Glidden Co. v. Zdanok

Last updated
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 21,26, 1962
Decided June 25, 1962
Full case nameGlidden Company v. Olga Zdanok, John Zacharczyk, Mary A. Hackett, Quitman Williams, and Marcelle Kreischer; Durkee Famous Foods Division, a Foreign Corporation and Benny Lurk v. United States
Citations370 U.S. 530 ( more )
82 S. Ct. 1459; 8 L. Ed. 2d 671; 1962 U.S. LEXIS 2139; 45 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 17,685; 50 L.R.R.M. 2693
Case history
Prior
  • Summary judgment granted, Zdanok v. Glidden Co., Durkee Famous Foods Div., 185 F.Supp. 441 (S.D.N.Y. 1960); reversed, 288 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1961); on remand, 28 F.R.D. 346 (S.D.N.Y. 1961); cert. granted, 368 U.S. 814(1961).
  • Lurk v. United States, 296 F.2d 360 (D.C. Cir. 1961); cert. granted, 368 U.S. 815(1961).
SubsequentRehearing denied, 371 U.S. 854(1962).
Holding
The Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals are courts created under Article III of the Constitution and their judges are constitutionally protected in tenure and compensation, the designation of judges from those courts to sit on Courts of Appeals and United States District Courts was valid and judgments of the Court of Appeals and District Court were not vitiated by respective participation of such judges.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Tom C. Clark
John M. Harlan II  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Case opinions
PluralityHarlan, joined by Brennan, Stewart
ConcurrenceClark, joined by Warren
DissentDouglas, joined by Black
Frankfurter and White took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Article III, §§ 1-2
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U.S. 438 (1929)
Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933)

Glidden Co. v. Zdanok (consolidated with Lurk v. United States), 370 U.S. 530 (1962), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that judges of the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals were judges created under Article III of the Constitution (also known as Article III judges ). As such, it was permissible for the Chief Justice of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 293(a) to designate judges from the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals to serve on district courts and courts of appeals. [1]

Contents

Background

In Ex parte Bakelite Corp. [2] and Williams v. United States , [3] the Court held that the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the United States Court of Claims were courts created under Article I of the Constitution. However, the U.S. Congress in 67 Stat. 226 (1953) and 72 Stat. 848 (1958), had indicated that the two courts were constituted under Article III of the Constitution. This distinction was important as judges of Article III courts are considered part of the independent judiciary as they are appointed for life and their salary cannot be decreased, which is in turn considered a requirement for the operation of judiciary as a separate branch of government. In the two cases at hand, judges from these courts had been assigned to courts of appeals and districts court by the Chief Justice of the United States as part of the task of balancing the workloads among the various courts. It was contended that these judges were judges of Article I courts and therefore could not adjudicate decisions on Article III courts. It was contended that as the judgments of the Court of Claims had traditionally required Congressional appropriation to pay prevailing plaintiffs, because the Court of Claims issued advisory reports in response to matters referred to it by Congress under 28 U.S.C.   § 1492, and because the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals could review certain administrative decisions of the Tariff Commission under 28 U.S.C.   § 1543, that they there not truly independent as required by Article III.

Opinion of the Court

In a plurality opinion, the Justice Harlan, writing for himself, Justice Brennan and Justice Stewart, held that Bakelite [2] and Williams [3] were decided incorrectly and that the courts had always been Article III courts and that the Congressional act of 1953 and 1958 confirmed that status. As such, it was permissible for judges from either court to be designated for service on courts of appeals and district courts and the decisions of the lower courts in this instance were valid. Justice Clark, writing for himself and the Chief Justice, concurred in the result, but concurred on the grounds that the 1953 and 1958 Acts made the courts Article III courts in light of the confusion that led to the Bakelite and Williams decisions, which were otherwise accurate. He found that the issues of Congressional reference cases under 28 U.S.C.   § 1492 could be resolved by the Court of Claims declining future cases and that the Tariff Commission cases under 28 U.S.C.   § 1543 were too insignificant to countermand the express Congressional intent of the 1958 act. Justice Douglas, writing for himself and Justice Black, dissented on the grounds that the courts were Article I courts and that the importance of an independent judiciary prevented non-Article III judges from deciding matters brought before Article III courts. The same confluence of practical considerations that dictated the result in Canter has governed the decision in later cases sanctioning the creation of other courts with judges of limited tenure. Tenure that is guaranteed by the Constitution is a badge of a judge of an Article III court. The argument that mere statutory tenure is sufficient for judges of Article III courts was authoritatively answered in Ex parte Bakelite Corp.: [4]

