Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago
Reference: 16-658
Issue: Appellate procedure
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argued: October 10, 2017
Decided: November 8, 2017
Outcome
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded
Vote
9-0 to vacate and remand
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch


Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on October 10, 2017. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. On November 8, 2017, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case addressed a split among federal circuit courts on the issue of whether federal appeals courts can take jurisdiction of untimely appeals under Rule 4(a)(5)(c) or not. Rule 4(a)(5)(c) provides that in filing an appeal of a judgment in a civil case that "no extension under this Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after the prescribed time or 14 days after the date when the order granting the motion is entered, whichever is later."[1] There was a split among circuit courts as to this question, and consistent with Rule 10 of the rules of procedure for the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the differences between the circuits.

In this case, the court held that because the time limit for Hamer to file her appeal was prescribed in a court-made, mandatory claim-processing rule, and was not considered jurisdictional, that the Seventh Circuit erroneously dismissed Hamer's appeal.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Charmaine Hamer, the petitioner, filed a notice of appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after a 60-day extension to file was granted by a federal district court. The Seventh Circuit, however, held that a federal rule of appellate procedure prevented any extension beyond 30 days and ruled that Hamer's appeal was untimely and was, therefore, dismissed. When this case was before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals courts were split over whether principles of legal fairness known as equitable considerations would permit courts to take jurisdiction of untimely appeals filed beyond the 30-day extension limit provided under the rule in question.
  • The issue: Did the district court's decision to extend Hamer's time to file an appeal constitute a jurisdictional rule or a court-made, mandatory claim-processing rule?
  • The answer: The district court's decision constituted a court-made, mandatory claim-processing rule.
  • The outcome: The court unanimously vacated and remanded the judgment of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.


    • In brief: Hamer, the petitioner, filed a notice of appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after a 60-day extension to file was granted by a federal district court. The Seventh Circuit, relying on Rule 4(a)(5)(c) of the federal rules of appellate procedure, dismissed Hamer's appeal as untimely and held that the rule limited extensions to file appeals to only 30 days. Federal appeals courts, however, were not uniform over whether untimely appeals could still be considered under Rule 4(a)(5)(c). The D.C. Circuit and Ninth Circuit subjected untimely appeals under the rule to what are known as equitable considerations. Equitable considerations are "a recourse to principles of justice to correct or supplement the law as applied to particular circumstances" and are designed to promote fairness and evenhanded dealing in legal matters. Examples of equitable considerations include waivers and forfeitures, and could be considered by a court as to whether, as here, Hamer's reliance on the error of the district court prompted her to inadvertently forfeit her appeal. The Second Circuit, Fourth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, and Tenth Circuit read the rule differently and did not consider appeals under equitable considerations if the appeal was untimely.[2] Argument in the case was held on October 10, 2017.

    You can review the lower court's opinion here.[3]

    Background

    This was a case about timing, specifically, the timing of an appeal. Charmaine Hamer filed a civil lawsuit against her former employers, the Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago (hereafter, NHS) and Fannie Mae. Hamer alleged workplace discrimination in violation of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. NHS and Fannie Mae moved for summary judgment, which a federal district court granted on September 14, 2015.[3]

    Under federal rules of appellate procedure, specifically Rule 4(a)(1)(A), Hamer was required to file a notice of appeal of the district court's decision within 30 days, or by October 14, 2015. On October 8, 2015, Hamer's attorney petitioned the district court to extend the time to file Hamer's notice of appeal. Through her counsel, Hamer requested an extension until December 14, 2015. The district court granted her motion and extended the deadline until December 14, 2015. On December 11, 2015, Hamer filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which was three days prior to the extended deadline granted by the district court.[3]

    The issue, however, was another rule, Rule 4(a)(5)(c). That rule states that "no extension under this Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after the prescribed time or 14 days after the date when the order granting the motion is entered, whichever is later." Under this rule, Hamer's notice of appeal exceeded the maximum allowable extension and was considered untimely. A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit, sua sponte, ordered briefing from the parties as to whether Hamer's notice was untimely and, if so, whether she waived her right to appeal.[3]

    In an opinion by Judge Staci Michelle Yandle of the Southern District of Illinois, who sat by designation on the panel with Seventh Circuit Judges Richard Posner and Diane Sykes, the court held that Hamer's appeal was untimely. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bowles v. Russell, Judge Yandle wrote,[3]

