Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Hayburn's Case

Supreme Court of the United States · 1792 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawdivided courtmotion deniedAttorney Generalpension claimspractice rulesKing's BenchChancery

Facts

The Attorney General sought relief in connection with Hayburn, an interested party, after judges had refused to carry into effect an Act of Congress concerning pension-related claims. His initial motion made ex officio was not allowed because the Court was divided in opinion on that question. He then proceeded on behalf of Hayburn and argued the merits of the controversy. The Court held the motion under advisement, but before any decision was announced, the legislature provided relief through different legislation.

Issue

Whether the Court would grant the Attorney General's motion, first made ex officio and then on behalf of an interested party, in a matter involving the Act of Congress and the judges' refusal to carry it into effect. Also, whether the Court would immediately decide the merits once the motion was renewed on behalf of Hayburn.

Rule

If the Court is divided in opinion on the question presented by a motion, the motion is not allowed. The Court may also hold a motion under advisement and decline to pronounce a decision where subsequent legislative action resolves the practical need for adjudication.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a dispute filed in Washington, D.C., the Solicitor for the federal government submits a motion directly to the Supreme Court seeking immediate procedural relief. After hearing argument, the Justices are evenly split on whether the motion should be granted.

How should the Court dispose of the motion?

Explanation. The governing rule is that when the Court is divided in opinion on the question presented by a motion, the motion is not allowed. The majority opinion expressly denied an ex officio motion for that reason alone. (Derived from Hayburn's Case (1792).)