Non-publication of legal opinions in the United States

Last updated

Non-publication of legal opinions is the practice of a court issuing unpublished opinions. An unpublished opinion is a decision of a court that is not available for citation as precedent because the court deems the case to have insufficient precedential value.

Contents

In the system of common law, each judicial decision becomes part of the body of law used in future decisions. However, some courts reserve certain decisions, leaving them "unpublished", and thus not available for citation in future cases. It has been argued that non-publication helps stem the problem of too much written material creating too little new law. [1] Specifically, the number of federal appeals filed annually grew from 23,200 to 33,360 between 1980 and 1985, [2] and 55,000 federal appeals were filed in 2000. [3] Conversely, studies have shown how non-publication can distort the law. [4]

Selective publication is the legal process by which a judge or justices of a court decide whether or not a decision is to be published in a reporter. [5] "Unpublished" federal appellate decisions are published in the Federal Appendix. From 2000 to 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit had the highest rate of non-publication (92%), and more than 85% of the decisions in the 3rd Circuit, 5th Circuit, 9th Circuit, and 11th Circuit went unpublished. [6] Depublication is the power of a court to make a previously published order or opinion unpublished. The California Supreme Court may depublish opinions of the California Courts of Appeal. [7] [8]

History

In 1964, the Judicial Conference of the United States recommended that federal appellate courts publish only those decisions "which are of general precedential value." [9] Since 1976, every federal appellate court has adopted rules limiting the publication of opinions. Most federal appellate courts publish less than half of their decisions on the merits. [10] As of the year 2004, some 80% of United States Courts of Appeals decisions are unpublished. [11] In Anastasoff v. United States , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit struck down non-publication, but the decision was later declared moot. [12] In Hart v. Massanari, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld non-publication as constitutional. [13]

On September 20, 2005 the Judicial Conference of the United States voted to approve rule 32.1 [14] of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, allowing citation of unpublished decisions issued after January 1, 2007. Judge Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. (since appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States) was then the chair of this committee. More than 500 public comments were received from supporters and opponents of the new rule. [15]

Controversy

The issue of unpublished decisions has been described as the most controversial to be faced by the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in the 1990s and 2000s. [16]

There is active debate on the fairness issues raised by non-publication, and the utility of non-publication in the light of computerization of court records. It has been argued that the behavior of judges and litigants indicates that "unpublished" does not mean "unimportant" and that technology has affected the storage costs, research costs and intellectual costs associated with publication of opinions. [17] A "shadow body of law" has developed, leading to concerns about unfair use and access. [18] It has been argued that the "hidden" conflict between published and unpublished decisions is hard to square with fundamental principles of equal justice. [19] Unpublished decisions have also been criticized as an abdication of responsibility, [20] in that it frees judges from the responsibility of preparing publication-worthy opinions in every case. [21]

Critics also have shown that courts often do not adhere to the announced criteria for designating an opinion as unpublished. Thus, Donald Songer showed that many unpublished opinions reverse the decision of the lower, district court. He reasons that such a decision cannot be considered a matter of long-settled law, given the lower court's error. [22] And Michael Hannon noted the frequency in which unpublished opinions include a dissent or concurrence, another sign that the case did not involve settled law. [23]

The idea that unpublished opinions would be treated by courts as if they did not exist because they were relatively inaccessible to many lawyers, were thought to involve only well-established legal principles, and were otherwise unsuitable for the precedential status usually accorded to decisions of the federal appellate courts has been described as a legal fiction. [24]

Related Research Articles

A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common-law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis. Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law and subordinate legislation in UK parlance – or regulatory law.

In the United States, a state supreme court is the highest court in the state judiciary of a U.S. state. On matters of state law, the judgment of a state supreme court is considered final and binding in both state and federal courts.

United States courts of appeals 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 thirteen "circuits": eleven circuits, numbered First through Eleventh, 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.

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Federal appellate court for the western U.S.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a federal court of appeals that has appellate jurisdiction over the U.S. district courts in the following federal judicial districts:

Case citation System for uniquely identifying individual rulings of a court

Case citation is a system used by legal professionals to identify past court case decisions, either in series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral style that identifies a decision regardless of where it is reported. Case citations are formatted differently in different jurisdictions, but generally contain the same key information.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 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. Article III of the Constitution requires the establishment of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal courts and place limitations on their jurisdiction. Article III states that federal judges are appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate to serve until they resign, are impeached and convicted, or die.

Danny Julian Boggs American judge

Danny Julián Boggs is an American attorney and a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was appointed to the court in 1986 and served as its Chief Judge from September 2003 to August 2009. Boggs was on the short list of President George W. Bush's candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court.

California Courts of Appeal Intermediate appellate courts of California

The California Courts of Appeal are the state intermediate appellate courts in the U.S. state of California. The state is geographically divided along county lines into six appellate districts. The Courts of Appeal form the largest state-level intermediate appellate court system in the United States, with 106 justices.

The Federal Appendix was a case law reporter published by West Publishing from 2001 to 2021. It published judicial opinions of the United States courts of appeals that were not expressly selected or designated for publication. Such "unpublished" cases are ostensibly without value as precedent. However, the Supreme Court made a change to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in 2006. Now, Rule 32.1 says that federal circuit courts are not allowed to prohibit the citation of unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 2007.

The Federal Supplement (ISSN 1047-7306 is a case law reporter published by West Publishing in the United States that includes select opinions of the United States district courts since 1932, and is part of the National Reporter System. Although the Federal Supplement is an unofficial reporter and West is a private company that does not have a legal monopoly over the court opinions it publishes, it has so dominated the industry in the U.S. that legal professionals uniformly cite the Federal Supplement for included decisions. Approximately 40 new volumes are published per year.

