Utah v. United States
Headline: Court appoints Judge Charles Fahy as Special Master with broad authority to manage case filings, take evidence, issue subpoenas, and charge his expenses to the parties while the case proceeds.
Holding:
- Makes Special Master manage filings and direct further case proceedings.
- Allows the Special Master to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take evidence.
- Charges the Master's expenses and assistants' costs to the parties as the Court directs.
Summary
Background
The Court ordered that Judge Charles Fahy be appointed Special Master in this case to replace Judge J. Cullen Ganey, who is deceased. The order names the Special Master and explains the roles and logistical rules that will govern his work in the matter.
Reasoning
The Court granted the Special Master authority to fix the time and conditions for filing additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings. He may summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take evidence both that is introduced and that he deems necessary to call for. The Master is directed to submit reports as he finds appropriate. The order also provides that the Master will be allowed his actual expenses and that his allowances, the compensation of his technical, stenographic, and clerical assistants, the cost of printing his report, and other proper expenses will be charged against and borne by the parties in proportions the Court will decide later.
Real world impact
Practically, this appointment delegates active case administration to the Special Master, who will control deadlines, evidence gathering, and reporting to the Court. Parties in the case should expect to respond to the Master’s scheduling orders and to bear costs related to the Master’s work as allocated by the Court. The order further states that if the Special Master position becomes vacant during a Court recess, the Chief Justice may designate a replacement with the same effect as an original Court appointment.
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?