Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Local No. 6167, United Mine Workers

Background

A coal company and a miners’ union were involved in a case that led to a petition asking the Court to rehear the matter. The unusual part of the petition was that it questioned whether one Justice was qualified to take part in the decision. The Court issued a denial of the petition for rehearing.

Reasoning

A Justice who agreed with denying rehearing explained the reasons. He said complaints about a Justice’s qualification are not properly addressed to the entire Court. There is no statute or uniform rule telling a Justice when to withdraw. Historically, each Justice decides for himself whether to step aside. He also said he knew of no power for a majority of the Court to exclude a duly appointed Justice from sitting or voting. Rehearing requests are addressed to the majority that issued the decision, so dissenting Justices generally cannot force rehearing.

Real world impact

The decision leaves the denial of rehearing in place and keeps the original outcome intact. It clarifies that challenges to a Justice’s participation must be handled individually, not by forcing the whole Court to act to remove or exclude a Justice. The explanation warns that lack of uniform practice may continue to cause confusion for lawyers and litigants about how to raise such complaints.

Dissents or concurrances

The explanatory statement was written by one Justice who concurred in the denial and was joined by another Justice; it openly describes the limited grounds for refusing the petition and emphasizes individual responsibility of each Justice.