    “

    Rule 4(a)(5)(C) ... limits a district court’s authority to extend the notice of appeal filing deadline to no more than an additional 30 days. Thus, the district court was in error when it granted Ms. Hamer an extension that exceeded the Rule 4(a)(5)(C) time period by almost 30 days. Although we recognize that Ms. Hamer relied upon the district court’s erroneous Order and was misled into believing that she had until December 14, 2015 to file her Notice of Appeal, this Court simply has no authority to excuse the late filing or to create an equitable exception to jurisdictional requirements. Therefore, Hamer’s Notice is untimely.[4]

    		”

    After concluding that Hamer's notice was untimely, Hamer's appeal was dismissed by the court.[3]

    Petitioner's challenge

    Charmaine Hamer, the petitioner, challenged the holding of the Seventh Circuit. In her filing, Hamer argued that Rule 4(a)(5)(c) would permit the Seventh Circuit to adjudicate her appeal because the rule is not derived from a statute and is, instead, a rule that is subject to equitable considerations. Equitable considerations are "a recourse to principles of justice to correct or supplement the law as applied to particular circumstances" and are designed to promote fairness and evenhanded dealing in legal matters. Examples of equitable considerations include waivers and forfeitures, and could be considered by a court as to whether, as here, Hamer's reliance on the error of the district court prompted her to inadvertently forfeit her appeal. Both the D.C. Circuit and the Ninth Circuit had ruled that Rule 4(a)(5)(c) would allow federal appeals courts to take jurisdiction over appeals subject to equitable considerations, however, the Second Circuit, Fourth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, and Tenth Circuit read the rule differently and did not consider appeals under equitable considerations if the appeal was untimely.[2]

    Certiorari granted

    On November 15, 2016, Charmaine Hamer, the petitioner, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Seventh Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Hamer's certiorari request on February 27, 2017. Argument in the case was held on October 10, 2017.[5]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "Whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) can deprive a court of appeals of jurisdiction over an appeal that is statutorily timely, as the Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have concluded, or whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (4)(a)(5)(C) is instead a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule because it is not derived from a statute, as the Ninth and D.C. Circuits have concluded, and therefore subject to equitable considerations such as forfeiture, waiver, and the unique-circumstances doctrine."[5]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    Decision

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court. The court held that because the time limit for Hamer to file her appeal was prescribed in a court-made, mandatory claim-processing rule, and was not considered jurisdictional, that the Seventh Circuit erroneously dismissed Hamer's appeal.[8]

    Opinion

    In his opinion for the court, Justice Ginsburg noted that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bowles v. Russell was dispositive in this case. She wrote,[8][9]

    “

    In Bowles v. Russell, this Court clarified that an appeal filing deadline prescribed by statute will be regarded as 'jurisdictional,' meaning that late filing of the appeal notice necessitates dismissal of the appeal. But a time limit prescribed only in a court-made rule, Bowles acknowledged, is not jurisdictional; it is, instead, a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to forfeiture if not properly raised by the appellee. Because the Court of Appeals held jurisdictional a time limit specified in a rule, not in a statute, we vacate that court’s judgment dismissing the appeal.[4]

    		”

    Justice Ginsburg noted specifically that the court's decision to vacate the Seventh Circuit's ruling "does not reach issues raised by Hamer, but left unaddressed by the Court of Appeals, including: (1) whether respondents’ failure to raise any objection in the District Court to the overlong time extension, by itself, effected a forfeiture;; (2) whether respondents could gain review of the District Court’s time extension only by filing their own appeal; and (3) whether equitable considerations may occasion an exception to Rule 4(a)(5)(C)’s time constraint." Those open questions were to be considered by the Seventh Circuit on remand.[8]

    Concurring opinions

    There were no concurring opinions filed in this case.

    Dissenting opinions

    There were no dissenting opinions filed in this case.


    The opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Cornell University's Legal Information Institute, "Rule 4a - Appeal as a matter of right," accessed November 13, 2017
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Garner, B., ed. (1999). Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group. (page 560)
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Charmaine Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago & Fannie Mae, August 31, 2016
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing, February 27, 2017
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, argued October 10, 2017
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, argued October 10, 2017
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago et al., decided November 8, 2017
    9. ↑ For ease of reading, in-line case citations have been omitted.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Hamer_v._Neighborhood_Housing_Services_of_Chicago&oldid=8891724"