Packwood v. Senate Select Comm. on Ethics, 510 U.S. 1319 (1994)

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  Next

OCTOBER TERM, 1993

Opinion in Chambers

PACKWOOD v. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

on application for stay

No. A-704. Decided March 2, 1994

Senator Bob Packwood's application for a stay pending appeal to the Court of Appeals of a District Court decision enforcing a subpoena duces tecum issued by respondent Senate Select Committee on Ethics is denied. Because this matter is pending before the Court of Appeals and because that court denied applicant's motion for a stay, he has an especially heavy burden. Fargo Women's Health Organization v. Schafer, 507 U. S. 1013, 1014. Resolution of two of his claims—that the subpoena is overly broad and that it violates his Fourth Amendment right to privacy—would entail factbound determinations, and thus it is unlikely that those claims raise issues on which four Members of this Court would grant certiorari. Moreover, the Court's recent denial of a petition for certiorari raising the precise issue made in applicant's third claim—that the subpoena violates his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination under Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616— demonstrates quite clearly the unlikelihood that four Justices would vote to grant review on this issue.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.

Applicant Senator Bob Packwood requests that I grant a stay pending appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit of a decision by the District Court enforcing the subpoena duces tecum issued by respondent Senate Select Committee on Ethics. The Court of Appeals recently, and unanimously, denied his emergency motion for a stay pending appeal.

The criteria for deciding whether to grant a stay are well established. An applicant must demonstrate: (1) a reasonable probability that four Justices would vote to grant certiorari; (2) a significant possibility that the Court would reverse the judgment below; and (3) a likelihood of irreparable harm, assuming the correctness of the applicant's position, if the judgment is not stayed. Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group

1319

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007