Court Opinion

ID: 9424942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:13:14.923088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:49.807201
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
with whom The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Powell join,
dissenting.
The short recitation of specific facts in the Court’s opinion makes clear that the issues in this case,- as viewed by both petitioners and respondents, are well developed in the record. The federal questions adverted to by the Court in its opinion are undoubtedly important pnes. They are either presented by the proceedings below on this record, or they are not; this Court, in exercising its certiorari jurisdiction, may wish to consider such problems as are presented in this case at this time, or it may not. While an opinion from the Court of Appeals fully explaining the reason for its reversal of the District Court would undoubtedly be of assistance to our exercise of certiorari jurisdiction here, it is by no means essential.1 I do not believe that the Court’s vacation of the judgment below with a virtually express directive to the Court of Appeals that it write an opinion is an appropriate exercise of this Court’s authority.
The courts of appeals are statutory courts, having the power to.prescribe rules for the conduct of their own business so long as those rules are consistent with applicable law and rules of practice and procedure prescribed by this Court, 28 U. S. C. § 2071. No existing statute or rule of procedure prohibits the Fifth Circuit from issuing a short opinion and order, as it has done here, or from deciding cases without any opinion at all. Cf. Rule 21, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The courts of *196appeals, and particularly the Fifth Circuit, which has experienced the heaviest caseload of all the circuits, heed the maximum possible latitude to deal with the “flood tide” of appeals that , the “ever growing explosive increase” of federal judicial business has produced. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co., 431 F. 2d 409 (CA5 1970); NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 430 F. 2d 966 (CA5 1970).2
If there are important federal questions presented in this record, this Court should address itself to them. Instead of doing that, it calls upon the Fifth Circuit to write an amicus curiae opinion to aid us. I think decisions as to whether opinions should accompany judgments of the courts of appeals, and the desirable length and content of those opinions are matters best left to the judges of the courts of appeals. I therefore dissent from the order of vacation and remand.

 See, e. g., Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477, 482 n. 6 (1972).

 In fiscal year 1971, 2,316 new matters were docketed in the Fifth Circuit, 380 more than in any of the other circuits. This represented a 120%' increase in a 10-year period, although the number of circuit judges was increased by only 60%. Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 106 (1971). The increase in the business of the courts of appeals has been almost exponential. In 1961 the Fifth Circuit carried over only 278 cases that were undisposed of. By 1970 there' were 1,181 cases put over to the succeeding year. NLRB v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 430 F. 2d 966, 968 n. 4 (CA5 1970).