Court Opinion

ID: 9427361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:20:29.811344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:06.611805
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stevens,
dissenting.
This Court is much too busy to spend its time correcting *783harmless errors. Nothing more is accomplished by the summary action it takes today.*
The Court does not question the propriety of the injunctive relief entered by the District Court and upheld by the Court of Appeals. Striking the State’s name from the list of parties will have no impact on the effectiveness of that relief. If the state officers disobey the injunction, financial penalties may be imposed on the responsible state agencies. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678. The District Court’s asserted error did not trouble the Court of Appeals because it has no practical significance. It does not justify the exercise of this Court’s certio-rari jurisdiction. I respectfully dissent.

Surely the Court does not intend to resolve summarily the issue debated by my Brothers in their separate opinions in Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678, 700 (BreNNAN, J., concurring), and 708-709, n. 6 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).