‘reserving] difficult questions of ... jurisdiction when the case alternatively could be resolved on the merits in favor of the same party.’ ” Id. (quoting Norton v. Mathews, 427 U.S. 524, 532, 96 S.Ct. 2771, 2775, 49 L.Ed.2d 672 (1976)).
Reading the majority and concurring opinions in Steel Co. together, there is a Supreme Court majority in support of the general rule that “federal courts should be certain of their jurisdiction before reaching the merits of a case.” Id. at-, 118 S.Ct. at 1020 (O’Connor, J., concurring); see id. at-,-, 118 S.Ct. at 1012, 1016 (majority opinion). While this general rule is perhaps not “absolute[ly] pur[e],” the circumstances that would warrant an exception to the rule seem extremely rare. See Steel Co., — U.S. at —:---, 118 S.Ct. at 1014-15 (majority opinion); id. at -, 118 S.Ct. at 1020 (O’Connor, J., concurring). It appears that Justices O’Connor and Kennedy would dilute the general rule only to the extent that they believe the cases discussed in the majority opinion, id. at ---, 118 S.Ct. at 1014-15, do not exhaust the rare circumstances in which an exception would be appropriate, id. at-, 118 S.Ct. at 1020.
I do not know what the panel expects to achieve by casting doubt on the holding and effect of Steel Co. As Court of Appeals judges we have a duty to follow it, not avoid it.