Karcher v. May

1987-12-01

Headline: Former state legislative leaders cannot continue an appeal after leaving office, so the Court dismissed their attempt to appeal a ruling that struck down a school minute-of-silence law.

Holding: The Court held that officials who intervened only in their official roles cannot continue an appeal after leaving office, so the appeal was dismissed for lack of authority to proceed.

Real World Impact:

Prevents former officeholders from continuing institutional appeals after leaving office.
Requires successors or the institution to carry on appeals for government entities.
Leaves lower-court rulings intact when the official institution declines to pursue an appeal.

Topics: religion in schools, minute of silence, appeals by public officials, state legislature representation

Summary

Background

Two former presiding officers of the New Jersey Legislature stepped in to defend a 1982 law requiring a one-minute period of silence in public schools after the State Attorney General would not defend it. A public school teacher, students, and parents sued under federal law, arguing the law violated the First Amendment’s ban on government-established religion. The District Court found the law unconstitutional; the Court of Appeals affirmed. After those officers lost their leadership posts, the legislature’s new leaders withdrew the legislature’s appeal, but the former officers tried to continue the appeal on their own.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether officials who participated only in their official roles can keep appealing once they leave office. It explained that when officials intervene in an official capacity they represent the institution, not themselves personally. Federal rules automatically substitute successors in office. The record showed the officers had intervened only for the legislature and never as individual legislators, so they lacked authority to pursue the appeal. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction and rejected the argument that the lower judgments must be vacated.

Real world impact

The decision makes clear that former officeholders cannot continue institutional appeals after leaving office; successors or the institution must pursue appeals. It leaves the lower courts’ rulings in place because the legislature declined to press the appeal.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White agreed with the dismissal and emphasized substitution of successors, but he did not decide whether individual legislators could ever intervene on their own.