HOLTZMAN Et Al. v. SCHLESINGER Et Al.
414 U.S. 1304 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A single Circuit Justice should only vacate a stay issued by a Court of Appeals in exceptional circumstances and with the greatest of caution. This power should not be exercised when the underlying legal issues are complex, novel, and constitutionally significant, and the Court of Appeals has not abused its discretion.
Facts:
- On April 30, 1970, the President announced the beginning of United States military attacks in Cambodia.
- Although U.S. ground troops were withdrawn by June 1970, Congress enacted the 'Fulbright Proviso' and subsequent limitations restricting the use of funds for military action in Cambodia, with exceptions for ensuring the safe withdrawal of U.S. forces and the release of prisoners of war.
- After the withdrawal of American ground troops from Vietnam and the return of American POWs, the U.S. continued air combat operations over Cambodia.
- Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman and several Air Force officers believed these continuing air operations lacked the required congressional authorization and were therefore unconstitutional.
- Congress and the President enacted a law, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 1974, which mandated that as of August 15, 1973, no appropriated funds could be expended for U.S. combat activities in or over Cambodia.
- Despite this impending cutoff, the executive branch continued to conduct bombing raids over Cambodia in the period leading up to August 15, 1973.
Procedural Posture:
- Congresswoman Holtzman and several Air Force officers sued the Secretary of Defense and other officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to halt U.S. air operations over Cambodia, arguing the actions were unconstitutional.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and issued a permanent injunction against the bombing.
- The District Court then stayed its own injunction for a short period to allow the government to seek a stay from the appellate court.
- The government (respondents) appealed the injunction and applied to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for a stay of the injunction pending appeal.
- A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals granted the government's application for a stay, allowing the bombing to continue while the appeal was pending.
- The plaintiffs (applicants) then filed an application with Justice Marshall, in his capacity as Circuit Justice, to vacate the stay issued by the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is it appropriate for a single Circuit Justice to vacate a stay of a District Court's injunction, which was granted by a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, in a case involving complex and novel constitutional questions about the President's war-making powers?
Opinions:
Majority - Marshall, Circuit Justice
No. It is not appropriate for a single Circuit Justice to vacate the stay because the power should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, and the Justice must act as a surrogate for the entire Court rather than on personal views. Given the complexity of the separation-of-powers issues, the absence of precedent, and the deference owed to the Court of Appeals, vacating the stay would be an overreach of a single Justice's authority. The standard for granting a stay application requires balancing the equities, assessing the likelihood of certiorari, and evaluating the merits, but these factors are inconclusive in this unique case. The balance of harms is 'virtually insurmountable,' as it pits the loss of life against claimed national security interests. Furthermore, the case's unique timeline, with a statutory bombing halt on August 15, complicates the analysis of preserving the status quo for full Court review. While the applicants' constitutional claims are 'far from frivolous,' the Justice's role is not to decide the merits alone but to reflect the probable views of the entire Court. The unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals panel to grant the stay is entitled to great weight, and there is no indication that the panel abused its discretion.
Analysis:
This in-chambers opinion exemplifies the principle of judicial restraint, particularly concerning the 'political question' doctrine and separation of powers. It demonstrates the high procedural bar for a single Justice to intervene in the regular appellate process, especially in matters of war and foreign policy. The decision reinforces the institutional role of a Circuit Justice as a 'surrogate for the entire Court,' who must subordinate personal views on the merits to a cautious assessment of what the full Court would likely do. It establishes that in novel, complex constitutional cases, extreme deference will be given to the procedural rulings of a lower appellate court unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.
