Glidden Co. v. Zdanok
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok | |
---|---|
Argued February 21, 26, 1962 Decided June 25, 1962 | |
Full case name | Glidden Company v. Olga Zdanok, John Zacharczyk, Mary A. Hackett, Quitman Williams, and Marcelle Kreischer; Durkee Famous Foods Division, a Foreign Corporation and Benny Lurk v. United States |
Citations | 370 U.S. 530 (more) 82 S. Ct. 1459; 8 L. Ed. 2d 671; 1962 U.S. LEXIS 2139; 45 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 17,685; 50 L.R.R.M. 2693 |
Case history | |
Prior | |
Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 371 U.S. 854 (1962). |
Holding | |
The Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals are courts created under Article III of the Constitution and their judges are constitutionally protected in tenure and compensation, the designation of judges from those courts to sit on Courts of Appeals and United States District Courts was valid and judgments of the Court of Appeals and District Court were not vitiated by respective participation of such judges. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Harlan, joined by Brennan, Stewart |
Concurrence | Clark, joined by Warren |
Dissent | Douglas, joined by Black |
Frankfurter and White took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. Article III, §§ 1-2 | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U.S. 438 (1929) Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933) |
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok (consolidated with Lurk v. United States), 370 U.S. 530 (1962), is a
Background
In
Opinion of the Court
In a plurality opinion, the
... the argument is fallacious. It mistakenly assumes that whether a court is of one class or the other depends on the intention of Congress, whereas the true test lies in the power under which the court was created and in the jurisdiction conferred. Nor has there been any settled practice on the part of Congress which gives special significance to the absence or presence of a provision respecting the tenure of judges. This may be illustrated by two citations. The same Congress that created the Court of Customs Appeals made provision for five additional circuit judges and declared that they should hold their offices during good behavior; and yet the status of the judges was the same as it would have been had that declaration been omitted. In creating courts for some of the Territories Congress failed to include a provision fixing the tenure of the judges; but the courts became legislative courts just as if such a provision had been included.[5]
In United States v. Coe, for example, the Court sustained the authority of the Court of Private Land Claims to adjudicate claims under treaties to land in the territories, but left it expressly open whether such a course might be followed within the States.[6] Upon like considerations, Article III has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland, and to the consular courts established by concessions from foreign countries.
This Court, however is the expositor of the meaning of the Constitution ...
— Justice Harlan, Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 602, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 1500 (1962)
The Court does great mischief in today's opinions. The opinion of my Brother Harlan stirs a host of problems that need not be opened. What is done will, I fear, plague us for years.
— Justice Douglas, Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 606, n.11, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 1502, n.11 (1962)
Subsequent developments
In response to this decision, Congress passed 80 Stat. 958 in 1966 which assigned Congressional reference cases from the Article III appellate division judges of the Court of Claims to the Article I trial division commissioners of the Court of Claims.
Despite the reasoning's status as a plurality opinion that lacks
References
- ^ Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962).
- ^ a b Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U.S. 438 (1929).
- ^ a b Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933).
- ^ Bakelite, 279 U.S. at 459-460.
- ^ Zdanok, 370 U.S. at 596-97.
- ^ United States v. Coe, 155 U.S. 76 (1894).
- , enacted October 15, 1966.
- ^ Jeffrey M. Glosser, Congressional Reference Cases in the United States Court of Claims: A Historical and Current Perspective, 25 Am. U. L. Rev. 595 (1976).
- , enacted April 3, 1982.
- ^ Congressional Reference Cases, 8 West's Fed. Forms, National Courts § 13133 (2d ed.)
- JSTOR 1122139. Retrieved December 28, 2009.
- ^ A Constitutional Analysis of Magistrate Judge Authority, 150 F.R.D. 247, 292 (1993).
- ^ Eric G. Bruggink, Unfinished Business, 71 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 879, 884 (2003).
External links
- Text of Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)