Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Serv. of Chicago (16-658)

argument 16-658

Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Serv. of Chicago

Supreme Court of the United States 45 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the constitutional basis for Congress setting lower court jurisdiction?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument this morning in case sixteen sixty fifty eight, Hammer versus Neighborhood

Alex Hirstoff 0:04

Housing Services of Chicago.

0:06

Mr.

Alex Hirstoff 0:06

Hirstop. Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. One of the fundamental tenets of our constitutional structure is that only Congress can set the jurisdiction of the lower courts. Based on that fundamental principle, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure four A five C is non jurisdictional. The plain language of twenty eight USC Section twenty one oh seven C is unambiguous. A district court can extend the time to appeal as long as a motion is timely filed and there's been a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. No maximum extension of time is set in the statute or in any other statute, and therefore Rule four A five C does not constitute a limitation on a court's jurisdiction. Because of that, uh Rule four A five C is subject to forfeiture, waiver, and equitable considerations.

Alex Hirstoff 0:59

And here there have been several acts of forfeiture and waiver. The respondents forfeited their right to rely on Rule four A five C by not able to do it.

Unknown 1:09

Should we reach that question? Counsel, um this Seventh Circuit typed this l limitation as jurisdictional. So they never went on to consider any question of forfeiture or waiver. So uh are you suggesting that we should decide those questions in the first instance?

Alex Hirstoff 1:29

I submit that the record is um sufficiently clear that the court can can reach that issue here. Certainly the court has discretion just to have it considered on remand, but we do think that the forfeitures and waivers on are clear here.

John G. Roberts 1:44

The issues of uh um Equitable considerations, uh special circumstances that you talk about. Are are there limits to those? I mean let's say the uh issue uh uh comes up three years later. Can the district court at that point consider to extend the uh time to appeal.

Alex Hirstoff 2:03

Well certainly the equities would have to be weighed. Certainly the longer on the the longer the extension is, perhaps the less reasonable it is for an appellant to rely on the district court's order. But assuming that an order is relied on in good faith by the appellant, there's been no objection from the other side. There's been no showing of bad faith We think that the equities should be considered and here it is undisputed that Miss Hamer was misled by the district court's order. There's absolutely no showing of bad faith here. The Seventh Circuit itself recognized that Miss Hamer was misled, and under those circumstances we think that equitable considerations should require that the appeal be decided on the merits.

Elena Kagan 2:46

But who misled her? Was it the court or was it her own attorney? Was this malpractice on the attorney's part for asking for an extension that exceeded the federal rules. Assuming It's non jurisdictional. that the statute is that you're right that this is a non jurisdictional barrier it would still be a statutory barrier, a federal rules barrier.

Alex Hirstoff 3:16

Yes, and we then we think that um Ms. Hamer was misled by the district court's um order. It's certainly true that she may have also been misled by the attorney's motion for the extension of time. But uh b uh both of those factored in here and the equities should be considered.

Unknown 3:33

That was an attorney who simultaneously was asking to be relieved from representing her, right?

Alex Hirstoff 3:39

That's correct, Justice Ginsburg. Yes. And the uh this case is um directly analogous to Harris Truck Lines. In Harris Truck Lines the attorney asks for an extension of time that was prohibited both by rule and by statute, and then yet this court held that the the reliance on the extension of time required that the equities be considered and required that the appeal be decided on the merits, and w we submit here the same course should be followed.

Unknown 4:08

As a matter of custom and usage in the district courts, could you just tell me, uh suppose the Um verdict is returned or uh the the judge indicates what the r what the ruling will be. Can both sides And do both sides uh sometimes say, please don't enter the judgment, Your Honour, so that we can talk settlement?