Conkright v. Frommert
Headline: Court denies stay and allows a pension plan to pay additional benefits while appeal continues, rejecting applicants’ stay request even after the Solicitor General was asked to weigh in.
Holding: Acting as Circuit Justice, the Court denied the applicants’ stay request of the Second Circuit’s mandate because they failed to show a reasonable prospect of relief or irreparable harm despite Solicitor General review.
- Requires the pension plan to make additional benefit payments during appeal.
- Means money disbursed may need recoupment efforts later if the Court rules for applicants.
- Shows Solicitor General review does not ensure emergency relief like a stay.
Summary
Background
Sally L. Conkright, the administrator of the Xerox Corporation Pension Plan, and others asked a Justice in chambers to block the Second Circuit’s mandate so the plan would not have to make additional benefit payments while they seek review. The applicants argued the appeals court was wrong, that there was a circuit split, and that paying dozens of beneficiaries now would cause irreparable harm and be hard to recoup if this Court later ruled for them. An earlier in-chambers stay request was denied in October 2008.
Reasoning
The Justice explained the standard for granting an in-chambers stay: a reasonable probability that four Justices will view the case as worthy of review, a fair prospect that a majority will find the lower court erroneous, and a likelihood of irreparable harm without a stay. The Court had invited the Solicitor General to file views, but noted that such an invitation, while suggestive, is not dispositive because most invited-filed petitions are still denied. The applicants failed to show recoupment would be impossible or that the plan itself would be endangered. The Justice relied on the principle that ordinary monetary injuries, which can be remedied later, weigh against finding irreparable harm.
Real world impact
As a result, the request for a stay was denied and the Second Circuit’s mandate stands. The pension plan may have to pay benefits now and pursue any recovery later. The ruling reaffirms that Solicitor General involvement alone does not guarantee emergency relief and that stay applicants must meet all stay criteria to succeed.
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?