In Re Amendment to Rule 39
Headline: Court allows denying free (in forma pauperis) filings judged frivolous, amending Rule 39 and making it harder for indigent litigants to obtain Supreme Court review while paid filers still face fees and rules.
Holding: The Court amended Rule 39 to let it deny motions to proceed without paying fees when a petition is found frivolous or malicious, allowing summary refusal of free filings while paid filers keep fee and printing rules.
- Allows Court to reject free filings judged frivolous without merits review.
- Makes it harder for indigent people to get Supreme Court review.
- Reduces clerical burden on the Clerk’s office and Court staff.
Summary
Background
The Court adopted an amendment to Rule 39 that targets filings submitted without paying fees (commonly called in forma pauperis or “free” filings). The change adds a provision allowing the Court to deny motions to proceed without paying if a petition is found frivolous or malicious. The opinion notes paid filings face a $300 fee and printing rules and that other tools (like awarding costs or damages under Rule 42.2) deter frivolous paid filings but do not work for free filers whose status rests on an affidavit of inability to pay.
Reasoning
The core question was how to protect the Court’s resources and staff from repetitive, abusive filings while preserving meaningful access. The Court concluded that existing safeguards for paying filers do not deter abusive free filings, so it is necessary to allow denial of leave to proceed without payment and to dispose of clearly frivolous matters without first granting free status. The new rule is modeled on long-standing practices in lower federal courts and applies only to filings the Court determines would be denied on their merits in any event.
Real world impact
Starting July 1, 1991, indigent litigants whose petitions the Court deems frivolous can be barred from proceeding without paying, which may reduce the number of free petitions and lighten the Clerk’s workload. Paying litigants remain subject to the filing fee, printing rules, and possible cost awards. This change is procedural (affecting access and screening), not a decision on the merits of particular cases.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices Marshall and Stevens (joined by Blackmun) dissented. Marshall called the rule an unfair, money-based barrier to the Court and argued it conditions “a day in Court” on wealth. Stevens said the change was unnecessary, costly to administer, and harmful to the symbolic value of equal access.
Opinions in this case:
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?