Court Opinion

ID: 9420660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:55:36.218613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:26.492935
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
First. If the Shannons were the only plaintiffs in the action, I assume that the Anti-Assignment Act, R. S. § 3477; would bar a recovery. But the Shannons — the assignees — have joined the Boshamers — the assignors— as defendants. Hence all the parties who can possibly be affected by the assignment are before the Court. Certainly the Boshamers could recover from the United States and, if the assignment were treated as void (as against the United States), any recovery by the Bosham*298ers would in equity belong to the Shannons. See Martin v. National Surety Co., 300 U. S. 588, 597. If they can recover, I see no reason, except a narrow conceptual one, why in this proceeding the entire controversy cannot be settled. The judgment obtained by the Boshamers against the United States would in good conscience have to be held in trust for the Shannons.
Second. The suggestion that the writ be dismissed as improvidently granted raises a recurring problem in the administration of the business of the Court. ' A Justice who has voted to deny the writ of certiorari is in no position after argument to vote to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. Only those who have voted to grant the writ have that privilege. The reason strikes deep. If after the writ is granted or after argument, those who voted to deny certiorari vote to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted, the integrity of our certiorari jurisdiction is impaired. By long practice — announced to the Congress and well-known to this Bar — it takes four votes out of a Court of nine to grant a petition for certiorari. If four can grant and the opposing five dismiss, then the four cannot get a decision of the case on the merits. The integrity of the four-vote rule on certiorari would then be impaired.