United States ex rel. Robinson v. Johnston
Headline: Split among Ninth Circuit judges leads the Court to grant review, set aside the appeals court’s judgment, and send the case back for further proceedings and possible full‑court (en banc) rehearing.
Holding: The Court granted review, vacated the Ninth Circuit judgment, allowed in forma pauperis, and remanded for further proceedings including leave to seek an en banc hearing.
- Grants the petitioner review and sends the case back to the Ninth Circuit for more proceedings.
- Allows the petitioner to apply for a full‑court (en banc) rehearing in the Ninth Circuit.
- Permits the petitioner to proceed without prepaying court fees (in forma pauperis).
Summary
Background
Thomas Henry Robinson, Jr., acting without a lawyer, asked the Supreme Court to review a decision from the Ninth Circuit. A prior order denying review was recorded at 314 U. S. 675, but differences of opinion among Ninth Circuit judges about the legal issues in this case were noted in earlier Ninth Circuit decisions cited in the opinion.
Reasoning
Because conflicting views had developed among Ninth Circuit judges and because a recent Supreme Court decision (Waley v. Johnston) had affected related Ninth Circuit authority, the Court granted the petitioner’s late rehearing request, allowed him to proceed without prepaying fees, set aside the prior denial of review, and agreed to take the case. The Court then vacated the lower-court judgment and sent the matter back to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings. The Court explicitly allowed the petitioner to seek a full‑court (en banc) rehearing there.
Real world impact
As a result, the petitioner obtained Supreme Court review and new proceedings in the Ninth Circuit; the case is not finally decided on the merits. The remand gives the appeals court the opportunity to reconsider its ruling in light of the Supreme Court’s recent directions and the noted internal conflict, and it allows the petitioner to ask the full appeals court to rehear the 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?