Glidden Co. v. Zdanok

Background

Two cases raised the same question about judge assignments. One involved several employees who won a state-law contract case after the Court of Appeals panel included a judge from the Court of Claims sitting by designation. The other was a criminal conviction tried before a retired judge of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals likewise sitting by designation. Petitioners argued those judges lacked the lifetime job and pay protections the Constitution guarantees for Article III judges, and so their participation tainted the results.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether the two specialty federal tribunals must be treated as Article III courts. It examined the courts’ history, the kinds of cases they hear, and Congress’s later declarations that they were Article III courts. The majority concluded most of their work is ordinary federal judicial business, that suits they decide are justiciable, and that the small amount of administrative or reference work does not turn them into non-Article III bodies. Giving weight to Congress’s statements and the courts’ practical role, the Court held the tribunals are Article III courts and their judges have the Constitution’s tenure and pay protections, so their temporary assignments to other federal courts are valid.

Real world impact

People whose trials or appeals were handled by judges from those two courts have their judgments preserved. The ruling lets retired or designated judges from those tribunals continue to sit temporarily on district and appellate panels. The decision stabilizes the federal docket by removing a constitutional ground to undo many past decisions where those judges participated.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurrence agreed with the result but would not overrule earlier cases, while a dissent argued the decision erases an important Article I/Article III distinction and underestimated tenure and jury-trial protections.