Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 00-16423.
Decision Date | 26 June 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 00-16423.,00-16423. |
Citation | 328 F.3d 466 |
Parties | Michael A. NEWDOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. CONGRESS; United States of America; George W. Bush,<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> President of the United States; State of California; Elk Grove Unified School District; David W. Gordon, Superintendent EGUSD; Sacramento City Unified School District; Jim Sweeney, Superintendent SCUSD, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
v.
U.S. CONGRESS; United States of America; George W. Bush,* President of the United States; State of California; Elk Grove Unified School District; David W. Gordon, Superintendent EGUSD; Sacramento City Unified School District; Jim Sweeney, Superintendent SCUSD, Defendants-Appellees.
Page 467
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 468
Michael Newdow, Sacramento, California, pro se.
Kristin S. Door, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, California, Lowell V. Sturgill, Jr., Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for federal government defendants-appellees; A. Irving Scott, Terence J. Cassidy, Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant, Sacramento, California, for school district defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Milton L. Schwartz, Senior Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV 00-00495-MLS/PAN.
Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge GOODWIN; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge FERNANDEZ.
The opinion filed June 26, 2002 [292 F.3d 597**], is ordered amended. The Clerk is instructed to file the amended opinion with Judge Fernandez's amended concurrence/dissent. Judge Reinhardt's concurrence in the order denying rehearing en banc, along with Judge O'Scannlain's and Judge McKeown's dissent from that order shall also be filed.
The Clerk is also instructed not to accept for filing any new petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc in this case.
With the opinion thus amended, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petitions for rehearing.
The full court has been advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35.
Page 469
The petitions for rehearing are DENIED and the petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED.
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, concurring in the order.
My views as to the merits of this issue are set forth in the amended majority opinion authored by Judge Goodwin, and I adhere to them fully. I write separately for two reasons unrelated to the contents of that opinion. I write first to comment on the separate dissent to the denial of rehearing en banc authored by Judge McKeown and joined in by Judges Hawkins, Thomas, and Rawlinson, in which my colleagues appear to express the view that a case should be reheard en banc whenever it involves "a question of exceptional importance." FED. R. APP. P. 35(a)(2).1 Second, I am compelled to register my strong disagreement with one particularly unfortunate aspect of Judge O'Scannlain's principal dissent that reflects a serious misconception of fundamental constitutional principles and the proper role of the federal judiciary.
As to the first question, I disagree with the notion that the importance of an issue is a sufficient reason to take a case en banc, either under the Rule or as a matter of judicial policy. Rule 35(a) advises this court of its discretionary power to order that a case already decided by a three-judge panel be reheard by the full court. Specifically, the rule begins by stating that a "majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc." FED. R. APP. P. 35(a) (emphasis added). Subsection two guides such discretionary consideration by stating that one compelling reason to grant rehearing en banc is the "exceptional importance" of a particular case.
The most reasonable construction of the Rule is that this court should rehear a case en banc when it is both of exceptional importance and the decision requires correction. See United States v. Burdeau, 180 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir.1999) (Tashima, J., concurring in the order denying rehearing en banc) ("Subject to rare exceptions,... we should review the statements in three[-]judge panel opinions only to `determine whether the [panel's] legal error resulted in an erroneous judgment.....'") (quoting Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)). A decision may warrant correction because a three-judge panel has reached a result or adopted a legal rule or principle that conflicts with our existing circuit law or that the majority of our court believes is incorrect and needs further review. The fact that three-judge panels often decide cases of exceptional importance, whether it be the constitutionality of a state's decision to execute an individual who may be innocent, the existence or non-existence of a fundamental right, or the ability of the Congress to require the states to comply with federal law — an issue that some of us thought had been settled by the successful end to the Civil War — is an unremarkable, but undeniably important, aspect of our appellate system. See Tracey E. George, The
Page 470
Dynamics and Determinants of the Decision to Grant En Banc Review, 74 WASH. L. REV. 213, 218 (1999) (stating that three-judge panels "representing and acting on behalf of the whole court" is a "basic tenet of our intermediate appellate system"). Unless reconsidered en banc, a decision of a three-judge panel is a decision of our court and speaks for our court. Moreover, it ordinarily constitutes the final judicial decision.2
To rehear a case en banc simply on the basis that it involves an important issue would undermine the three-judge panel system and create an impractical and crushing burden on what otherwise should be, as Rule 35(a) suggests, an exceptional occurrence. See FED. R. APP. P. 35(a) ("An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored...."). According to statistics kept by the Clerk of the court, in 2002 this court decided 5,190 cases on the merits, more than 98% of which were finally decided by three-judge panels. These decisions are not measures of "rough justice," later to be refined by the en banc court. Unless they decide issues of exceptional importance erroneously, create a direct intra-circuit split, or unless the interests of justice require that the decision be corrected, the opinions of three-judge panels should constitute the final action of this court.
