CHANDLER v. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF TENTH CIRCUIT OF U.S., 382 U.S. 1003 (1966)
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
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]
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 Page 382 U.S. 1003 , 1005 can the effect of the order be softened by asserting that Judge Chandler will be permitted to have a lawyer represent him before his fellow judges. Assuming that we have jurisdiction to stay an order from a governmental agency that has no power at all to do what this Council has done, I would stay this "Order" instanter. The Council states that its order was made "pursuant to the power and authority vested in the Judicial Council by the Act of June 25, 1948, [c.] p. 646, 332, 62 Stat. 902, 28 U.S.C. 332." That section so far as relevant reads: