Skip to content
Surf Wiki
Save to docs
geography/united-states

From Surf Wiki (app.surf) — the open knowledge base

In-chambers opinion

Opinion by a single justice or judge of a multi-member appellate court


Opinion by a single justice or judge of a multi-member appellate court

An in-chambers opinion is an opinion by a single justice or judge of a multi-member appellate court, rendered on an issue that the court's rules or procedures allow a single member of the court to decide. The judge is said to decide the matter "in chambers" because the decision can be issued from the judge's chambers without a formal court proceeding.

Supreme Court of the United States

Each Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is assigned as the "Circuit Justice" to one or more of the 13 judicial circuits. The role of the Circuit Justice has changed over time, but has included addressing certain types of applications arising within the Circuit.

Under current practice, the Circuit Justice for each circuit is responsible for dealing with certain types of applications that, under the Court's rules, may be addressed by a single Justice. These include emergency applications for stays (including requests for stays of execution in death-penalty cases) and injunctions pursuant to the All Writs Act arising from cases within that circuit, as well as more routine matters such as requests for extensions of time. In the past, Circuit Justices also sometimes ruled on motions for bail in criminal cases, writs of habeas corpus, and applications for writs of error granting permission to appeal.

Most often, a Justice will dispose of such an application by simply noting that it is "Granted" or "Denied," or by entering a standard form of order unaccompanied by a written opinion. However, a Justice may elect to author an opinion explaining his or her reasons for granting or denying relief. Such an opinion is referred to as an "in-chambers opinion" or an "opinion in chambers." On occasion, Justices have also issued single-Justice in-chambers opinions on other matters, such as explaining why they have chosen not to recuse themselves from participating in a particular case before the Court.

The Justices author and publish fewer in-chambers opinions today than they did during the twentieth century; it has been rare in recent years for there to be more than one or two such opinions published per term.

Since 1969, in-chambers opinions that a Justice wishes to have published have appeared in the Court's official reporter, the United States Reports. They appear in a separate section at the back of each volume that contains one or more such opinions. Before 1969, in-chambers opinions did not appear in the U.S. Reports, although they were occasionally published in other reporters or in legal periodicals. During the 1990s, the Supreme Court Clerk's Office compiled a collection of in-chambers opinions contained in the Court's records and other sources. The collection was subsequently published in a three-volume edition by the Green Bag Press, and is supplemented from time to time.

List of in-chambers opinions since 1990

CaseOpinion citationJusticeRequestActionDateAlternate citation
*Navarro v. United States*601 U.S. ___RobertsRelease pending appealDenied
*Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.*573 U.S. 1301RobertsRecall and stay mandateDenied5 Rapp no. 16
*Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius*568 U.S. 1401SotomayorInjunctionDenied5 Rapp no. 15
*Maryland v. King*567 U.S. 1301RobertsStayGranted5 Rapp no. 14
*[Gray v. Kelly](2006-richmond-spree-murders)*564 U.S. 1301RobertsStay (capital)Denied5 Rapp no. 13
*Lux v. Rodrigues*561 U.S. 1306RobertsInjunctionDenied4 Rapp 1626
*Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Scott*561 U.S. 1301ScaliaStayGranted4 Rapp 1622
*Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics*559 U.S. 1301RobertsStayDenied4 Rapp 1620
*O'Brien v. O'Laughlin*557 U.S. 1301BreyerStayDenied4 Rapp 1591
*[Conkright v. Frommert](2009-term-opinions-of-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states)*556 U.S. 1401GinsburgStayDenied4 Rapp 1589
*Boumediene v. Bush*;
*Odah v. United States*550 U.S. 1301RobertsExtension of time and suspension of order denying certiorariDenied4 Rapp 1563
*Stroup v. Willcox*549 U.S. 1501RobertsStayDenied4 Rapp 1562
*San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial v. Paulson*;
*City of San Diego v. Paulson*548 U.S. 1301KennedyStaysGranted;
Denied4 Rapp 1539
*Doe v. Gonzales*546 U.S. 1301GinsburgVacate stayDenied4 Rapp 1533
*Multimedia Holdings Corp. v. Circuit Court of Florida*544 U.S. 1301KennedyStayDenied4 Rapp 1499
*Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee (2004)*543 U.S. 1304SouterVacate stayDenied4 Rapp 1498
*Spencer v. Pugh*543 U.S. 1301StevensVacate staysDenied4 Rapp 1496
*Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC*542 U.S. 1306RehnquistInjunctionDenied4 Rapp 1458
*Associated Press v. Colorado District Court*542 U.S. 1301BreyerStayDenied4 Rapp 1455
*Cheney v. United States District Court*541 U.S. 913ScaliaRecuseDenied4 Rapp 1441
*Prato v. Vallas*539 U.S. 1301StevensExtension of timeDenied4 Rapp 1440
*Kenyeres v. Ashcroft*538 U.S. 1301KennedyStayDenied4 Rapp 1435
*Chabad of Southern Ohio v. City of Cincinnati*537 U.S. 1501StevensVacate stayGranted4 Rapp 1434
*Bartlett v. Stephenson*535 U.S. 1301RehnquistStayDenied4 Rapp 1431
*Bagley v. Byrd*534 U.S. 1301StevensStay (capital)Denied4 Rapp 1429
*Brown v. Gilmore*533 U.S. 1301RehnquistInjunctionDenied4 Rapp 1426
*Microsoft Corp. v. United States;*
*New York ex. rel. Spitzer v. Microsoft Corp.*530 U.S. 1301RehnquistRecuseDenied4 Rapp 1424
*Murdaugh v. Livingston*525 U.S. 1301RehnquistVacate stayDenied3 Rapp 1391
*Rubin v. United States (1998)*524 U.S. 1301RehnquistStayDenied3 Rapp 1389
*Netherland v. Gray*519 U.S. 1301RehnquistVacate stay (capital)Denied3 Rapp 1387
*Netherland v. Tuggle*517 U.S. 1301RehnquistVacate stay (capital)Denied3 Rapp 1386
*FCC v. Radiofone, Inc.*516 U.S. 1301StevensVacate stayGranted3 Rapp 1385
*McGraw-Hill v. Procter & Gamble*515 U.S. 1309StevensStayDenied3 Rapp 1382
*Rodriguez v. Texas*515 U.S. 1307ScaliaStay (capital)Denied3 Rapp 1381
*Penry v. Texas*515 U.S. 1304ScaliaExtension of time (capital)Denied3 Rapp 1377
*Foster v. Gilliam*515 U.S. 1301RehnquistStayGranted in part3 Rapp 1374
*O'Connell v. Kirchner*513 U.S. 1303StevensStaysDenied3 Rapp 1372
*In re Dow Jones and Company, Inc.*513 U.S. 1301RehnquistStayDenied3 Rapp 1370
*Edwards v. Hope Medical Group for Women*512 U.S. 1301ScaliaStayDenied3 Rapp 1367
*Packwood v. Senate Select Committee on Ethics*510 U.S. 1319RehnquistStayDenied3 Rapp 1364
*CBS Inc. v. Davis*510 U.S. 1315BlackmunStayGranted3 Rapp 1360
*Planned Parenthood v. Casey*510 U.S. 1309SouterStayDenied3 Rapp 1354
*Capital Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette*510 U.S. 1307StevensStayDenied3 Rapp 1352
*INS v. Legalization Assistance Project*510 U.S. 1301O'ConnorStayGranted3 Rapp 1346
*DeBoer v. DeBoer*509 U.S. 1301StevensStayDenied3 Rapp 1343
*Blodgett v. Campbell*508 U.S. 1301O'ConnorVacate order (capital)Dismissed3 Rapp 1338
*Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC*507 U.S. 1301RehnquistInjunctionDenied3 Rapp 1335
*Grubbs v. Delo*506 U.S. 1301BlackmunStay (capital)Granted3 Rapp 1334
*Reynolds v. IAAF*505 U.S. 1301StevensStayGranted3 Rapp 1332
*Campos v. City of Houston*502 U.S. 1301ScaliaInjunction and stayDenied3 Rapp 1330
*Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Plan*501 U.S. 1301ScaliaStayGranted3 Rapp 1325
*Cole v. Texas*499 U.S. 1301ScaliaStay (capital)Granted3 Rapp 1324
*Mississippi v. Turner*498 U.S. 1306ScaliaExtension of time (capital)Denied3 Rapp 1323
*Madden v. Texas*498 U.S. 1301ScaliaExtension of time (capital)Granted3 Rapp 1317

