Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit of United States, No. 1111

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation86 S.Ct. 610,382 U.S. 1003,15 L.Ed.2d 494
Decision Date21 January 1966
PartiesStephen S. CHANDLER, United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, petitioner, v. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT OF the UNITED STATES. isc
Docket NumberM,No. 1111

382 U.S. 1003
86 S.Ct. 610
15 L.Ed.2d 494
Stephen S. CHANDLER, United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, petitioner,

v.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT OF the UNITED STATES.

No. 1111, Misc.

Supreme Court of the United States

January 21, 1966

Thomas J. Kenan, for petitioner.

Solicitor General Marshall, for respondent.

Petitioner applied to Mr. Justice White, Circuit Justice for the Tenth Circuit, for "Stay of Order of Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit of the United States" in the above matter, and the application was by him referred to the Court for its consideration and action.

It appearing to the Court from the response of the Solicitor General to the application that the order from which relief is sought is entirely interlocutory in character pending prompt further proceedings inquiring into the administration of Judge Chandler of judicial business in the Western District of Oklahoma, and that at such proceedings Judge Chandler will be permitted to appear before the Council, with counsel, and that after such proceedings the Council will, as soon as possible, undertake to decide what use, if any, should be made of such powers as it may have in the premises, it is hereby ordered that the application for stay be denied pending

Page 1004

this contemplated prompt action of the Judicial Council. The Court expresses no opinion concerning the propriety of the interlocutory action taken.

Dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Black with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins:

United States District Judge Stephen S. Chandler here asks for a stay of an "Order" of the Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit directing that until further order of the Council, Judge Chandler "take no action whatsoever in any case or proceeding now or hereafter pending" in his court, that cases now assigned to him be assigned to other judges, and that no new actions filed be assigned to him. If this order is not stayed and if the Judicial Council has some way to enforce it, the order means that Judge Chandler is completely barred from performing any of his official duties and in effect is removed or ousted from office pending further orders of the Council. The reason given by the Council for this drastic action is that it "finds that Judge Chandler is presently unable, or unwilling to discharge efficiently the duties of his office. * * * " By refusing to stay the Council's order, the Court necessarily acts on the premise that the Council...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Chandler v. Judicial Council of Tenth Circuit of United States, No. 2
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1970
    ...proceedings * * * and that at such proceedings Judge Chandler will be permitted to appear before the Council, with counsel * * *.' 382 U.S. 1003, 86 S.Ct. 610, 15 L.Ed.2d 494. On January 24, 1966, Judge Chandler addressed a letter to his fellow district judges indicating that he objected to......
  • Palmore v. United States 8212 11, No. 72
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 24, 1973
    ...with the federal judiciary have not been successful, unless it be the bizarre decision of this Court in Chandler v. Judicial Council, 382 U.S. 1003, 1004, 86 S.Ct. 610, 15 L.Ed.2d 494, in which Mr. Justice Black and I dissented. The States, of course, have mostly gone the other way.10 But a......
  • Adams v. Rubinow
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 20, 1968
    ...as an interlocutory action, even without passing on 'the propriety of the interlocutory action taken' in Chandler v. Judicial Council, 382 U.S. 1003, 1004, 86 S.Ct. 610, 15 L.Ed.2d 494. In that case, the council had found that the judge "is presently unable, or unwilling, to discharge effic......
  • Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., Nos. 82-3152
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • February 16, 1984
    ...declared himself in "wholehearted agreement" with Justice Black's dissent from the denial of a stay in Chandler v. Judicial Council, 382 U.S. 1003, 86 S.Ct. 610, 15 L.Ed.2d 494 (1966) (mem.), which One of the great advances made in the structure of government by our Constitution was its pro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Chandler v. Judicial Council of Tenth Circuit of United States, No. 2
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1970
    ...proceedings * * * and that at such proceedings Judge Chandler will be permitted to appear before the Council, with counsel * * *.' 382 U.S. 1003, 86 S.Ct. 610, 15 L.Ed.2d 494. On January 24, 1966, Judge Chandler addressed a letter to his fellow district judges indicating that he objected to......
  • Palmore v. United States 8212 11, No. 72
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 24, 1973
    ...with the federal judiciary have not been successful, unless it be the bizarre decision of this Court in Chandler v. Judicial Council, 382 U.S. 1003, 1004, 86 S.Ct. 610, 15 L.Ed.2d 494, in which Mr. Justice Black and I dissented. The States, of course, have mostly gone the other way.10 But a......
  • Adams v. Rubinow
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 20, 1968
    ...as an interlocutory action, even without passing on 'the propriety of the interlocutory action taken' in Chandler v. Judicial Council, 382 U.S. 1003, 1004, 86 S.Ct. 610, 15 L.Ed.2d 494. In that case, the council had found that the judge "is presently unable, or unwilling, to discharge effic......
  • Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., Nos. 82-3152
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • February 16, 1984
    ...declared himself in "wholehearted agreement" with Justice Black's dissent from the denial of a stay in Chandler v. Judicial Council, 382 U.S. 1003, 86 S.Ct. 610, 15 L.Ed.2d 494 (1966) (mem.), which One of the great advances made in the structure of government by our Constitution was its pro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT