APPELLATE PROCEDURE

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether Social Security claimants must exhaust constitutional legal issues before an intra-agency adjudicative body—such as a Social Security Administration administrative law judge or appeals board—before seeking review of that issue in court. Petitioner Willie Carr argues that a requirement of issue exhaustion is inappropriate for his Appointments Clause challenge because no statute mandates issue exhaustion and a judicially-crafted requirement would break with historical precedent. Respondent Andrew Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, counters that a general rule of judicial economy is applicable here, and that all issues can and must be exhausted before an administrative body before a claimant can seek review. This case has important implications for the procedural ease of new challenges to prior adverse benefits rulings for Social Security claimants, as well as the dockets of reviewing courts.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether district courts have the discretion to adjust “taxable” appellate costs under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(e). In 2006, a district court entered judgment for Petitioner City of San Antonio and taxed appellate costs against Respondent Hotels.com. In 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court judgment and ordered the City of San Antonio to pay appellate costs to Hotels.com. The City of San Antonio argues that the permissive language of “taxable” in Rule 39(e) and the bifurcated structure of the subdivisions of Rule 39 justify district courts’ discretionary authority to adjust appellate costs after the appellate court has determined which parties are entitled to costs. Hotels.com argues that the mandatory language of Rule 39(e) justifies the Fifth Circuit’s decision and that appellate courts are better equipped to determine the question of appellate costs. The outcome of this case has implications for the allocation of appellate costs between parties in litigation where appellate bonds, penalties, and interest can reach millions of dollars, as well as the efficiency of court proceedings concerning the determination of appellate costs.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Court will decide when a party may take an immediate appeal in a single district consolidated case under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the statute addressing appellate jurisdiction of all final decisions made by the district courts of the United States. Elsa Hall argues that § 1291 allows an appeal from a final judgment in a consolidated case even if the judgment does not resolve all claims. On the other hand, Samuel Hall argues that only a judgment resolving all consolidated claims may be appealed under § 1291. This issue arises in every consolidated case in which a district court enters judgment that leaves some claims in the consolidated case unresolved. Accordingly, the case will impact how plaintiffs bring claims and the appeals process in federal courts.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

When a federal district court makes a determination regarding whether to quash or enforce a subpoena, that decision is subject to appeal at the circuit court level. A circuit court can review a district court’s decision either deferentially or de novo. If a circuit court engages in deferential review, it will only overturn a district court’s decision if it determines that the district court abused its discretion in the matter. On the other hand, if a circuit court engages in de novo review, it will assess the factual evidence of the case and make a legal determination without regard for the findings by the court below. McLane Company, Inc. argues that a circuit court hearing an appeal from a district court’s decision to quash an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) subpoena should review the decision below deferentially. The EEOC argues, however, that a circuit court in that situation should instead review the decision de novo. The outcome of this case will impact the course of future EEOC litigation. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a motion to reopen the window to file a notice of appeal can itself constitute a premature, yet permissible notice of appeal filed within the reopened window should that motion be granted. If yes, a litigant who, for good reason, fails to file a notice of appeal within the standard 30­–day deadline will often only have to make one filing in order to successfully appeal nonetheless. If no, that litigant will have to first seek leave to appeal and then, if that leave is granted, file a notice of appeal within 14 days. Donte Parrish argues that the forgiving purpose of late-appeal provisions and common sense plainly dictate that because a motion to reopen that puts the opposing party on notice of appeal functions as a notice of appeal, such a motion should later be treated as a notice of appeal filed if that motion is granted. The United States — the opposing party in this case — agrees. But the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed, and Michael Huston, an attorney appointed by the Supreme Court to defend that ruling, argues that regardless of whether Parrish’s position is reasonable or not, caselaw and statute reject it. The outcome of this case will resolve a split between the Courts of Appeals and determine the proper to balance to be struck between protecting pro se litigants and ensuring that procedural law functions predictably.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Notes

(As amended Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Aug. 1, 1979; Apr. 25, 1989, eff. Dec. 1, 1989; Apr. 29, 1994, eff. Dec. 1, 1994; Apr. 24, 1998, eff. Dec. 1, 1998; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002; Apr. 28, 2010, eff. Dec. 1, 2010.)

¹ So in original

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1967

These rules are drawn under the authority of 28 U.S.C. §2072, as amended by the Act of November 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1323 (1 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News, p. 1546 (1966)) (Rules of Civil Procedure); 28 U.S.C. §2075 (Bankruptcy Rules); and 18 U.S.C. §§3771 (Procedure to and including verdict) and 3772 (Procedure after verdict). Those statutes combine to give to the Supreme Court power to make rules of practice and procedure for all cases within the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals. By the terms of the statutes, after the rules have taken effect all laws in conflict with them are of no further force or effect. Practice and procedure in the eleven courts of appeals are now regulated by rules promulgated by each court under the authority of 28 U.S.C. §2071. Rule 47 expressly authorizes the courts of appeals to make rules of practice not inconsistent with these rules.

As indicated by the titles under which they are found, the following rules are of special application: Rules 3 through 12 apply to appeals from judgments and orders of the district courts; Rules 13 and 14 apply to appeals from decisions of the Tax Court (Rule 13 establishes an appeal as the mode of review of decisions of the Tax Court in place of the present petition for review); Rules 15 through 20 apply to proceedings for review or enforcement of orders of administrative agencies, boards, commissions and officers. Rules 22 through 24 regulate habeas corpus proceedings and appeals in forma pauperis. All other rules apply to all proceedings in the courts of appeals.

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1979 Amendment

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure were designed as an integrated set of rules to be followed in appeals to the courts of appeals, covering all steps in the appellate process, whether they take place in the district court or in the court of appeals, and with their adoption Rules 72–76 of the F.R.C.P. were abrogated. In some instances, however, the F.R.A.P. provide that a motion or application for relief may, or must, be made in the district court. See Rules 4(a), 10(b), and 24. The proposed amendment would make it clear that when this is so the motion or application is to be made in the form and manner prescribed by the F.R.C.P. or F.R.Cr.P. and local rules relating to the form and presentation of motions and is not governed by Rule 27 of the F.R.A.P. See Rule 7(b) of the F.R.C.P. and Rule 47 of the F.R.Cr.P.

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1989 Amendment

The amendment is technical. No substantive change is intended.

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1994 Amendment

Subdivision (c). A new subdivision is added to the rule. The text of new subdivision (c) has been moved from Rule 48 to Rule 1 to allow the addition of new rules at the end of the existing set of appellate rules without burying the title provision among other rules. In a similar fashion the Bankruptcy Rules combine the provisions governing the scope of the rules and the title in the first rule.

Committee Notes on Rules—1998 Amendment

The language and organization of the rule are amended to make the rule more easily understood. In addition to changes made to improve the understanding, the Advisory Committee has changed language to make style and terminology consistent throughout the appellate rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. The Advisory Committee recommends deleting the language in subdivision (a) that describes the different types of proceedings that may be brought in a court of appeals. The Advisory Committee believes that the language is unnecessary and that its omission does not work any substantive change.

Committee Notes on Rules—2002 Amendment

Subdivision (b). Two recent enactments make it likely that, in the future, one or more of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”) will extend or limit the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals. In 1990, Congress amended the Rules Enabling Act to give the Supreme Court authority to use the federal rules of practice and procedure to define when a ruling of a district court is final for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1291. See 28 U.S.C. §2072(c). In 1992, Congress amended 28 U.S.C. §1292 to give the Supreme Court authority to use the federal rules of practice and procedure to provide for appeals of interlocutory decisions that are not already authorized by 28 U.S.C. §1292. See 28 U.S.C. §1292(e). Both §1291 and §1292 are unquestionably jurisdictional statutes, and thus, as soon as FRAP is amended to define finality for purposes of the former or to authorize interlocutory appeals not provided for by the latter, FRAP will “extend or limit the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals,” and subdivision (b) will become obsolete. For that reason, subdivision (b) has been abrogated.

Committee Notes on Rules—2010 Amendment

Subdivision (b). New subdivision (b) defines the term "state" to include the District of Columbia and any commonwealth or territory of the United States. Thus, as used in these Rules, "state" includes the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Changes Made After Publication and Comment. No changes were made after publication and comment.