Other American appellate courts

The rules of some other multi-member American appellate courts sometimes authorize a single judge or justice to take certain actions. Sometimes these actions are procedural in nature, such as granting extensions of time or granting or denying permission to file an amicus curiae brief. In other courts, the powers of a single judge can be more extensive; for example, in the New York Court of Appeals, a single judge rules on a defendant's motion for leave to appeal in a criminal case, and his or her decision is final.

It is relatively unusual for single judges or justices of lower courts to issue opinions explaining their rulings on these matters, but when they do, the designation "in chambers" is sometimes used.

Notes

References

  • Frank Felleman & John C. Wright, Note, "The Powers of a Supreme Court Justice Acting in an Individual Capacity", 112 U. Pa. L. Rev. 981 (1964).
  • Daniel Gonen, "Judging in Chambers: The Powers of a Single Justice of the Supreme Court", 76 U. Cinn. L. Rev. 1159 (2008).
  • Stephen M. Shapiro et al., Supreme Court Practice, ch. 17 (10th ed. 2013).
  • Ira Brad Matetsky, "The Publication and Location of In-Chambers Opinions", introduction to 4 Cynthia Rapp & Ross E. Davies, eds., In Chambers Opinions by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (Green Bag Press supp. 2, 2005).
  • Sandra Day O'Connor, "The Changing Role of the Circuit Justice", 17 U. Toledo L. Rev. 521 (1986).
  • Cynthia Rapp, "In Chambers Opinions by Justices of the Supreme Court", 5 Green Bag 2d 175 (2002).
  • Cynthia Rapp, Introduction to 1 Cynthia Rapp & Ross E. Davies, eds., In Chambers Opinions by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, p. v (2004).
  • Stephen M. Shapiro & Miriam R. Nemetz, "An Introduction to In-Chambers Opinions", 2 Cynthia Rapp & Ross E. Davies, eds., In Chambers Opinions by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (2004).

References

  1. Rehnquist, William. (May 17, 2002). "Bartlett v. Stephenson".
  2. Blackmun, Harry. (October 20, 1992). "Grubbs v. Delo".
Info: Wikipedia Source

This article was imported from Wikipedia and is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Content has been adapted to SurfDoc format. Original contributors can be found on the article history page.

Want to explore this topic further?

Ask Mako anything about In-chambers opinion — get instant answers, deeper analysis, and related topics.

Research with Mako

Free with your Surf account

Content sourced from Wikipedia, available under CC BY-SA 4.0.

This content may have been generated or modified by AI. CloudSurf Software LLC is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of AI-generated content. Always verify important information from primary sources.

Report