Court Opinion

ID: 9464074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:24:48.289076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:27.127651
License: Public Domain

WEIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the opinion on the merits, but desire to add a few comments.
The Government’s litigation policies have been cited as one reason justifying the creation of a National Court of Appeals. The Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System quoted one commentator’s conclusion that the Federal Government
is quite prepared to continue to litigate in other circuits a question that has been resolved in only one; even in the same circuit, the United States may be willing to relitigate an issue if minor factual distinctions can be made between the pending matter and the preceding decision. 1
This relitigation policy or “circuit shopping” is intended to either limit the initial decision’s effect or establish an intercircuit conflict which may be advanced as a reason for the grant of certiorari. In some contexts, the “percolation process” — testing a legal principle against a variety of factual backgrounds — can be of valuable assistance to the Supreme Court in resolving a troublesome issue. However, the percolation process is expensive and time consuming and, while it may be defensible in some circumstances, cannot be justified in a case such as this where the facts are simple and the legal question quite clear.
The issue here is a simple statutory interpretation which was first decided by a distinguished panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Standard Oil Division, American Oil Company v. Starks, 528 F.2d 201 (7th Cir. 1975). At that point, the postal authorities could have sought certiorari by the Supreme Court or asked Congress to change the statute. They did neither, but instead refused to accept the decision and continued to litigate in other federal courts. That course of action by the Government is unseemly. The practice of fomenting inconsistency among various courts of appeals by Government officials is unsettling to the course of justice. It is disrespectful toward the courts and hinders efficient judicial administration.
Before argument of the case at bar, two courts of appeals had decided adversely to the Post Office. The Government nevertheless continued to prosecute this appeal, and it became necessary to schedule the *466case for disposition. That, of course, usurped a place on the calendar and required the delay of a case which otherwise would have been scheduled. Most likely, the litigants in that appeal did not have the benefit of two “dress rehearsals” which seems to be the defendant’s appraisal of the two earlier decisions.
May Department Stores Company v. Williamson, 549 F.2d 1147 (8th Cir. 1977), was the second of the two opinions adverse to the Post Office. Judge Lay, in his concurring opinion, would have invoked collateral estoppel against the defendant, relying upon the rationale of Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971). In his view, the Government had a full and fair hearing on the garnishment issue and, with no new evidentiary facts, the “principles of collateral estoppel should be applied to a government litigation policy which abuses the judicial process.” 549 F.2d at 1149.
The Postal Service argues here that collateral estoppel cannot be used against it. Even if that contention should prevail, the detrimental effect of repetitious litigation is so apparent that the Government’s policy should be thoroughly and seriously reexamined. There is much to be said for a governmental policy of either accepting the first decision by a court of appeals in a statutory interpretation case like this or securing reversal by the Supreme Court or by Congress. If the matter is not sufficiently weighty to follow the latter alternatives, that should preclude further litigation on the question.

. Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System: Structure and Internal Procedures: Recommendations for Change, A Preliminary Report, A-93 (April, 1975), citing Car-rington, United States Appeals in Civil Cases: A Field and Statistical Study, 11 Hous. L.Rev. 1101 (1974).