While working on last week's Weekly Review, I saw something unusual. On my final review of the cases decided that week, a new case popped into the list, right at the top. What first caught my eye was that it had a Supreme Court cite, which for the summer was quite unusual. Even stranger was that I had heard nothing about any Supreme Court activity -- outside of course for the Davis case and Sotomayor's first vote.
I took a closer look and saw that it was an opinion written by Breyer. That also seemed odd in my mind. There weren't any pending cases. Why is there a written opinion by Breyer?
Then I went to the Supreme Court's website to track it down and, at first, couldn't find it. However, there is a link in the opinion section on the website to "In-Chambers Opinions." (Whenever I write those words, I always hear a big booming voice in my head saying the words, not sure why). I clicked on the link and there it was. It's entitled O'Brien v. O'Laughlin, available here.
It's a pretty short, simple opinion in a habeas case denying a stay to Respondent in a case in which the First Circuit granted habeas relief and ordered the immediate release of petitioner. There is nothing too novel about it, just a straight-forward denial of a stay, which happens all the time. Breyer basically says to the Superintendent that, on balance, the interests are against him, particularly since Breyer does not believe there is any chance that the full Court would grant a cert. petition in the case. However, Breyer did grant the Superintendent's request for the imposition of bail. He remanded the case to the District Court for that court to set the amount.
So what was that all about?
First, I think we need to ask what an In-Chambers Opinion is?
The Supreme Court describes it on its website like this:
But the more crucial question is why issue one here? I did a little bit of searching and it turns out that they are really rare. During this term, only two were issued. And even that seems to be a high number. According to this blog post at Legal Times, there hadn't been any since the 2006 Term. These opinions are rarely, if ever, cited. I guess earlier this year an In-Chambers opinion was cited (related to the Chrysler bankruptcy), which may have been an all-time first.
I recommend reading the full blog post at the Legal Times. It's pretty interesting. Especially the crazy story about Justice Douglas at the end of the post.
From reading that post, my take on O'Brien v. O'Laughlin is that Breyer wanted to explain to the Superintendent precisely why a stay was denied, and wanted to guide the district court's discretion in ordering bail. I can't say that its unusual for a Superintendent to be denied a stay while seeking cert. in the Supreme Court. In my experience, sometimes they get a stay, sometimes they don't. But this was a slightly unusual relief order. The First Circuit issued an unconditional relief order -- immediate and unconditional release. That's pretty rare, particularly without setting any bail conditions while the cert. petition was pending. Breyer obviously felt that the imposition of bail was a necessary step to decrease any potential risk of flight while the petition was pending. In the opinion, he told the District Court to set bail at a level that Petitioner could afford. So, essentially, Breyer agrees that the Petitioner should be released, but that there needs to be some type of supervision on him. I should note that the parties agreed as to the remaining conditions that would be set in the release order.
I guess putting that all together, it does add up to a good candidate for the rare [in deep, booming voice] IN-CHAMBERS OPINION.
I took a closer look and saw that it was an opinion written by Breyer. That also seemed odd in my mind. There weren't any pending cases. Why is there a written opinion by Breyer?
Then I went to the Supreme Court's website to track it down and, at first, couldn't find it. However, there is a link in the opinion section on the website to "In-Chambers Opinions." (Whenever I write those words, I always hear a big booming voice in my head saying the words, not sure why). I clicked on the link and there it was. It's entitled O'Brien v. O'Laughlin, available here.
It's a pretty short, simple opinion in a habeas case denying a stay to Respondent in a case in which the First Circuit granted habeas relief and ordered the immediate release of petitioner. There is nothing too novel about it, just a straight-forward denial of a stay, which happens all the time. Breyer basically says to the Superintendent that, on balance, the interests are against him, particularly since Breyer does not believe there is any chance that the full Court would grant a cert. petition in the case. However, Breyer did grant the Superintendent's request for the imposition of bail. He remanded the case to the District Court for that court to set the amount.
So what was that all about?
First, I think we need to ask what an In-Chambers Opinion is?
The Supreme Court describes it on its website like this:
An in-chambers opinion is written by an individual Justice, usually the
Justice for the Circuit from which the case arises, to dispose of an
application by a party to the case for interim relief, e.g., for a stay
of the judgment of the court below, for vacation of a stay, or for a
temporary injunction.
That's what they are. But the more crucial question is why issue one here? I did a little bit of searching and it turns out that they are really rare. During this term, only two were issued. And even that seems to be a high number. According to this blog post at Legal Times, there hadn't been any since the 2006 Term. These opinions are rarely, if ever, cited. I guess earlier this year an In-Chambers opinion was cited (related to the Chrysler bankruptcy), which may have been an all-time first.
I recommend reading the full blog post at the Legal Times. It's pretty interesting. Especially the crazy story about Justice Douglas at the end of the post.
From reading that post, my take on O'Brien v. O'Laughlin is that Breyer wanted to explain to the Superintendent precisely why a stay was denied, and wanted to guide the district court's discretion in ordering bail. I can't say that its unusual for a Superintendent to be denied a stay while seeking cert. in the Supreme Court. In my experience, sometimes they get a stay, sometimes they don't. But this was a slightly unusual relief order. The First Circuit issued an unconditional relief order -- immediate and unconditional release. That's pretty rare, particularly without setting any bail conditions while the cert. petition was pending. Breyer obviously felt that the imposition of bail was a necessary step to decrease any potential risk of flight while the petition was pending. In the opinion, he told the District Court to set bail at a level that Petitioner could afford. So, essentially, Breyer agrees that the Petitioner should be released, but that there needs to be some type of supervision on him. I should note that the parties agreed as to the remaining conditions that would be set in the release order.
I guess putting that all together, it does add up to a good candidate for the rare [in deep, booming voice] IN-CHAMBERS OPINION.
Comments