It isn’t often that we encounter situations where lower courts intentionally disregard the law… but apparently ‘tis the season!

In the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Wilkinson had some choice words for a district court judge who did not do what it instructed on remand. In a published opinion, the Court wrote:

We deal here with the unfortunate instance of a district court failing to follow our clear mandate to dismiss the state law claims against the school officials in this case. We again reverse the judgment and reiterate what we said in the prior appeal—that the state law claims were not remanded for further proceedings but were instead to be dismissed.

The District Court had relied on a footnote in a concurring opinion from Judge Motz. Not the right move. The Fourth Circuit reiterated that when it orders the lower court to do something, the district court is not “free to do anything else but [what it instructed].”

But the Court’s ire wasn’t reserved solely for the District Court: The opinion also criticized the litigants who “return[ed] to the trial court and ask[ed] it to undo the appellate court’s decision.” The Court decried the “chaos” that ensued in this attempt to “undermine[]” the mandate rule.

The Court’s concluding line? “We meant what we said the first time.”

Ouch.

On the state court side, the Court of Appeals of Virginia issued a published decision in Lane v. Commonwealth after a trial judge “intentionally disregarded” the relevant statute. In an interesting turn of events, the trial court explicitly acknowledged that it “didn’t accept” the law. The trial judge then launched into pointed criticism of the General Assembly:

[W]hile the statute may say that I am required to only impose a suspended sentence and that I can revoke no time, I don’t accept that. I think that what the statute has done is usurped judicial authority. I think it is an encroachment on the separation of powers, and that it leaves the court with no alternative. It has completely usurped any discretion and authority that this court has to enforce its orders and to enforce probationary rules.

We don’t often see judges openly admit to defying the law, but the defense attorneys here were certainly thankful for their court reporter this holiday season. 

The opinion itself is worth a read. Not only was the Court displeased with this judge, but the opinion contains an interesting analysis of the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” mootness exception.

Takeaways? Don’t anger the Fourth Circuit. Don’t give up just because your trial judge is not on your side. And don’t forget the Court reporter.

More substantive analysis of important decisions from this term to come. 

Have questions about recent decisions? Give me a call.