... the argument is fallacious. It mistakenly assumes that whether a court is of one class or the other depends on the intention of Congress, whereas the true test lies in the power under which the court was created and in the jurisdiction conferred. Nor has there been any settled practice on the part of Congress which gives special significance to the absence or presence of a provision respecting the tenure of judges. This may be illustrated by two citations. The same Congress that created the Court of Customs Appeals made provision for five additional circuit judges and declared that they should hold their offices during good behavior; and yet the status of the judges was the same as it would have been had that declaration been omitted. In creating courts for some of the Territories Congress failed to include a provision fixing the tenure of the judges; but the courts became legislative courts just as if such a provision had been included. [5]

In United States v. Coe, for example, the Court sustained the authority of the Court of Private Land Claims to adjudicate claims under treaties to land in the territories, but left it expressly open whether such a course might be followed within the States. [6] Upon like considerations, Article III has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland, and to the consular courts established by concessions from foreign countries.

This Court, however is the expositor of the meaning of the Constitution ...

—  Justice Harlan, Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 602, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 1500 (1962)

The Court does great mischief in today's opinions. The opinion of my Brother Harlan stirs a host of problems that need not be opened. What is done will, I fear, plague us for years.

—  Justice Douglas, Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 606, n.11, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 1502, n.11 (1962)

Subsequent developments

In response to this decision, Congress passed 80 Stat. 958 in 1966 which assigned Congressional reference cases from the Article III appellate division judges of the Court of Claims to the Article I trial division commissioners of the Court of Claims. [7] This permitted the Court of Claims to resume hearing Congressional reference cases, which it had ceased accepting in light of Glidden. [8] In 1982, as part of the Federal Courts Improvement Act, [9] Congress passed 96 Stat. 25, which removed the ability to designate judges from the new Article I Claims Court for use on Article III courts. [10]

Despite the reasoning's status as a plurality opinion that lacks stare decisis, [11] it remains important, having been cited in 68 Supreme Court cases and at least 367 lower court cases.[ citation needed ] It also stands as a defining case in the distinctions between Article I and Article III courts. [12] Further, the need to retain Congressional reference jurisdiction was a reason that the Claims Court was specifically designated an Article I court by Congress in 1982. [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Three of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding the judicial branch

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States courts of appeals</span> Post-1891 U.S. appellate circuit courts

The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary. The courts of appeals are divided into 11 numbered circuits that cover geographic areas of the United States and hear appeals from the U.S. district courts within their borders, the District of Columbia Circuit, which covers only Washington, D.C., and the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals from federal courts across the United States in cases involving certain specialized areas of law. The courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking, with by far the largest share of these cases heard by the D.C. Circuit. Appeals from decisions of the courts of appeals can be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal government of the United States</span> Common government of the United States

The federal government of the United States is the national government of the United States, a federal republic located primarily in North America, composed of 50 states, a city within a federal district, five major self-governing territories and several island possessions. The federal government, sometimes simply referred to as Washington, is composed of three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the president and the federal courts, respectively. The powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

In the United States, federal judges are judges who serve on courts established under Article Three of the U.S. Constitution. Often known as "Article Three judges", they include the chief justice and associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, the circuit judges of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, the district judges of the U.S. District Courts, and the judges of the U.S. Court of International Trade.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit</span> Current United States federal appellate court

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a United States court of appeals that has special appellate jurisdiction over certain types of specialized cases in the U.S. federal court system. It has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal cases involving patents, trademarks, government contracts, veterans' benefits, public safety officers' benefits, federal employees' benefits, and various other categories. Unlike other federal courts, the Federal Circuit has no jurisdiction over cases involving criminal, bankruptcy, immigration, or U.S. state law.

The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. The U.S. federal judiciary consists primarily of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts. It also includes a variety of other lesser federal tribunals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Federal Claims</span> Court that hears monetary claims against the U.S. government

The United States Court of Federal Claims is a United States federal court that hears monetary claims against the U.S. government. It was established by statute in 1982 as the United States Claims Court, and took its current name in 1992. The court is the successor to trial division of the United States Court of Claims, which was established in 1855.

Federal tribunals in the United States are those tribunals established by the federal government of the United States for the purpose of resolving disputes involving or arising under federal laws, including questions about the constitutionality of such laws. Such tribunals include both Article III tribunals as well as adjudicative entities which are classified as Article I or Article IV tribunals. Some of the latter entities are also formally denominated as courts, but they do not enjoy certain protections afforded to Article III courts. These tribunals are described in reference to the article of the United States Constitution from which the tribunal's authority stems. The use of the term "tribunal" in this context as a blanket term to encompass both courts and other adjudicative entities comes from section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The United States territorial courts are tribunals established in territories of the United States by the United States Congress, pursuant to its power under Article Four of the United States Constitution, the Territorial Clause. Most United States territorial courts are defunct because the territories under their jurisdiction have become states or been retroceded.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico</span> United States district court in Puerto Rico

The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico is the federal district court whose jurisdiction comprises the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The court is based in San Juan. The main building is the Clemente Ruiz Nazario United States Courthouse located in the Hato Rey district of San Juan. The magistrate judges are located in the adjacent Federico Degetau Federal Building, and several senior district judges hold court at the Jose V. Toledo Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Old San Juan. The old courthouse also houses the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Most appeals from this court are heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which is headquartered in Boston but hears appeals at the Old San Juan courthouse for two sessions each year. Patent claims as well as claims against the U.S. government under the Tucker Act are appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Northern Pipeline Construction Company v. Marathon Pipe Line Company, 458 U.S. 50 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Article III jurisdiction could not be conferred on non-Article III courts.

The United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) was a United States federal court which existed from 1909 to 1982 and had jurisdiction over certain types of civil disputes.

The Court of Claims was a federal court that heard claims against the United States government. It was established in 1855, renamed in 1948 to the United States Court of Claims, and abolished in 1982. Then, its jurisdiction was assumed by the newly created United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and United States Claims Court, which was later renamed the Court of Federal Claims.

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the Qualifications of Members Clause of Article I of the US Constitution is an exclusive list of qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, which may exclude a duly-elected member for only those reasons enumerated in that clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Office for Immigration Review</span>

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is a sub-agency of the United States Department of Justice whose chief function is to conduct removal proceedings in immigration courts and adjudicate appeals arising from the proceedings. These administrative proceedings determine the removability and admissibility of individuals in the United States. As of February 20, 2020, there were sixty-nine immigration courts throughout the United States.

Voting rights of United States citizens who live in Puerto Rico, like the voting rights of residents of other United States territories, differ from those of United States citizens in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Residents of Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories do not have voting representation in the United States Congress, and are not entitled to electoral votes for president. The United States Constitution grants congressional voting representation to U.S. states, which Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories are not, specifying that members of Congress shall be elected by direct popular vote and that the president and the vice president shall be elected by electors chosen by the states.

Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a bankruptcy court, as a non-Article III court lacked constitutional authority under Article III of the United States Constitution to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor's proof of claim, even though Congress purported to grant such statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)2(C). The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the petitioner was the estate of former Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith. Smith died in 2007, long before the Court ultimately decided the case, which her estate lost.

United States v. More, 7 U.S. 159 (1805), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals from criminal cases in the circuit courts by writs of error. Relying on the Exceptions Clause, More held that Congress's enumerated grants of appellate jurisdiction to the Court operated as an exercise of Congress's power to eliminate all other forms of appellate jurisdiction.

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that a novel process for making a known steroid did not satisfy the utility requirement because the patent applicants did not show that the steroid served any practical function. The Court ruled that "a process patent in the chemical field, which has not been developed and pointed to the degree of specific utility, creates a monopoly of knowledge which should be granted only if clearly commanded by the statute." Practical or specific utility, so that a "specific benefit exists in currently available form" is thus the requirement for a claimed invention to qualify for a patent.

References

  1. ↑ Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962).
  2. 1 2 Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U.S. 438 (1929).
  3. 1 2 Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933).
  4. ↑ Bakelite, 279 U.S. at 459-460.
  5. ↑ Zdanok, 370 U.S. at 596-97.
  6. ↑ United States v. Coe, 155 U.S. 76 (1894).
  7. ↑ Pub.L.   89–681 , 80  Stat.   958 , enacted October 15, 1966.
  8. ↑ Jeffrey M. Glosser, Congressional Reference Cases in the United States Court of Claims: A Historical and Current Perspective , 25 Am. U. L. Rev. 595 (1976).
  9. ↑ Pub.L.   97–164 , 96  Stat.   25 , enacted April 3, 1982.
  10. ↑ Congressional Reference Cases, 8 West's Fed. Forms, National Courts § 13133 (2d ed.)
  11. ↑ Novak, Linda (May 1980). "The Precedential Value of Supreme Court Plurality Decisions". Columbia Law Review. 80 (4): 756–81. doi:10.2307/1122139. JSTOR   1122139 . Retrieved 2009-12-28.
  12. ↑ A Constitutional Analysis of Magistrate Judge Authority,150F.R.D.247, 292(1993).
  13. ↑ Eric G. Bruggink, Unfinished Business, 71 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 879, 884 (2003).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.