CHANDLER v. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF TENTH CIRCUIT OF U.S.
382 U.S. 1003 (1966)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

CHANDLER v. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF TENTH CIRCUIT OF U.S. , 382 U.S. 1003 (1966)

382 U.S. 1003

Stephen S. CHANDLER, United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, petitioner,
v.
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT OF the UNITED STATES.
No. 1111, Misc.

Supreme Court of the United States

January 21, 1966

Thomas J. Kenan, for petitioner.

Solicitor General Marshall, for respondent.

Petitioner applied to Mr. Justice White, Circuit Justice for the Tenth Circuit, for "Stay of Order of Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit of the United States" in the above matter, and the application was by him referred to the Court for its consideration and action.

It appearing to the Court from the response of the Solicitor General to the application that the order from which relief is sought is entirely interlocutory in character pending prompt further proceedings inquiring into the administration of Judge Chandler of judicial business in the Western District of Oklahoma, and that at such proceedings Judge Chandler will be permitted to appear before the Council, with counsel, and that after such proceedings the Council will, as soon as possible, undertake to decide what use, if any, should be made of such powers as it may have in the premises, it is hereby ordered that the application for stay be denied pending

Page 382 U.S. 1003 , 1004

this contemplated prompt action of the Judicial Council. The Court expresses no opinion concerning the propriety of the interlocutory action taken.

Dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Black with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins:

United States District Judge Stephen S. Chandler here asks for a stay of an "Order" of the Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit directing that until further order of the Council, Judge Chandler "take no action whatsoever in any case or proceeding now or hereafter pending" in his court, that cases now assigned to him be assigned to other judges, and that no new actions filed be assigned to him. If this order is not stayed and if the Judicial Council has some way to enforce it, the order means that Judge Chandler is completely barred from performing any of his official duties and in effect is removed or ousted from office pending further orders of the Council. The reason given by the Council for this drastic action is that it "finds that Judge Chandler is presently unable, or unwilling to discharge efficiently the duties of his office. ... " By refusing to stay the Council's order, the Court necessarily acts on the premise that the Council has a legal right to remove Judge Chandler from office at least temporarily. Though the Court tries to soft-pedal its refusal to stay the order by referring to it as "interlocutory in character," the stark fact which cannot be disguised is that a United States District Judge, duly appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, is with this Court's imprimatur locked out of his office pending " further proceedings" by the Judicial Council. I think the Council is completely without legal authority to issue any such order, either temporary or permanent, with or without a hearing, that no statute purports to authorize it, and that the Constitution forbids it. Nor [382 U.S. 1003 , 1005]


Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.