Court Opinion

ID: 9463524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:09:28.514108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:09.650776
License: Public Domain

LAY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I suggest there exists an alternative ground for our holding that the Postal Service can be garnished. In 1975 the Seventh Circuit held that the United States Postal Service is not immune to garnishment procedures, reversing two judgments of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied on February 10, 1976. Standard Oil Div., Am. Oil Co. v. Starks, 528 F.2d 201 (7th Cir. 1975). The government did not petition for certiorari. I would hold that, in light of this decision, the United States Postal Service is collaterally estopped to relitigate the issue in this court.
In both cases the Postal Service asserts sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense. In this sense, the case is no different than one where a plaintiff relitigates an issue in a subsequent suit against newly named defendants. See Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. Univ. Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971). The Supreme Court objects to this practice stating:
Permitting repeated litigation of the same issue as long as the supply of unrelated defendants holds out reflects either the aura of the gaming table or “a lack of discipline and of disinterestedness on the part of the lower courts, hardly a worthy or wise basis for fashioning rules of procedure.” Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Co., 342 U.S. 180, 185, 72 S.Ct. 219, 222, 96 L.Ed. 200 (1952). Although neither judges, the parties, nor the adversary system performs perfectly in all cases, the requirement of determining whether the party against whom an estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate is a most significant, safeguard.
402 U.S. at 329, 91 S.Ct. at 1443.
The government had a full and fair hearing on the garnishment issue in the Standard Oil litigation. There are no new evidentiary facts involved here. It seems to me under these circumstances the principles of collateral estoppel should be applied to a government litigation policy which abuses the judicial process.
The government’s refusal to follow the dictates of the Standard Oil decision has created a wave of repetitious litigation and confusion in federal district courts throughout the United States. The instant appeal is a consolidation of two cases from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri which held that the Postal Service is immune from garnishment procedures and admittedly disagreed with the Seventh Circuit. We reverse on basically the same grounds set forth by the Seventh Circuit in Standard Oil.
At least a dozen other district courts in five circuits have heard garnishment requests and entered orders or memoranda in accord with the Seventh Circuit opinion. See, e. g., Goodman’s Furniture Co. v. United States Postal Service, No. 76-1141 (D.N.J., filed Sept. 7, 1976); Household Indus. Loan Co. v. Harris, No. 76-291 (W.D. Wash., filed Aug. 25, 1976); Clark Bros. Furniture Co. v. Brockett, No. 76-128 (E.D. Tenn., filed Aug. 24, 1976); Iowa-Des Moines Nat’l Bank v. United States, No. *115076-95-1 (S.D.Iowa, filed June 24, 1976); United Va. Bank v. Eaves, 416 F.Supp. 518 (E.D.Va., filed June 23, 1976); First Nat’l Bank v. Baker, No. C-75-408 (W.D.Tenn., filed June 18, 1976); and Iowa-Des Moines Nat’l Bank v. United States, 414 F.Supp. 1393 (S.D.Iowa, filed June 16, 1976). The government is appealing many of these decisions, admittedly in an attempt to obtain a favorable opinion from another circuit before seeking review by the Supreme Court:
We are not dealing with a problem where successive consideration by several circuit courts of appeals would be beneficial to the Supreme Court sitting in final review. Many important national issues involving differing factual experience, more often than not, do lend themselves to varying legal solutions. In those cases it may be best to delay finality of review by the Supreme Court so that it may achieve the greatest benefit from the experience of the lower courts. However, here we are concerned with an issue of narrow statutory construction. The question is simply put: Can the Postal Service be garnished? The government litigation strategy of forum shopping is grossly outweighed by the tremendous burden and costs placed on the federal courts by its continuing relitigation of the same issue. It seems to me the Department of Justice has a greater responsibility to the courts and to the law. This is not to say that the government, as any other litigant, should not have an opportunity to challenge settled doctrine. However, where there exists an important national question, as here, and there is an obvious means available to achieve finality of decision, the government should not avoid review simply because it believes the Supreme Court might rule against it, or because it disagrees with the- decision of a lower federal court. When it pursues such a policy it has, in my judgment, succumbed to a government of men who avow contempt for the judicial process and disregard for the law.1
Whatever the litigation strategy here, I am pleased to observe it has backfired, as we join the Seventh Circuit in deciding adversely to the government. Now the box score is two and zero. If the government continues to disagree with our decision, hopefully it will seek a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court without further burdening the lower courts with the same issue.

. Government policy and strategy to avoid Supreme Court review was one of the early arguments for “transfer jurisdiction” by circuit courts to a national court of appeals made by the National Commission urging the creation of a National Court of Appeals. See Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate Systern, Structure and Internal Procedures: Recommendations for Change, 133-143 (1975). However, the wholesale revision of the federal appellate structure should not be necessary to accommodate an imprudent and unlawful governmental policy.