Vasquez v. United States

454 U.S. 975, 102 S. Ct. 528, 70 L. Ed. 2d 396, 50 U.S.L.W. 3343, 1981 U.S. LEXIS 4345

Opinions

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Opinion of

Justice Stevens

respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari.

Practical considerations preclude the Court from explaining its reasons for denying petitions for certiorari. See Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U. S. 912 (opinion of Frankfurter, J., respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari). Opinions dissenting from the denial of certiorari are answered so rarely that they may sometimes create an unwarranted impression that the Court is not administering its certiorari docket in a responsible way.¹ Because I was concerned that Justice Rehnquist’s opinion in Downs v. Jacobs, ante, p. 915, might create such an impression, I thought it appropriate to write in response. A similar concern prompts me to write in this case.

1 “One characteristic of all opinions dissenting from the denial of certio-rari is manifest. They are totally unnecessary. They are examples of the purest form of dicta, since they have even less legal significance than the orders of the entire Court which, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter reiterated again and again, have no precedential significance at all.

“Another attribute of these opinions is that they are potentially misleading. Since the Court provides no explanation of the reasons for denying certiorari, the dissenter’s arguments in favor of a grant are not answered and therefore typically appear to be more persuasive than most other opinions. Moreover, since they often omit any reference to valid reasons for denying certiorari, they tend to imply that the Court has been unfaithful to its responsibilities or has implicitly reached a decision on the merits when, in fact, there is no basis for such an inference.” Singleton v. Commissioner, 439 U. S. 940, 944-945 (opinion of Stevens, J., respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari).