Grant, vacate, remand

Last updated

A grant, vacate, remand (GVR) is a type of order issued by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court simultaneously grants a petition for certiorari, vacates the decision of the court below, and remands the case for further proceedings. An order of this sort is typically appropriate when there has been a change in legal circumstances subsequent to the lower court or agency's decision, such as a change in the law, a precedential ruling, or a confession of error; the Supreme Court simply sends the case back to the lower court to be reconsidered in light of the new law or the new precedent. GVR orders are designed to be efficient and thus are not full explications of the law, and have no precedential effect. GVR orders are usually not explained with lengthy opinions. [1] [2]

In 1996, the Supreme Court discussed the appropriateness of GVR orders and upheld their use in a per curiam opinion in the case Lawrence v. Chater . [3]

An example of the Supreme Court issuing a GVR order is the case of Kansas v. Limon. Under Kansas state law, statutory rape charges involving minors were greatly reduced if both parties were teenagers with few years between them. However, the law specifically excluded same-sex sexual conduct. Limon, 18 years old at the time, had performed oral sex on a 14-year-old boy with his consent, which is defined by Kansas law as rape regardless of consent from the 14-year-old. Because they were both male, the statute minimizing Limon's sentence did not apply. He was sentenced to over a decade longer in prison than if it were opposite-sex sexual conduct. When Limon challenged the law, both a trial court and the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld the law, relying in part on the 1986 US Supreme Court case Bowers v. Hardwick . When the Kansas Supreme Court refused to hear the case, Limon filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002.

On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court decided Lawrence v. Texas . Lawrence overruled the Bowers case on which the Kansas courts had relied; it held that state laws forbidding consensual sex between two people of the same sex are unconstitutional. In light of this, on June 27, the Supreme Court granted Limon's petition, vacated the ruling of the Kansas Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for further consideration. After the Court of Appeals again upheld the law, the Kansas Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and unanimously struck down the part of the law excluding same-sex sexual conduct. [4]

GVR orders have been the subject of substantial legal attention and criticism. [5] [6]

See Also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Solicitor General of the United States</span> Fourth-highest-ranking official in the United States Department of Justice

The solicitor general of the United States, the fourth-highest ranking official within the United States Department of Justice, represents the federal government in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Elizabeth Prelogar has served in the role since October 28, 2021.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that most sanctions of criminal punishment for consensual, adult non-procreative sexual activity are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated. It based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with private sexual decisions between consenting adults.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults, in this case with respect to homosexual sodomy, though the law did not differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy. It was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), though the statute had already been struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Phill Kline</span> American politician

Phillip D. Kline is a former American attorney who served as a Kansas state legislator, district attorney of Johnson County, and Kansas Attorney General. Kline, a member of the Republican Party, lost re-election as attorney general to Democratic challenger Paul J. Morrison in 2006. Kline was appointed by the Republican County Central Committee to fill the vacancy left Morrison's election as Kansas Attorney General, becoming district attorney of Johnson County on the day he left office as attorney general and essentially switching jobs with Morrison. Kline then ran for a full term as district attorney, but was defeated in the 2008 Republican primary.

Remand is when higher courts send cases back to lower courts for further action. In the law of the United States, appellate courts remand cases to district courts for actions such as a new trial. Federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, have the power to "remand [a] cause [sic] and ... require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances." This includes the power to make summary "grant, vacate and remand" (GVR) orders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.

State v. Limon, 280 Kan. 275, 122 P.3d 22 (2005), is a Kansas Supreme Court case in which a state law allowing for lesser punishment for statutory rape convictions if the partners were of different sexes than if they were of the same sex was found unconstitutional under both the federal and Kansas state constitutions. It was among the first cases to cite the United States Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas as precedent, months after the Virginia Supreme Court did similarly in Martin v. Ziherl.

<i>Baker v. Wade</i> U.S. court case on sodomy

Baker v. Wade 563 F.Supp 1121, rev'd 769 F.2nd 289 cert denied 478 US 1022 (1986) is a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of the sodomy law of the state of Texas. Plaintiff Donald Baker contended that the law violated his rights to privacy and equal protection. After a victory at trial, an appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and in the wake of its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick the Supreme Court of the United States refused to review it.

Confession of error is a legal practice whereby the Solicitor General of the United States in his or her role representing the federal government before the Supreme Court of the United States admits a lower court incorrectly decided a case and it is thereby sent back for reconsideration. By confessing error, the Solicitor General declares that the federal government's position, which prevailed in the lower court, was wrong. The Supreme Court typically then vacates the lower court's judgment and remands the case to allow the lower court to consider it in light of the confession of error.

<i>Cook v. Gates</i> American legal case

Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42, is a decision on July 9, 2008, of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that upheld the "Don't ask, Don't tell" (DADT) policy against due process and equal protection Fifth Amendment challenges and a free speech challenge under the First Amendment, and which found that no earlier Supreme Court decision held that sexual orientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2011 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down thirteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.

V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. ___ (2016), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples. In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children. However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up. E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights. On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law. The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama. V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children. On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition.

<i>Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College</i> U.S. court case

Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, 853 F.3d 339, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in which the Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling made the Seventh Circuit the first federal appeals court to find that sexual orientation is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Gundy v. United States, No. 17-6086, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d), part of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"), does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. The section of the SORNA allows the Attorney General to "specify the applicability" of the mandatory registration requirements of "sex offenders convicted before the enactment of [SORNA]". Precedent is that it is only constitutional for Congress to delegate legislative power to the executive branch if it provides an "intelligible principle" as guidance. The outcome of the case could have greatly influenced the broad delegations of power Congress has made to the federal executive branch, but it did not.

Rodriguez v. FDIC was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the precedent established as the Bob Richards Rule did not count as a legitimate exercise of federal lawmaking and thus that the rule is not to be used in decisions by federal judges.

Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case which considered whether criminal defendants ever have a right to the effective assistance of counsel in collateral state post-conviction proceedings. The Court held that a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel if there was no counsel or ineffective counsel in an initial-review collateral proceeding.

Golan v. Saada, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The case reviewed if all ameliorative measures must be taken into consideration before denying a Hague Convention petition once it is found that the child could face harm when returned to a foreign country.

References

  1. ↑ "Glossary of Supreme Court terms - SCOTUSblog". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2018-07-06.
  2. ↑ Mitchell, Armbruster, J. (1998). "Deciding Not to Decide: The Supreme Court's Expanding Use of the GVR Power Continued in Thomas v. American Home Products, Inc. and Department of the Interior v. South Dakota". North Carolina Law Review. 76 (4).
  3. ↑ Lawrence v. Chater, 516 U.S. 163 (1996).
  4. ↑ State v. Limon , 280Kan.275 (October 21, 2005).
  5. ↑ P., Bruhl, Aaron-Andrew (2009). "The Supreme Court's Controversial GVRs - And an Alternative". Michigan Law Review. 107 (5). ISSN   0026-2234.
  6. ↑ M., Murray, John (2012). "Why the Supreme Court Should Stop GVR'ing the Solicitor General's Rationale-Confessions-of-Error". Case Western Reserve Law Review. 62 (3). ISSN   0008-7262.
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.