Schwarz v. National Security Agency
Headline: Court bars a repeat pro se filer's noncriminal Supreme Court petitions unless she pays filing fees and follows petition rules, denying her request to proceed without fees as frivolous.
Holding: The Court denies a pro se petitioner’s request to proceed without fees as frivolous and bars her from filing further noncriminal petitions for Supreme Court review (certiorari) unless she pays the docketing fee and follows filing rules.
- Denies fee-free filing for a repeat pro se petitioner
- Blocks future noncriminal Supreme Court petitions unless fees are paid and rules followed
- Preserves Court resources by curbing repeated frivolous filings
Summary
Background
A pro se petitioner named Schwarz repeatedly filed dozens of petitions asking the Court to review lower-court decisions. She sought permission to proceed without paying fees under Rule 39. The Court reported that Schwarz had already filed many petitions that were patently frivolous and repeatedly denied. The instant filings were described as her 34th and 35th frivolous petitions, and the Court recalled prior denials on December 14, 1998, under Rule 39.8.
Reasoning
The Court reviewed whether Schwarz could proceed without fees and whether to block further filings because of abuse. Citing Rule 39.8 and the Court’s prior decision in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the Court concluded her requests were frivolous and that she had abused the certiorari process. The Court denied her in forma pauperis request, set a March 29, 1999 deadline to pay the required docketing fee and to submit petitions that comply with Rule 33.1, and entered an order barring future noncriminal petitions for Supreme Court review unless she follows those conditions.
Real world impact
The ruling directly affects Schwarz by denying fee-free filing and imposing a deadline to pay and comply or be barred. The ban applies only to noncriminal Supreme Court review petitions; it does not stop her from challenging criminal sanctions or from filing extraordinary writs that are nonfrivolous. The Court said the sanction helps conserve its limited resources for other petitioners.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens filed a brief dissent, saying he disagreed for reasons previously given in Martin and related opinions and cases.
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?