Americans are taught from an early age to follow the law. Ignorance is no excuse; neither is personal opinion or preference. This is our obligation, and part of the social contract we make with fellow citizens. But as this new year begins, it’s also appropriate to focus on the obligation the courts have to us, as numerous cases involving former president and current candidate Donald Trump work their way through the courts.
As this new year begins, it’s also appropriate to focus on the obligation the courts have to us.
Judges are largely permitted to set their own timetables for their cases and when they will decide them. Although procedural rules like the Speedy Trial Act set deadlines for some matters, this is the exception, not the rule. There is, for instance, no set time for a trial judge to rule on a motion or for when an appellate court must issue an opinion in a case. There is little that can be done, outside of the rare motion for mandamus in a case of exceptional delay, to speed courts on their path.
Courts can also move quickly when they choose to. In July 1974, the Supreme Court ordered President Richard Nixon to turn over tape recordings made in the Oval Office to the Watergate special prosecutor. The decision was 8-0; Justice William Rehnquist recused himself. The court heard arguments in Nixon v. United States on July 8 and issued its decision less than three weeks later. The court decided Bush v. Gore, the Florida vote recount case in 2000, the day after the case was argued.
But this is not always the case, even in matters of great importance. Sluggishness in decision-making hurts people the courts are supposed to serve, like when a court delays ruling in a civil case where a family that has suffered damages must wait for money they are entitled to and desperately need. In cases of national importance, delay can lead to a broad denial of rights, as it did when the Supreme Court was so slow to rule in the Alabama gerrymandering case that it…
Read the full article here