United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia · 1923 · Federal Courts
288 F. 252 (1923)
Updated
Federal Courtstaxpayer standing barinjunctionAct of CongressMaternity Billmotion to dismissexpedited dispositionpublic policy
Facts
This suit was based on the assumption that the Maternity Bill was an unwarranted exercise of power by Congress. The plaintiff sought an injunction restraining the appellees from enforcing the statute. The court noted that another case involving the same question was already pending in the Supreme Court and set for hearing soon. The Department of Justice, with the appellant concurring, asked the court to expedite decision so that an appeal could be lodged in time to be argued with the other case.
Issue
Whether the court should take the time to consider and decide the case on the merits, or instead enter a prompt pro forma disposition to facilitate timely Supreme Court review alongside another pending case involving the same question.
Rule
When the Department of Justice shows that public policy requires advancement of a cause, and the opposing party joins in that showing, it is not improper for the court to expedite the case and enter a pro forma affirmance so that prompt Supreme Court review may be obtained. The government has no special privilege on the merits, but such a procedural request may be granted in these circumstances.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Denver, Nora Patel sued federal officials to enjoin enforcement of a new agricultural subsidy statute. The district court dismissed her suit, and while her appeal was pending, a separate case presenting the same legal question was already set for argument in the Supreme Court in three weeks. The Department of Justice asked the court of appeals to decide immediately by pro forma affirmance so the case could be docketed in time to be heard with the pending Supreme Court case, and Nora agreed.
What is the most appropriate disposition by the court of appeals under the governing rule?
Explanation. The controlling rule permits a court to expedite a case and enter a pro forma affirmance when the Department of Justice shows that public policy requires advancement of the cause, the opposing party joins in that showing, and delay would prevent timely Supreme Court review with a related pending case. The opinion expressly rejects any idea that the government has special privilege on the merits; the basis is procedural necessity and concurrence by both sides.