Supreme Court of the United States
Miller v. French
June 19, 2000530 U.S. 327
Summary
Justice O'Connor's opinion held that the PLRA's automatic stay provision unambiguously bars courts from exercising equitable discretion to suspend the stay and does not violate separation of powers. The stay implements new legal standards governing prospective relief rather than reopening a final damages judgment or prescribing a judicial rule of decision. The Court reversed and remanded, leaving due process questions unresolved. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined throughout; Justices Souter and Ginsburg joined Parts I and II. Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing with the statutory interpretation but seeking a remand to determine whether the time allowed for judicial findings was constitutionally adequate. Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Stevens, dissented, favoring a construction preserving equitable authority to suspend the stay in exceptional cases and proposing vacatur and remand.
Holding
- Whether courts retain equitable discretion to suspend the PLRA's automatic stay.. Section 3626(e)(2) makes the automatic stay mandatory during the prescribed period and precludes courts from enjoining its operation through traditional equitable powers.
- Whether the automatic stay unconstitutionally reopens a final judgment or dictates a judicial rule of decision.. The automatic stay does not violate separation of powers by suspending a final judgment or prescribing a rule of decision.
- Whether imposing the PLRA's decisionmaking time limit itself violates separation of powers.. The PLRA's time limit does not itself violate separation of powers; the Court did not decide whether its application could deny due process or whether some more severe time constraint could impair the Judiciary's structural role.
Docket 99-224
Cited authorities
- 18 U.S.C. §§ 3626
- 110 Stat. 1321
- 18 U.S.C. § 3626
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 18 U.S.C. § 3626
- 111 Stat. 2470
- 18 U.S.C. § 3626
- 28 U.S.C. § 2403
Cited by
- Zadvydas v. Davis
- Wazir v. Rumsfeld
- Jose Raul Castillo Francisco Lopez E. Eloy Sanchez Jon Alan Ashcraft Gustavo Almaguer v. Cameron County, Texas…
- The State of Texas v. Terence Johnson, Appellee — Yeary, J., Dissenting
- The State of Texas, State v. Frank Empey, Appellee — Dauphinot, J., Dissenting
- Carlos Morales Feliciano, Plaintiffs, Appellees v. John A. Rullán
- Artur Bocova, Petitioner v. Alberto Gonzales
- United States of America, Plaintiff, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Puerto RICO, Defendants, Appellees