Evans v. Stephens
The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to President Bush's appointment of Judge William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit during a brief Senate break, leaving the constitutional question unresolved.
Justice Stevens wrote separately to stress that the denial was based on practical, case-specific reasons and should not be read as the Court approving the President's power to fill judicial vacancies, including future Supreme Court seats, through short recess appointments.
How it got here: The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld Judge Pryor's appointment as constitutional; the challengers asked the Supreme Court to review that interlocutory ruling, and the Court denied review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
President Bush appointed William H. Pryor Jr. to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals during an 11-day President's Day break in February 2004, without Senate confirmation, relying on the Constitution's Recess Appointments Clause. Litigants before the Eleventh Circuit challenged the constitutionality of this intrasession appointment, arguing such a short break did not qualify as a genuine "recess" allowing the President to bypass the Senate.
The question before the Court
Was the President's temporary appointment of a federal appeals judge during an 11-day Senate break constitutional?
Why it matters
The decision leaves open, without resolving, whether presidents can use brief Senate breaks to place judges on the bench without Senate confirmation. That question matters for how future court vacancies — including potential Supreme Court openings — might be filled if the Senate and White House disagree over nominees.
What changes now
Because certiorari was denied, the Eleventh Circuit's en banc ruling upholding Judge Pryor's appointment stands as the final word in this case, and Judge Pryor's continued service on the court is undisturbed. The broader constitutional question about presidential recess appointments to lifetime judicial posts remains unresolved and could resurface in a future case, as Stevens explicitly cautioned against reading this denial as settling the issue.
What this does not decide
The denial of certiorari does not decide whether the President has constitutional authority to fill future Article III judicial vacancies, including Supreme Court seats, through short intrasession recess appointments made without Senate consent. Justice Stevens explicitly warned against reading the denial as resolving that question.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Stevens
“a denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits of any issue raised by the petition.”Stevens cautions that declining to hear the case does not resolve the constitutional question.
Justice Stevens agreed that practical, case-specific factors justified denying review, including the rarity of this type of appointment, the interlocutory posture of the case, and the Eleventh Circuit's view that the appointment's constitutionality did not affect its jurisdiction. But he emphasized that this denial should not be mistaken for an endorsement of the President's constitutional authority to make similar recess appointments to Article III courts, including the Supreme Court, in the future.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Justice Stevens explained that denying review does not amount to a ruling on the merits of the constitutional question the petition raised, a point he had made in past cases involving denials of certiorari.
- He identified several practical reasons weighing against review: this was the first such intrasession appointment of a life-tenured federal judge in nearly fifty years, making it an unusual rather than recurring problem needing immediate resolution.
- He noted the challengers were asking the Court to review an interlocutory order — a ruling issued before the underlying case was finished — which courts generally avoid reviewing until a final judgment exists.
- He observed that the Eleventh Circuit itself had not treated the appointment's constitutionality as affecting its power to hear the case, since the panel's authority to rule did not depend on resolving that question.
- Based on these case-specific, practical concerns rather than a judgment on the constitutional merits, the Court denied the petition for review.