In re Snyder

In re Snyder
In re Snyder
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 16, 1985; Decided June 24, 1985
Full case name	In re Snyder
Citations	472 U.S. 634 ( more ) 105 S. Ct. 2874; 86 L. Ed. 2d 504
Prior history	734 F.2d 334 (8th Cir. 1984)
Holding
	Attorney's allegedly rude letter to a court employee, followed by his refusal to apologize when requested by the court, did not support suspending the attorney from practicing law
Court membership
	Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White ; Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun ; Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist ; John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
Majority	Burger, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor
	Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
	Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

Last updated April 09, 2019

In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an attorney's curt letter to a court employee, followed by the attorney's refusal to apologize for sending the letter, did not justify suspending the attorney from practicing law in federal court.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, it has original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, including suits between two or more states and those involving ambassadors. It also has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal court and state court cases that involve a point of federal constitutional or statutory law. The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution or an executive act for being unlawful. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions. Each year it agrees to hear about one hundred to one hundred fifty of the more than seven thousand cases that it is asked to review.

Background

Robert J. Snyder was an attorney in Bismarck, North Dakota. His practice included serving as a criminal defense lawyer for indigent defendants in federal cases, with his compensation provided by government funds under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA). In 1983, Snyder submitted an application for CJA compensation for a case he had handled before Judge Bruce Van Sickle in the District Court. Because the request exceeded $1,000, it was subject to review by the Chief Judge of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Donald P. Lay. Judge Lay's secretary returned Snyder's application, advising Snyder that his documentation was insufficient. Snyder discussed the situation with Judge Van Sickle's secretary, who suggested that Snyder write her a letter expressing his views.

Bismarck, North Dakota State capital city in North Dakota, United States

Bismarck is the capital of the U.S. state of North Dakota and the county seat of Burleigh County. It is the second-most populous city in North Dakota after Fargo. The city's population was estimated in 2017 at 72,865, while its metropolitan population was 132,142. In 2017, Forbes magazine ranked Bismarck as the seventh fastest-growing small city in the United States.

Criminal Justice Act is a stock short title used for legislation in Canada, Malaysia, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom relating to the criminal law. It tends to be used for Acts that do not have a single cohesive subject matter.

Bruce Marion Van Sickle was a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.

Snyder wrote to Judge Van Sickle's secretary as she had suggested. In this letter, Snyder complained that the compensation provided under the CJA was inadequate, and protested that "[n]ow, however, not only are we paid an amount of money which does not even cover our overhead, but we have to go through extreme gymnastics even to receive the puny amounts which the federal courts authorize for this work." He said that he would not provide any additional paperwork to support his compensation request, and that "[y]ou can take it or leave it." Snyder closed his letter by stating: "Further, I am extremely disgusted by the treatment of us by the Eighth Circuit in this case, and you are instructed to remove my name from the list of attorneys who will accept criminal indigent defense work. I have simply had it. Thank you for your time and attention."

District Judge Van Sickle viewed Snyder's letter as seeking changes in the court system's procedures for awarding fees under the CJA, and forwarded it to Chief Judge Lay. Lay, however, opined that Snyder's letter was "totally disrespectful to the federal courts and to the judicial system. It demonstrates a total lack of respect for the legal process and the courts." Lay expressed displeasure about Snyder's failure to follow the procedures for fee requests, and opined that this cast doubt on whether Snyder should be allowed to continue practicing law in federal court.

Judge Van Sickle responded that Snyder viewed the letter "an expression of an honest opinion, and an exercise of his right of freedom of speech." The judge himself described it as "a youthful and exuberant expression of annoyance which has now risen to the level of a cause." Snyder declined to apologize for the letter, although he "assured [Judge Van Sickle] he did not intend the letter as [Judge Lay] interpreted it."

