Massachusetts v. Feeney

Background

On March 29, 1976, a three-judge federal trial court entered judgment for Helen B. Feeney against the Massachusetts Director of Civil Service and members of the Civil Service Commission, declaring the State’s veterans’ preference law unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. The Attorney General filed papers in this Court saying he would prosecute an appeal on behalf of those state officers. The Director and Commission members then told the Supreme Court clerk that the appeal was unauthorized and asked that the appeal be dismissed; a stipulation also shows the Governor requested the Attorney General not to pursue the appeal. The Attorney General later filed a brief defending his authority under state law to bring the appeal.

Reasoning

The central question the Court raised is whether Massachusetts law permits the State’s Attorney General to take an appeal to this Court without the consent and over the expressed objections of the state officers whom the district court judgment affects. Because the Supreme Court found that Massachusetts law likely controls this procedural question and that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had no clearly controlling precedent, the Court declined to decide the matter itself and instead certified the specific question of state law to the Massachusetts high court under Rule 3:21.

Real world impact

The certified question will determine whether the Attorney General may force an appeal despite the state officers’ objections and thus whether this Court will review the federal trial court’s decision. This is a procedural, not a merits, decision; the final outcome may change after the Massachusetts court answers the certified question.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun stated he would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, meaning he would have ended the appeal for lack of power to hear it.