« Ind. Courts - More on cell phone bans in Indiana courthouses | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 10 NFP) »

Friday, June 15, 2007

Courts - “[I]t is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way.” [Updated]

Those are the words of Justice David Souter, writing for the four dissenters in The Supreme Court's decision Thursday in Bowles v. Russell. Linda Greenhouse of the NY Times quotes Souter today in a column headed "Justices, 5-4, Accept No Excuses From Inmate for Mistaken Late Filing of an Appeal." Some quotes:

A narrow Supreme Court majority on Thursday agreed that a lower court properly dismissed the appeal of a man who missed a federal filing deadline by three days because of a federal district judge’s erroneous instructions.

The defendant, Keith Bowles, who is serving a sentence of 15 years to life for murder, had argued that given the judge’s erroneous instruction — that he had 18 days to file an appeal instead of the 14 that federal law allows — his case should come within the “unique circumstances” doctrine that the Supreme Court created to recognize unusual instances when jurisdictional rules need not be strictly enforced.

The court, however, used the case to announce it was overruling the two precedents the Supreme Court had used when it established the “unique circumstances” doctrine in the 1960s. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court now regarded the doctrine as illegitimate. “If rigorous rules like the one applied today are thought to be inequitable,” Justice Thomas added, the remedy should come from Congress.

Justice David H. Souter, writing for the four dissenters in the case, Bowles v. Russell, No. 06-5306, objected that “it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way.” He added, “There is not even a technical justification for condoning this bait and switch.”

Greenhouse also notes that the 5-4 alignment here "was the same alignment by which the court last month enforced a deadline in a different context, when it ruled that pay discriminations suits were barred unless the employee had filed a formal complaint within 180 days of the initial pay decision, a ruling that some Congressional Democrats are trying to override through legislation."

[Update] Tony Mauro of The Legal Times also writes about the decision today, under the headline "Low-Profile Supreme Court Case Offers Glimpse of Sharp Divide."

[Update 6/17/07] The Washington Post today has a strong editorial on the Bowles decision.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 15, 2007 12:39 PM
Posted to Courts in general