In Re Application of Burwell
Headline: Court dismisses certified jurisdiction questions and affirms that federal appeals courts may hear applications for certificates of probable cause, leaving internal procedure and reviewability to each Court of Appeals.
Holding:
- Lets appeals courts hear certificate-of-probable-cause requests addressed to the court.
- Leaves procedure (panel or single judge) to each Court of Appeals.
- Makes appeals-court decisions unreviewable if within judicial discretion.
Summary
Background
The Ninth Circuit asked the Supreme Court three legal questions about whether Congress or the Court had given appeals courts the power to issue a “certificate of probable cause” and who in an appeals court should decide such applications. Earlier in the Term the Supreme Court found the Ninth Circuit was wrong to say it lacked that power and reversed two judgments so the applicants’ requests could be considered on their merits.
Reasoning
The Court confirmed that the appeals court should be able to entertain applications for certificates of probable cause addressed to the court rather than only to an individual judge. The Supreme Court declined to prescribe how an appeals court must handle those applications — whether by a panel, a single judge, or some other method — and emphasized that internal procedural choices fall within the Court of Appeals’ judicial discretion.
Real world impact
As a result, appeals courts have authority to hear these certificate requests and can set their own procedures for doing so. The Supreme Court dismissed the certified questions it was asked to answer, meaning it will not tell the appeals courts exactly how to act, and, so long as the appeals court stays within normal judicial discretion, the Supreme Court will not review those procedural choices.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?