Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Department
Headline: High court refuses to review whether orders denying court-appointed counsel to civil-rights plaintiffs are immediately appealable, leaving the Sixth Circuit’s rule intact and circuit courts divided on the question.
Holding: The Court declined to review the question, leaving the Sixth Circuit’s rule that denials of appointment of counsel are not immediately appealable in place.
- Leaves Sixth Circuit rule that denials of appointed counsel are not immediately appealable.
- Keeps a split among federal circuit courts on appealability of counsel-denial orders.
- Makes it harder for some civil-rights plaintiffs to appeal counsel denials right away.
Summary
Background
Three people who sued under federal job-discrimination law asked a court to appoint a lawyer for them and were denied under the specific federal hiring-discrimination statute; a fourth person suing under a civil-rights statute also sought court-appointed counsel and was denied under the statute for proceeding without fees. All four appealed, and the Sixth Circuit dismissed those appeals because it held such denials were not final, citing 763 F.2d 757 (1985). The Supreme Court declined to take the case.
Reasoning
The central question was whether an order refusing to appoint a lawyer for a civil-rights plaintiff counts as a final decision that can be appealed right away under the federal appeals statute. The Court’s action was to deny review, so it did not settle that question. A justice in dissent argued the Court should have granted review because other appeals courts have reached the opposite result and the issue recurs.
Real world impact
Because the Court refused to review, the Sixth Circuit’s practice stands in that circuit: denials of appointed counsel are not immediately appealable there. The disagreement between circuits therefore remains unresolved. That outcome affects people suing under those federal civil-rights and employment statutes who need counsel, because in some places they cannot immediately take an appeal from a denial of appointed counsel.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice White, joined by Justice Blackmun, dissented from the denial and would have granted review to resolve a clear split with other circuits, citing earlier cases that held such denials are final.
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?