Eighth Circuit proceedings

Judge Lay then issued an order to show cause directing Snyder to explain why he should not be suspended from practicing law in the Eighth Circuit. The stated basis for the order to show cause was Snyder's statement that he would no longer accept case assignments under the CJA. However, at a hearing before the court, the Eighth Circuit judges focused on whether Snyder would apologize for the contents of his letter to the District Court's secretary. Both at the hearing and in writing afterwards, Snyder stated that he would be glad to accept CJA assignments under a revised CJA plan for the District of North Dakota. However, in response to the request for an apology, Snyder wrote:

An order to show cause is a type of court order that requires one or more of the parties to a case to justify, explain, or prove something to the court. Courts commonly use orders to show cause when the judge needs more information before deciding whether or not to issue an order requested by one of the parties. For example, if a party requests that the court find another party in contempt of an existing court order, the judge will typically issue an "Order to Show Cause Re Contempt" to the party accused of being in contempt of court. At the hearing on the order to show cause concerning contempt the judge will take evidence from both sides concerning the alleged failure to comply with the court order. Appellate courts often issue orders to show cause to lower courts requesting that the lower court explain why the appellant should not be granted the relief requested by the writ or appeal. An order to show cause is always an interim order.

I cannot, and will never, in justice to my conscience, apologize for what I consider to be telling the truth, albeit in harsh terms....
It is unfortunate that the respective positions in the proceeding have so hardened. However, I consider this to be a matter of principle, and if one stands on a principle, one must be willing to accept the consequences.^[1]

A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit then issued an opinion and order suspending Snyder from practicing law both in the Eighth Circuit and in the District of North Dakota for at least six months.^[2] The full Eighth Circuit denied Snyder's request for rehearing en banc with two judges dissenting, but voted to cancel the suspension if Snyder submitted an apology within ten days.^[2] Snyder did not apologize, and the suspension took effect.

In law, an en banc session is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court rather than by a panel of judges selected from them. The equivalent terms in banc, in banco or in bank are also sometimes seen. En banc review is often used for unusually complex cases or cases considered to be of greater importance.

Snyder asked the Supreme Court to review the suspension order, contending that the order violated his First Amendment and due process rights and was unjustified. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.^[3]

Due process Requirement that courts respect all legal rights owed to people

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.

Certiorari, often abbreviated cert. in the United States, is a process for seeking judicial review and a writ issued by a court that agrees to review. A certiorari is issued by a superior court, directing an inferior court, tribunal, or other public authority to send the record of a proceeding for review.

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the opinion of the Court, which spoke for a unanimous Court, except that Justice Harry A. Blackmun did not participate in the case.^[4] Burger's opinion held that Snyder's conduct did not constitute cause for suspending him under Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the case could be resolved on non-constitutional grounds, Burger wrote, the Court need not address Snyder's arguments under the First Amendment or the Due Process Clause.

Burger stated that courts have the power to suspend or disbar lawyers from practicing before them for "conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of the court." This authority is inherent in the nature of a court, and in the case of the United States Courts of Appeals, is codified in Rule 46.

Here, the Eighth Circuit had concluded that Snyder had engaged in "contumacious conduct" and demonstrated unfitness to practice law in federal court when he submitted his letter to a court employee and refused to apologize for it. However, the Supreme Court did "not consider a lawyer's criticism of the administration of the [Criminal Justice] Act or criticism of inequities in assignments under the Act as cause for discipline or suspension."

The Court's opinion concluded:

The record indicates the Court of Appeals was concerned about the tone of the letter; petitioner concedes that the tone of his letter was "harsh," and, indeed it can be read as ill-mannered. All persons involved in the judicial process—judges, litigants, witnesses, and court officers—owe a duty of courtesy to all other participants. The necessity for civility in the inherently contentious setting of the adversary process suggests that members of the bar cast criticisms of the system in a professional and civil tone. However, even assuming that the letter exhibited an unlawyerlike rudeness, a single incident of rudeness or lack of professional courtesy—in this context—does not support a finding of contemptuous or contumacious conduct, or a finding that a lawyer is "not presently fit to practice law in the federal courts." Nor does it rise to the level of "conduct unbecoming a member of the bar" warranting suspension from practice.

Accordingly, Snyder's suspension was reversed.

Related Research Articles

The United States courts of appeals or circuit courts are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal court system. A court of appeals decides appeals from the district courts within its federal judicial circuit, and in some instances from other designated federal courts and administrative agencies.

Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (No. 9487), is a well-known and controversial U.S. federal court case that arose out of the American Civil War (1861–1865). It was a test of the authority of the President to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" under the Constitution's Suspension Clause, when Congress was in recess and therefore unavailable to do so itself. More generally, the case raised questions about the ability of the executive branch to decline enforcement of orders from the judicial branch when the executive believes them to be erroneous and harmful to its own legal powers.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of silent school prayer.

Harry Andrew Blackmun was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1970 until 1994. Appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon, Blackmun ultimately became one of the most liberal justices on the Court. He is best known as the author of the Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade, which prohibits many state and federal restrictions on abortion.

John Michael Luttig is an American lawyer and a former United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971), is a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a state law limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex did not violate the U.S. Constitution. Baker appealed, and on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question". Because the case came to the U.S. Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review, the dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as precedent, though the extent of its precedential effect had been subject to debate. In May 2013, Minnesota legalized same-sex marriage and it took effect on August 1, 2013. Subsequently, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly overruled Baker in Obergefell v. Hodges, making same-sex marriage legal nationwide.

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation, in federal court, against him or her, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office. In particular, there is no temporary immunity, so it is not required to delay all federal cases until the President leaves office.

Jon Ormond Newman is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), was a Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a company could invoke the attorney–client privilege to protect communications made between company lawyers and non-management employees. In doing so, the Court rejected the narrower control group test that had previously governed many organizational attorney–client privilege issues. Under the control group test, only employees who exercised direct control over the managerial decisions of the company were eligible to have their communications with corporate lawyers protected. The case also expanded the scope of the work-product doctrine.

Fortunato Pedro "Pete" Benavides is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. His chambers are in Austin, Texas.

Martin Thomas Manton was a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and previously was a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Manton was the first federal judge to be convicted of bribery.

Andrew Jay Kleinfeld is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, stationed in Fairbanks, Alaska and a former Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.

McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the right to petition does not provide absolute immunity to petitioners; it is subject to the same restrictions as other First Amendment rights.

Philip Jay Berg, previously an American attorney, brought a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit charging president George W. Bush and 154 others with complicity in the September 11 attacks, and another suit challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to become President of the United States.

Willis Van Devanter was an American lawyer who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1911 to 1937.

Robert Trimble was an attorney, judge, and a justice of the United States Supreme Court.

The Judiciary of Virginia is defined under the Constitution and law of Virginia and is composed of the Supreme Court of Virginia and subordinate courts, including the Court of Appeals, the Circuit Courts, and the General District Courts. Its administration is headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Judicial Council, the Committee on District Courts, the Judicial Conferences, the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, and various other offices and officers.

The Judiciary of Illinois is the unified court system of Illinois responsible for applying the Constitution and law of Illinois. It consists of the Supreme Court, Appellate Court, and circuit courts. The Supreme Court oversees the administration of the court system.

James Chiun-Yue Ho is an American lawyer and a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Frank v. Gaos is a case before the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the practice of cy pres settlements in class action lawsuits. However, the week after oral arguments were held, the court asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the parties had Article III standing to pursue the case in federal courts. Supplemental briefing was completed on December 21, 2018.

References

↑ Quoted in In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 638 (1985).
1 2 In re Snyder, 734F.2d334 ( 8th Cir. 1984).
↑ 469 U.S. 1156 (1985).
↑ Supreme Court Justices do not ordinarily provide the reasons for their recusal in a given case, but Blackmun served as Circuit Justice for the Eighth Circuit (of which he had been a member before being appointed to the Supreme Court), and worked closely with the judges of the Eighth Circuit in that capacity.

Linda Greenhouse, "Court Reinstates Angry Lawyer, 33", New York Times, June 25, 1985.

External links

Text of In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634(1985) is available from: Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

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.

[1] Quoted in In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 638 (1985).

[EighthCir-2] 1 2 In re Snyder, 734F.2d334 ( 8th Cir. 1984).

[3] 469 U.S. 1156 (1985).

[4] Supreme Court Justices do not ordinarily provide the reasons for their recusal in a given case, but Blackmun served as Circuit Justice for the Eighth Circuit (of which he had been a member before being appointed to the Supreme Court), and worked closely with the judges of the Eighth Circuit in that capacity.