United States v. Finnell

Background

A federal court clerk in the Kentucky district (Joseph O. Finnell) recorded and entered judges’ written orders that were mailed to him and then submitted an account claiming per‑day attendance pay for 199 days, totaling $995. The Treasury refused payment, the Court of Claims awarded judgment to the clerk, and the case reached the Supreme Court for review.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the clerk could be paid when the judge was not physically present but had directed orders in writing that the clerk entered. The Court interpreted the statutes to allow pay when the court is “opened for business” or when “business is actually transacted in court.” It concluded that entering judges’ written orders pursuant to their directions can qualify as business actually transacted in court. The Court also relied on a long‑standing departmental practice of paying similar claims and held that, absent clear error, that practice should be respected.

Real world impact

The decision lets court clerks recover per‑day attendance fees for similar entries made under judges’ written orders sent to the clerk, and limits the Treasury’s ability to refuse such longstanding claims without clearer statutory direction. Congress, however, remains free to change the rule by new legislation.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices dissented, arguing a judge’s personal presence is essential to make a court “in session,” that the journal entries were formalities, and that departmental practice cannot justify payment when the statute requires the judge’s opening in person.