Roell v. Withrow

Summary

The Supreme Court held that consent to a magistrate judge's full jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) may be implied from a party's conduct, provided the party was aware of the right to refuse and voluntarily appeared. This reversed the Fifth Circuit's rule requiring express consent. Justice Thomas, dissenting, argued that express consent is required to preserve Article III rights and that lack of consent is a jurisdictional defect.