The 11th Circuit denied the appeal. Now to see what the Supreme Court has to say for itself. I kind of hope that at some point some court reaches the question of whether this act was constitutional. It looks like that's not going to happen.
HenryTMensch said:
The 11th Circuit denied the appeal. Now to see what the Supreme Court has to say for itself. I kind of hope that at some point some court reaches the question of whether this act was constitutional. It looks like that's not going to happen.
Yeah, I doubt the constitutionality of the Act will actually be investigated. If the Courts can dispose of the dispute without treading into Con Law waters, they will be quite happy to do so.
HenryTMensch said:
The 11th Circuit denied the appeal. Now to see what the Supreme Court has to say for itself. I kind of hope that at some point some court reaches the question of whether this act was constitutional. It looks like that's not going to happen.
Yeah, I doubt the constitutionality of the Act will actually be investigated. If the Courts can dispose of the dispute without treading into Con Law waters, they will be quite happy to do so.
Although, thinking out loud for a second, maybe (technically) the court should have dealt with the con law issues first, even before going to the TRO. Courts aren't allowed to assume they have jurisdiction in order to decide a case on other grounds; they have to actually have jurisdiction before moving on to consider other issues (procedural or on the merits).
I'm thinking that we agree that the Act didn't actually expand the court's jurisdiction per se--it had jurisdiction over federal questions before the act and it did after the act. But what it appears to have done is to allow the court to reconsider federal claims that had already been adjudicated by the federal courts (all the way up to the S. Ct.) as well, I think, as federal claims already adjudicated by the state courts. If the Act is unconstitutional (at least as to those parts that allow rehearing these claims), then the district court could not properly hear those claims and then what's left? Only the state law issues, over which Congress did not and could not give the district court jurisdiction. So in other words, if the Act is unconstitutional, then the court didn't properly have jurisdiction to hear the case on the merits and it should have been dismissed without any ruling on the TRO.
But, of course, it doesn't really matter much except to those of us who get hung up on stupid jurisdictional points. In practical terms, it was easier to deny the TRO on the merits than to deal with the thorny constitutional/jurisdictional issues. Plus it seems more just to do it that way, since now at least it can be said that the court considered the parties' substantive arguments on the federal issues and decided the TRO on the merits rather than taking the time to argue technical matters while the clock was ticking. Same for the appeals court, which could have raised the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte but (probably wisely) did not.
The Supreme Court will almost certainly deny cert, most likely unanimously, I would think, so I agree we'll never know the answers to these and other obscure, mildly tedious con law issues raised by the case.
Update: Schiavo's parents have requested an en banc hearing of the 11th Circuit Court.
I agree with Whittemore: this issue has been litigated thoroughly. It all seems so pointless. After 15 years, Terri's parents should have made peace with the death and wasting of her cortex. It's sad and tragic, but for God's sake let it end.
HenryTMensch said:
The 11th Circuit denied the appeal. Now to see what the Supreme Court has to say for itself. I kind of hope that at some point some court reaches the question of whether this act was constitutional. It looks like that's not going to happen.
Yeah, I doubt the constitutionality of the Act will actually be investigated. If the Courts can dispose of the dispute without treading into Con Law waters, they will be quite happy to do so.
Although, thinking out loud for a second, maybe (technically) the court should have dealt with the con law issues first, even before going to the TRO. Courts aren't allowed to assume they have jurisdiction in order to decide a case on other grounds; they have to actually have jurisdiction before moving on to consider other issues (procedural or on the merits).
I'm thinking that we agree that the Act didn't actually expand the court's jurisdiction per se--it had jurisdiction over federal questions before the act and it did after the act. But what it appears to have done is to allow the court to reconsider federal claims that had already been adjudicated by the federal courts (all the way up to the S. Ct.) as well, I think, as federal claims already adjudicated by the state courts. If the Act is unconstitutional (at least as to those parts that allow rehearing these claims), then the district court could not properly hear those claims and then what's left? Only the state law issues, over which Congress did not and could not give the district court jurisdiction. So in other words, if the Act is unconstitutional, then the court didn't properly have jurisdiction to hear the case on the merits and it should have been dismissed without any ruling on the TRO.
But, of course, it doesn't really matter much except to those of us who get hung up on stupid jurisdictional points. In practical terms, it was easier to deny the TRO on the merits than to deal with the thorny constitutional/jurisdictional issues. Plus it seems more just to do it that way, since now at least it can be said that the court considered the parties' substantive arguments on the federal issues and decided the TRO on the merits rather than taking the time to argue technical matters while the clock was ticking. Same for the appeals court, which could have raised the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte but (probably wisely) did not.
The Supreme Court will almost certainly deny cert, most likely unanimously, I would think, so I agree we'll never know the answers to these and other obscure, mildly tedious con law issues raised by the case.
According to the DC opinion and the 3 judge panel opinion, case law precedent dictates that the constitutionality of the act must be presumed while the Court considers whether a TRO or other preliminary injunction should issue.
Also, I think you are right in that the DC and the 11th Cir. are content not to reach the constitutional issues.
I'm not so sure that the Supreme Court will not eventually issue some sort of ruling on the constitutionality of the act. I agree that the Court will decline to hear the interlocutory appeal w/r/t the denial of the TRO. But every once in a while there are extraordinary circumstances when the Court issues a ruling in a case where jurisdiction has been mooted. Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), leaps to mind.
The opinion in Quirin came after the prisoners who had filed a habeas petition had already been executed (the Court issued a short per curiam opinion denying the habeas petitions before the executions. Three months later, the Court issued a full opinion explaining its decision). I think--given the extraordinary circumstances here and the serious separation of powers and other constitutional issues Congress's Act involves--that we could see a scenario where the Supreme Court denies cert in a perfunctory opinion or order and then later issues an opinion that clarifies the important question of whether the Act is unconstitutional.
nonbillable said:
Although, thinking out loud for a second, maybe (technically) the court should have dealt with the con law issues first, even before going to the TRO. Courts aren't allowed to assume they have jurisdiction in order to decide a case on other grounds; they have to actually have jurisdiction before moving on to consider other issues (procedural or on the merits).
I'm thinking that we agree that the Act didn't actually expand the court's jurisdiction per se--it had jurisdiction over federal questions before the act and it did after the act. But what it appears to have done is to allow the court to reconsider federal claims that had already been adjudicated by the federal courts (all the way up to the S. Ct.) as well, I think, as federal claims already adjudicated by the state courts. If the Act is unconstitutional (at least as to those parts that allow rehearing these claims), then the district court could not properly hear those claims and then what's left? Only the state law issues, over which Congress did not and could not give the district court jurisdiction. So in other words, if the Act is unconstitutional, then the court didn't properly have jurisdiction to hear the case on the merits and it should have been dismissed without any ruling on the TRO.
[....]
The Supreme Court will almost certainly deny cert, most likely unanimously, I would think, so I agree we'll never know the answers to these and other obscure, mildly tedious con law issues raised by the case.
According to the DC opinion and the 3 judge panel opinion, case law precedent dictates that the constitutionality of the act must be presumed while the Court considers whether a TRO or other preliminary injunction should issue.
[....]
I'm not so sure that the Supreme Court will not eventually issue some sort of ruling on the constitutionality of the act. I agree that the Court will decline to hear the interlocutory appeal w/r/t the denial of the TRO. But every once in a while there are extraordinary circumstances when the Court issues a ruling in a case where jurisdiction has been mooted. Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), leaps to mind.
The opinion in Quirin came after the prisoners who had filed a habeas petition had already been executed (the Court issued a short per curiam opinion denying the habeas petitions before the executions. Three months later, the Court issued a full opinion explaining its decision). I think--given the extraordinary circumstances here and the serious separation of powers and other constitutional issues Congress's Act involves--that we could see a scenario where the Supreme Court denies cert in a perfunctory opinion or order and then later issues an opinion that clarifies the important question of whether the Act is unconstitutional.
[Edited on Mar 23, 2005 by HenryTMensch]
Interesting, so apparently TROs are an exception. Serves me right for reading news accounts instead of the opinions.
I still wonder about the Supreme Court ever addressing the constitutional issue though. In Quirin, they actually decided the case while it was not moot and later (when it was moot) issued the opinion. Here it seems much easier for them to just deny cert and not decide the case at all. I don't see this Court wanting to jump in on this particular issue, especially since when it becomes moot, it will be really, really moot (i.e., while habeas corpus was going to be around after the Quirin decision, the Schiavo Act for all intents and purposes won't be around after she's gone). But you never really do know what those crazy kids are going to do.
HenryTMensch
New York, NY
December 2004
MAR 23, 2005 12:31 AM