I also feel compelled to discuss a disturbingly wrongheaded approach to constitutional law manifested in the dissent authored by Judge O'Scannlain. The dissent suggests that this court should be able to conclude that the panel's holding was erroneous by observing the "public and political reaction" to its decision. Dissent at 2783. This is not the first time that the magnitude of the political response regarding an issue has distracted certain members of this court. An equally disturbing misunderstanding of the nature of our Constitution and the role of the federal judiciary was manifested in Coalition for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692 (9th Cir.1997), a case involving a California initiative on the subject of affirmative action. There, the three-judge panel, in a case that unfortunately was not taken en banc, notwithstanding its exceptional importance, made the following remarkable statement: "A system which permits one judge to block with the stroke of a pen what 4,736,180 state residents voted to enact as law tests the integrity of our constitutional democracy." Id. at 699 (O'Scannlain, J.).
The Bill of Rights is, of course, intended to protect the rights of those in the minority against the temporary passions of a majority which might wish to limit their freedoms or liberties. As Justice Jackson recognized:
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628
Page 471
(1943). It is the highest calling of federal judges to invoke the Constitution to repudiate unlawful majoritarian actions and, when necessary, to strike down statutes that would infringe on fundamental rights, whether such statutes are adopted by legislatures or by popular vote. The constitutional system that vests such power in an independent judiciary does not "test[] the integrity of ... democracy." It makes democracy vital, and is one of our proudest heritages.
Moreover, Article III judges are by constitutional design insulated from the political pressures governing members of the other two branches of government. We are given life tenure and a secured salary so that, in our unique capacity to "say what the law is," Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60, 177 (1803), we may decide constitutional issues without regard to popular vote, political consequence, or the prospect of future career advancement.3 Most federal judges do not question the wisdom of this approach. When the federal judiciary is so firmly separated by constitutional structure from the direct influence of politics, we must not undermine that structure by allowing political pressures, polls, or "focus groups" to influence our opinions, even indirectly.
This is not to say that federal judges should be completely sequestered from the attitudes of the nation we serve, even though our service is accomplished not through channeling popular sentiment but through strict adherence to established constitutional principles. The Constitution contemplates occasions when we must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Couch
-
Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow
... ... In 1942, in the midst of World War II, Congress adopted, and the President signed, a Joint Resolution codifying a detailed set of "rules and ... [we have] avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon [us] for decision." Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Always ... ...
-
Myers v. Loudoun County Public Schools
... ... father, now have competent counsel, and they have specifically asked us to decide the appeal. Moreover, as discussed in more detail below, our ... The Establishment Clause provides, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." U.S. Const ... Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004), several justices ... ...
-
R.G. v. Koller
... ... very soon I will either hurt myself or someone else and I know none of us want this to happen ... (Joint Ex. 57.) ... Newdow v. United States Cong., 328 F.3d 466, 487 (9th Cir.2003), rev'd on other ... ...
-
A Jurisdictional View of the United States Constitution
...at Vera Cruz and marched across Catholic Mexico. 98. Id. at 8-9. 99. Id. at 15-16. 100. Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir.), reversed for lack of standing, 542 U.S. 1 (2004). 101. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S.624 (1943). 102. L......
-
Public Mood, Previous Electoral Experience, and Responsiveness Among Federal Circuit Court Judges
...(2017) for further theory and literature review on public opinion’s impact on the U.S. Supreme Court. 2. 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002); 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2003). 3. In fact, some evidence suggests elected officials are just as responsive to ers in the general public as they are to voters......
-
Avoiding Constitutional Cases
...Journal of Political Science, 41, 447-467.Newdow v. United States Congress, 292 F.3d 597 (2002a).Newdow v. United States Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (2002b).Nichol, G. R., Jr. (1987). Ripeness and the constitution. University of Chicago Law Review, 54, 153-183.Pacelle, R. L., Jr. (2002). The rol......
-
Judicial performance review: a balance between judicial independence and public accountability.
...reviews. See supra note 34. (140.) Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004) (overturning Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. (141.) See Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005). (142.) See Rufo v. Simpson, 86 Cal. App. 4th 573 (Cal. C......