[EL] Do interlocutory evidentiary disputes from 3-judge district courts get appealed to appellate courts rather than the Supreme Court?

Mon May 20 07:29:56 PDT 2019

Hello,

Thanks for looping me in!  The 7th Circuit case was a petition for writ of mandamus, accompanied by an emergency motion to stay the underlying district court discovery order pending a ruling on that mandamus petition.  The Circuit panel granted the emergency stay motion.

Part III of my draft Josh mentioned, "Vertical Stare Decisis and Three-Judge District Courts" (forthcoming Georgetown L.J., https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3373405<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__papers.ssrn.com_sol3_papers.cfm-3Fabstract-5Fid-3D3373405&d=DwMGaQ&c=HPMtquzZjKY31rtkyGRFnQ&r=5f6POwjrH_vnsYmoF-4bLjJfKWN5xS43XQSvIUnmNR4&m=_OmxPaIcfQ6nczSfDls5t-O3W9pcEbCl95XkAkNRJ3E&s=T8l2E6oeN6i1lINxSxQmjkAGYAFCpAtqYZpbChlX6tk&e=>) offers at least two reasons why the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over this request to stay discovery -- which is a distinct inquiry, of course, from whether the petition is meritorious and should be granted. First, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, which has been construed to authorize Courts of Appeals to issue writs of mandamus, allows Courts of Appeals to issue such writs to three-judge district courts.  In Ohio A. Philp Randolph Inst. v. Larose, No. 18-4258, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1718 (6th Cir. Jan. 18, 2019), for example, the Sixth Circuit exercised jurisdiction over a petition to block discovery ordered by a three-judge district court in a gerrymandering case.  The court denied the petition on the merits, rather than for lack of jurisdiction.  Several other examples exist of courts of appeals exercising jurisdiction over such petitions, though they're frequently denied on the merits.

Second, relatedly, the petitioners could attempt to invoke the collateral order doctrine, which some appellate courts have held allow them to exercise jurisdiction over certain interlocutory appeals from three-judge panels.  In MTM, Inc. v. Baxley, 420 U.S. 799 (1975) (per curiam), the Supreme Court held that rulings of three-judge district courts other than rulings concerning injunctions or the underlying merits do not lie within its exclusive appellate jurisdiction, but rather may be heard by a Court of Appeals.  Thus, if the discovery order is subject to interlocutory review, the Court of Appeals would be the proper entity to hear it.  Courts of Appeals typically exercise jurisdiction  to determine the applicability of the collateral order doctrine in such cases, though they often conclude the doctrine doesn't apply.

The Court of Appeals granted the stay motion simply to allow it to decide the merits of the underlying mandamus petition.  Since it has jurisdiction, I believe, to entertain the petition, it likewise had jurisdiction to enter the accompanying stay motion.

Parenthetically, my piece argues that, regardless of whether this issue is within the Court of Appeals' appellate jurisdiction, the three-judge district court was required to apply that court's precedents in resolving it, to the same extent an ordinary single-judge district court would be bound by them.  I definitely will expand my current draft to delve into this interesting and important issue in greater depth, and canvas more of the relevant examples.

Hope at least some of this is helpful,

Michael

Michael T. Morley
Assistant Professor of Law
Florida State University College of Law

On May 20, 2019, at 1:27 AM, Josh Douglas <joshuadouglas at uky.edu<mailto:joshuadouglas at uky.edu>> wrote:

Michael Solimine and I discuss this question tangentially in a footnote to our new article in the Georgetown Law Journal, Precedent, Three-Judge District Courts, and the Law of Democracy<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__papers.ssrn.com_sol3_papers.cfm-3Fabstract-5Fid-3D3099771&d=DwMFaQ&c=HPMtquzZjKY31rtkyGRFnQ&r=5f6POwjrH_vnsYmoF-4bLjJfKWN5xS43XQSvIUnmNR4&m=8yzTUjXNA0B7zWzWLobxYumqaBw-Q_Yi6GwNPUDc4Bo&s=SuMbrdzuq-awr95syn0emouk1uL5OxSf19bPIzBnaWo&e=>. See note 200:

Illustrating the odd nature of the three-judge district court, there are exceptions to what the court must decide. Once the three-judge district court has ruled on the merits of the claim, there may be collateral issues remaining, such as an award of attorneys’ fees. Because the language of the convening statute arguably does not cover those topics, courts have typically held that the court’s disposition of those issues is appealable in the first instance to the circuit court, not the Supreme Court. See, e.g., League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Johnson, 902 F.3d 572 (6th Cir. 2018) (appeal from three-judge district court of denial of motion to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24); Brat v. Personhuballah, 883 F.3d 475 (4th Cir. 2018) (appeal of award of attorneys’ fees by three-judge district court); see also 17 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 4040, at 114– 15 (2007).

However, our ultimate conclusion in the article -- that three-judge district courts are not bound by circuit precedent -- would suggest that a three-judge district court's preliminary rulings should not be appealable to the circuit court.

Michael Morley wrote up his own analysis<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__papers.ssrn.com_sol3_papers.cfm-3Fabstract-5Fid-3D3373405&d=DwMFaQ&c=HPMtquzZjKY31rtkyGRFnQ&r=5f6POwjrH_vnsYmoF-4bLjJfKWN5xS43XQSvIUnmNR4&m=8yzTUjXNA0B7zWzWLobxYumqaBw-Q_Yi6GwNPUDc4Bo&s=AfpuzujONITQssBCDMVGwRZ9tGxcsAKJPgdwvU07bgc&e=> of the Three Judge Court Act, forthcoming in the Georgetown Law Journal, which in part is a response to our piece. He concludes that three-judge  district courts are bound by circuit precedent, but I do not believe he tackles this question of the appealability of procedural rulings before the case is final. (Michael M., please correct me if I'm wrong on that front.)

Thanks,

Josh

[https://uknow.uky.edu/sites/default/files/UK-logo.png]
Joshua A. Douglas
Thomas P. Lewis Professor of Law
University of Kentucky College of Law
620 S. Limestone
Lexington, KY 40506
859-257-4935
joshuadouglas at uky.edu<mailto:joshuadouglas at uky.edu>
Twitter: @JoshuaADouglas<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_JoshuaADouglas&d=DwMFaQ&c=HPMtquzZjKY31rtkyGRFnQ&r=5f6POwjrH_vnsYmoF-4bLjJfKWN5xS43XQSvIUnmNR4&m=8yzTUjXNA0B7zWzWLobxYumqaBw-Q_Yi6GwNPUDc4Bo&s=nKCqTUfB0VXb1du0lLu0YREUlc5yjDZqzLW1GfPisPk&e=>

   Find me at www.JoshuaADouglas.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.joshuaadouglas.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HPMtquzZjKY31rtkyGRFnQ&r=5f6POwjrH_vnsYmoF-4bLjJfKWN5xS43XQSvIUnmNR4&m=8yzTUjXNA0B7zWzWLobxYumqaBw-Q_Yi6GwNPUDc4Bo&s=YLUOp_zwLQlYBa0gZJ1yDLyHZuRsJgRMH_1Ts36Z0rE&e=>.

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:30 PM Ruth Greenwood <ruthgreenwood2 at gmail.com<mailto:ruthgreenwood2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
Plaintiffs don't think the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction to hear the mandamus petition. See our brief attached.

Cheers
Ruth

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 11:03 AM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
It appears from this story that that’s what just happened in the Wisconsin gerrymandering case:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/18/speaker-robin-vos-gets-reprieve-wisconsins-gerrymandering-case/3718475002/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jsonline.com_story_news_politics_2019_05_18_speaker-2Drobin-2Dvos-2Dgets-2Dreprieve-2Dwisconsins-2Dgerrymandering-2Dcase_3718475002_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HPMtquzZjKY31rtkyGRFnQ&r=5f6POwjrH_vnsYmoF-4bLjJfKWN5xS43XQSvIUnmNR4&m=8yzTUjXNA0B7zWzWLobxYumqaBw-Q_Yi6GwNPUDc4Bo&s=2CEVaR71SXvQ2z1bFDI75SOsqZmU5NfHvVeScLkrxSg&e=>

I’m wondering about the authority for such appeals to go to the appellate courts rather than the Supreme Court.

Thanks.

--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uci.edu_faculty_full-2Dtime_hasen_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HPMtquzZjKY31rtkyGRFnQ&r=5f6POwjrH_vnsYmoF-4bLjJfKWN5xS43XQSvIUnmNR4&m=8yzTUjXNA0B7zWzWLobxYumqaBw-Q_Yi6GwNPUDc4Bo&s=FFmy_V_E_1LtrlNWoDp6tZLI1eT3tsJfdeOohZk4tVI&e=>
http://electionlawblog.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__electionlawblog.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HPMtquzZjKY31rtkyGRFnQ&r=5f6POwjrH_vnsYmoF-4bLjJfKWN5xS43XQSvIUnmNR4&m=8yzTUjXNA0B7zWzWLobxYumqaBw-Q_Yi6GwNPUDc4Bo&s=k8caivLnnuSmtWYBEr_oS4YoO9lIk8Lb-HOxAYvMZeg&e=>
[signature_1416578142]

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=HPMtquzZjKY31rtkyGRFnQ&r=5f6POwjrH_vnsYmoF-4bLjJfKWN5xS43XQSvIUnmNR4&m=8yzTUjXNA0B7zWzWLobxYumqaBw-Q_Yi6GwNPUDc4Bo&s=y89EOHyEs6znv4exnHDGpBl4Pffhinc2guvAFZBQMss&e=>

--
Ruth Greenwood
email: ruthgreenwood2 at gmail.com<mailto:ruthgreenwood2 at gmail.com>
cell: 202-560-0590
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=HPMtquzZjKY31rtkyGRFnQ&r=5f6POwjrH_vnsYmoF-4bLjJfKWN5xS43XQSvIUnmNR4&m=8yzTUjXNA0B7zWzWLobxYumqaBw-Q_Yi6GwNPUDc4Bo&s=y89EOHyEs6znv4exnHDGpBl4Pffhinc2guvAFZBQMss&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190520/e0764c48/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 92163 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190520/e0764c48/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 92163 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190520/e0764c48/attachment-0001.png>