Good point.
i think more courts would love to use the “writ of enoughus is enoughus.”
in answer to how many more chances… for her parents: billions of chances would be to few, for terri: there have been more chances than what she would want.
-
I now agree with **Billdo **and Cliffy. The District Court sidestepped the issue of jurisdiction in deciding the case. Jurisdiction of a Federal Court is a preliminary and mandatory issue. The case the court cited does not hold that a court should presume constitutionality in a preliminary injunction proceeding, and it has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the court’s jurisdictional grant. I can’t put my hands on the cases just now, but I know this to be the law.
-
In most cases, courts do have the equivalent of the “writ of enoughus is enoughus.” For instance, they can bar prisoners from filing forma pauperis cases, if they find that they have filed a few frivolous cases. Also the doctrines of res judicata, and law of the case typically prevent relitigation of issues and attempts to introduce new arguments after losing on an issue. That said, it is always a little trickier in injunction cases and guardianship matters. Judgments in cases like those are almost always interlocutory, and subject to reconsideration upon changed circumstances.
I’m going to have to quibble with this (because sometimes I’m a quibbler that way).
Although lack of jurisdiction prohibits a court from rendering judgment in a case, it does not mean that the court entirely lacks power. In cases where there is a factual or legal question about whether the court has jurisdiction, the court has the power to determine whether it has jurisdiction.
To take an unrelated example, if there is a question about the state of residence of a party that would determine whether a federal court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, the court can hold a hearing, order discovery, hear witnesses and rule on where the party resides and whether the court has jurisdiction. Even if the court finds it does not have jurisdiction, the acts that court took prior to that determination are fully legitimate and enforcable. For instance, if someone failed to comply with a subpoena to testify at the jurisdiction hearing, that person would be punishable in contempt, even if the underlying case were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
As a corollary to a court’s power to determine its jurisdiction, the court has the power to make orders to preserve the subject matter of the suit pending its determination of its own jurisdiction. The matter before the District Court Judge was a temporary restraining order, which would only be in effect until the court held full hearing on a preliminary injunction. At the preliminary injunction hearing, the court would no doubt consider the Constitutionality of the special act and its own jurisdiction. Even if the court determined after a hearing that it had no jurisdiction, the temporary restraining order would be a valid exercise of the court’s power while the question of jursdiction was still undetermined.
The court’s statement that it should presume a Congressional act Constitutional probably refers only to the very short-term relief in a temporary restraining order motion (which can be made without notice or a hearing), suggesting that the court should only find laws unconstitutitional after a full, contested hearing on the merits. (I would imagine that a court could overcome this presumption for a law that was plainly unconstitutional on its face, a situation not present here).
Excellent points, Biildo. Query whether such a preliminary jurisdictional assumption is acceptable only if jurisdiction (or, more importantly, want thereof) is immediately apparent. If you could eyeball that there’s clearly no jurisdiction, would you still be allowed to assume it for purposes of a TRO? What if you could eyeball that there’s almost certainly no jurisdiction?
Hmm.
–Cliffy
Cliffy, I think the presumption is only a presumption that a federal court could overcome if the law at issue were obviously unconstitutional on its face. My experience with the federal judiciary is they don’t have any problem with throwing cases out when warranted, and even less problem denying temporary restraining orders. I think that this is one of those “common sense wins out” things.
It is interesting that neither the District Court nor the 11th Circuit cited a case or even miscited a case expressing Billdo’s notion. I don’t dispute the idea that a federal court has limited jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction, and hence on a TRO, the court might presume that it has jurisdiction. Instead the courts cited cases discussing a general preumption that congress intends to act within the constitution. Having researched TRO standards before, I note that there are few cases discussing them because:
- The grant or denial of a TRO is generally not appeallable, so appellate opinions are hard to find.
- TRO’s are emergency petitions which require an immediate decision, and hence do not lend themselves to well-researched trial court opinions.
- Preliminary injunctions (and their denials) are based on more thorough briefings and evidentiary hearings.
Getting back to the OP, the same protections that already deal with the “junk lawsuits” that Bush has been raging against could be used to stop or punish the repetetive litigation in this case.
Rule 11 and 18 USC Section 1927 in federal court, and this
Florida Statute and appellate procedure rule
[Hijack]
The Terri Schiavo bill, and the conduct of those who passed it, represents everything that offends people about trial lawyers and their junk lawsuits. Let’s see, they:
- Shopped forums, looking for one that would rule in their favor.
- Shopped experts, hiding and ignoring the opinions of those that would not support their arguments.
- Made arguments that had already been rejected by multiple courts, including the United States Supreme Court.
- Relied on “experts” whose opinions were influenced by their religion and their politics instead of science. Many of these experts have never examined the patient, and few have even looked at the medical records. Their theories lack general acceptance in the scientific community and have not been published in peer-reviewed journals.
- Relied on emotional arguments, instead of legal and factual ones. Arguments like these are the kind that result in those huge non-economic damage awards that are unfair to medical practitioners and their insurance companies. That’s why it is so important for the United States Congress to decide for all of us that the most any amount of pain and suffering, including the loss of a loved one, can possibly be worth, is $250,000.
[/Hijack]
This is certainly just a guess but it looks to me like the courts from bottom to top have decided that enough is enough. The Supreme Court has refused to hear the case for the 6th time and I believe that the federal judge in Tampa has turned down the latest Schindler try.
It would appear that the lower courts now feel confident that they will not be overturned if they rule against the parents and are determined to reach a final conclusion.
Yes and no. So far, these courts have at least entertained the petitions, motions, complaints, and other court papers filed by the Schindlers despite the lack of a single win for them. Eventually, some of us hope the court will issue something like this:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-9220.ZPC.html
http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/01-1113.htm
or this:
Truly a writ of enoughus is enoughus
Since this thread has discussed the ability of the courts to determine their jurisdiction and the constitutionality of Terri Schiavo act on a temporary restraining order motion, I thought I’d bring up today’s 11th Circuit Ruling (PDF file) again denying rehearing by the full court, en banc.
In the ruling, Judge Birch specially concurred to state that he felt that the Terri Schiavo act was unconstitutional and that the federal courts therefore lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Judge Tjoflat, in his dissent, explained why he thought the act was constitutional.
Since this was a denial of rehearing en banc, the special concurrance and dissent are dicta and have no precedential value. However they are interesting views of two federal judges on the issue.
[Extreme quibble]Neither a dissent nor a concurring opinion has precedential value anyway. The opinion of the court is precedent, but may contain some dicta.[/Extreme quibble]
I note that the 11th Circuit issued something of a writ of enoughus is enoughus when it set a time limit for requests for rehearing, and then only permitted the Schindlers to file their rehearing request instead of setting a hearing on the petition as other courts have done.
I might add that “I just thought up a new argument” has never been grounds for reconsideration or rehearing.
This has been quite an entertaining and informative thread. While some of the legalese, both in the thread and in the linke, was a bit over my head, I appreciate the time you all have taken to answer my question.
Thank you all very much.
So what’s enoughus is enoughus in Latin? 