October Term 2002 · Docket 01-10873
Does a non-Article III judge on a Ninth Circuit panel void the decision?
the sides that brought the case claim a statutory violation voids the panel's decision. The government argues no timely challenge occurred.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Green argued the panel was improperly constituted.
Ms. Millett stated no challenge occurred below.
Ms. Millett noted defense counsel face difficult decisions.
Mr. Green rejected the narrow context argument.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-30 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 41-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 25-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 25-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 21-23
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether a non-Article III judge on a Ninth Circuit panel invalidates the panel's decision. the sides that brought the case argue the panel was improperly constituted. The government asserts no party challenged this below.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-30 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 41-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 25-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 25-7
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 24, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 21-23
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the panel decision declared void.
The government wants the lower court decision upheld.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-30 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 41-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 25-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 25-7
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the non-Article III judge voids the panel decision.
The government argues no timely challenge occurred below.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-30 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 41-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 25-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 25-7
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 21-23
Why it matters
This dispute defines the validity of appellate panels with non-Article III judges. It determines whether such panels can issue binding decisions. The outcome affects the finality of federal appellate judgments.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-30 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 41-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 25-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 25-7
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 21-23
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-30 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 41-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 25-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 25-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-30 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 41-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 25-7 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 25-7
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.