Law of California Overview of the law of the U.S. state of California

The law of California consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, as well as case law. The California Codes form the general statutory law, and most state agency regulations are available in the California Code of Regulations.

Circuit split Legal predicament

In United States federal courts, a circuit split occurs when two or more different circuit courts of appeals provide conflicting rulings on the same legal issue. The existence of a circuit split is one of the factors that the Supreme Court of the United States considers when deciding whether to grant review of a case. Some scholars suggest that the Supreme Court is more likely to grant review of a case to resolve a circuit split than for any other reason.

Harry T. Edwards American judge

Harry Thomas Edwards, an American jurist and legal scholar, is currently a Senior United States Circuit Judge and chief judge emeritus of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington, D.C., and a professor of law at the New York University School of Law.

<i>Anastasoff v. United States</i> Constitutional law case decided by the U.S. Eighth Circuit

Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898, was a case decided by the U.S. Eighth Circuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. It is notable for being the only case to consider the "Anastasoff issue", that is whether Article Three of the United States Constitution requires a federal court to treat unpublished opinions as precedent.

Law of the United States Overview of the law of the United States

The law of the United States comprises many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the nation's Constitution, which prescribes the foundation of the federal government of the United States, as well as various civil liberties. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of Acts of Congress, treaties ratified by the Senate, regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the federal judiciary. The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of general and permanent federal statutory law.

Appeal Resort to a superior court to review the decision of an inferior court or administrative agency

In law, an appeal is the process in which cases are reviewed by a higher authority, where parties request a formal change to an official decision. Appeals function both as a process for error correction as well as a process of clarifying and interpreting law. Although appellate courts have existed for thousands of years, common law countries did not incorporate an affirmative right to appeal into their jurisprudence until the 19th century.

Petition for review

In some jurisdictions, a petition for review is a formal request for an appellate tribunal to review the decision of a lower court or administrative body. If a jurisdiction utilizes petitions for review, then parties seeking appellate review of their case may submit a formal petition for review to an appropriate court. In United States federal courts, the term "petition for review" is also used to describe petitions that seek review of federal agency actions.

References

  1. ↑ Martin, Boyce F. Jr. (1999), In Defense of Unpublished Opinions, vol. 60, Ohio St. L.J., p. 177
  2. ↑ Weaver, George M. (1987–1988), Precedential Value of Unpublished Judicial Opinions, The, vol. 39, Mercer L. Rev., p. 477
  3. ↑ Hannon, Michael (2001), Closer Look at Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals, A, vol. 3, J. App. Prac. & Process, p. 199
  4. ↑ Rempell, Scott (2016). "Unpublished Decisions and Precedent Shaping". SSRN   2785752.
  5. ↑ On Google books: , , and
  6. ↑ Aaron S. Bayer (August 24, 2009), Unpublished Appellate Opinions Are Still Commonplace, The National Law Journal
  7. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-09-30. Retrieved 2011-11-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  8. ↑ California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1125
  9. ↑ Arnold, Richard S. (1999), Unpublished Opinions: A Comment, vol. 1, J. App. Prac. & Process, p. 219
  10. ↑ Lauren K. Robel (Apr 1989), The Myth of the Disposable Opinion: Unpublished Opinions and Government Litigants in the United States Courts of Appeals, vol. 87, Michigan Law Review, pp. 940–962, JSTOR   1289226
  11. ↑ Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Judicial Business of United States Courts, Supplemental Table S-3, 2004 Annual Report of the Director Archived 2006-02-14 at the Wayback Machine , p. 39.
  12. ↑ Anastasoff v. United States , 223F.3d898 (8th Cir.2000).
  13. ↑ Hart v. Massanari,266F.3d1155(9th Cir.2001).
  14. ↑ Rule 32.1 Citing Judicial Dispositions, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
  15. ↑ Schiltz, Patrick J. (2005–2006), Citation of Unpublished Opinions in the Federal Courts of Appeals, vol. 74, Fordham L. Rev., p. 23
  16. ↑ Schiltz, Patrick J. (2005), Much Ado about Little: Explaining the Sturm und Drang over the Citation of Unpublished Opinions, vol. 62, Wash. & Lee L. Rev., p. 1429
  17. ↑ Shuldberg, Kirt (1997), Digital Influence: Technology and Unpublished Opinions in the Federal Courts of Appeals, vol. 85, Cal. L. Rev., p. 541
  18. ↑ Carpenter, Charles E. Jr. (1998–1999), No-Citation Rule for Unpublished Opinions: Do the Ends of Expediency for Overloaded Appellate Courts Justify the Means of Secrecy, The, vol. 50, S. C. L. Rev., p. 235
  19. ↑ Gardner, James N. (1975), Ninth Circuit's Unpublished Opinions: Denial of Equal Justice, vol. 61, A.B.A. J., p. 1224
  20. ↑ Fox, Lawrence J. (2003–2004), Those Unpublished Opinions: An Appropriate Expedience or an Abdication of Responsibility, vol. 32, Hofstra L. Rev., p. 1215
  21. ↑ Pearson, Martha Dragi (2003–2004), Citation of Unpublished Opinions as Precedent, vol. 55, Hastings L.J., p. 1235
  22. ↑ Songer, Donald (1990). "Criteria for Publication of Opinions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals". Judicature. 73: 307.
  23. ↑ Hannon, Michael (2001). "A Closer Look at Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals". J. Appellateice and Process. 3: 199.
  24. ↑ Brian P. Brooks (Spring 2002), Publishing Unpublished Opinions: A Review of the Federal Appendix, The Green Bag
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.