An in-chambers opinion is an opinion by a single justice or judge of a multi-member appellate court, rendered on an issue that the court's rules or procedures allow a single member of the court to decide. The judge is said to decide the matter "in chambers" because the decision can be issued from the judge's chambers without a formal court proceeding.
Each Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is assigned as the "Circuit Justice" to one or more of the 13 judicial circuits. The role of the Circuit Justice has changed over time, but has included addressing certain types of applications arising within the Circuit.
Under current practice, the Circuit Justice for each circuit is responsible for dealing with certain types of applications that, under the Court's rules, may be addressed by a single Justice. These include emergency applications for stays (including requests for stays of execution in death-penalty cases) and injunctions pursuant to the All Writs Act arising from cases within that circuit, as well as more routine matters such as requests for extensions of time. In the past, Circuit Justices also sometimes ruled on motions for bail in criminal cases, writs of habeas corpus, and applications for writs of error granting permission to appeal.
Most often, a Justice will dispose of such an application by simply noting that it is "Granted" or "Denied," or by entering a standard form of order unaccompanied by a written opinion. However, a Justice may elect to author an opinion explaining his or her reasons for granting or denying relief. Such an opinion is referred to as an "in-chambers opinion" or an "opinion in chambers." On occasion, Justices have also issued single-Justice in-chambers opinions on other matters, such as explaining why they have chosen not to recuse themselves from participating in a particular case before the Court.
The Justices author and publish fewer in-chambers opinions today than they did during the twentieth century; it has been rare in recent years for there to be more than one or two such opinions published per term.
Since 1969, in-chambers opinions that a Justice wishes to have published have appeared in the Court's official reporter, the United States Reports. They appear in a separate section at the back of each volume that contains one or more such opinions. Before 1969, in-chambers opinions did not appear in the U.S. Reports, although they were occasionally published in other reporters or in legal periodicals. During the 1990s, the Supreme Court Clerk's Office compiled a collection of in-chambers opinions contained in the Court's records and other sources. The collection was subsequently published in a three-volume edition by the Green Bag Press, and is supplemented from time to time.
| Case | Opinion citation | Justice | Request | Action | Date | Alternate citation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Navarro v. United States | 601 U.S. ___ | Roberts | On application for release pending appeal | Denied | |||
| Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. | 573 U.S. 1301 | Roberts | Recall and stay mandate | Denied | 5 Rapp no. 16 | ||
| Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius | 568 U.S. 1401 | Sotomayor | Injunction | Denied | 5 Rapp no. 15 | ||
| Maryland v. King | 567 U.S. 1301 | Roberts | Stay | Granted | 5 Rapp no. 14 | ||
| Gray v. Kelly | 564 U.S. 1301 | Roberts | Stay (capital) | Denied | 5 Rapp no. 13 | ||
| Lux v. Rodrigues | 561 U.S. 1306 | Roberts | Injunction | Denied | 4 Rapp 1626 | ||
| Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Scott | 561 U.S. 1301 | Scalia | Stay | Granted | 4 Rapp 1622 | ||
| Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics | 559 U.S. 1301 | Roberts | Stay | Denied | 4 Rapp 1620 | ||
| O'Brien v. O'Laughlin | 557 U.S. 1301 | Breyer | Stay | Denied | 4 Rapp 1591 | ||
| Conkright v. Frommert | 556 U.S. 1401 | Ginsburg | Stay | Denied | 4 Rapp no. 1589 | ||
Boumediene v. Bush
| 550 U.S. 1301 | Roberts | Extension of time and suspension of order denying certiorari | Denied | 4 Rapp 1563 | ||
| Stroup v. Willcox | 549 U.S. 1501 | Roberts | Stay | Denied | 4 Rapp 1562 | ||
| San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial v. Paulson; City of San Diego v. Paulson | 548 U.S. 1301 | Kennedy | Stays | Granted; Denied | 4 Rapp 1539 | ||
| Doe v. Gonzales | 546 U.S. 1301 | Ginsburg | Vacate stay | Denied | 4 Rapp 1533 | ||
| Multimedia Holdings Corp. v. Circuit Court of Florida | 544 U.S. 1301 | Kennedy | Stay | Denied | 4 Rapp 1499 | ||
| Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee (2004) | 543 U.S. 1304 | Souter | Vacate stay | Denied | 4 Rapp 1498 | ||
| Spencer v. Pugh | 543 U.S. 1301 | Stevens | Vacate stays | Denied | 4 Rapp 1496 | ||
| Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC | 542 U.S. 1306 | Rehnquist | Injunction | Denied | 4 Rapp 1458 | ||
| Associated Press v. Colorado District Court | 542 U.S. 1301 | Breyer | Stay | Denied | 4 Rapp 1455 | ||
| Cheney v. United States District Court | 541 U.S. 913 | Scalia | Recuse | Denied | 4 Rapp 1441 | ||
| Prato v. Vallas | 539 U.S. 1301 | Stevens | Extension of time | Denied | 4 Rapp 1440 | ||
| Kenyeres v. Ashcroft | 538 U.S. 1301 | Kennedy | Stay | Denied | 4 Rapp 1435 | ||
| Chabad of Southern Ohio v. City of Cincinnati | 537 U.S. 1501 | Stevens | Vacate stay | Granted | 4 Rapp 1434 | ||
| Bartlett v. Stephenson[1] | 535 U.S. 1301 | Rehnquist | Stay | Denied | 4 Rapp 1431 | ||
| Bagley v. Byrd | 534 U.S. 1301 | Stevens | Stay (capital) | Denied | 4 Rapp 1429 | ||
| Brown v. Gilmore | 533 U.S. 1301 | Rehnquist | Injunction | Denied | 4 Rapp 1426 | ||
Microsoft Corp. v. United States
| 530 U.S. 1301 | Rehnquist | Recuse | Denied | 4 Rapp 1424 | ||
| Murdaugh v. Livingston | 525 U.S. 1301 | Rehnquist | Vacate stay | Denied | 3 Rapp 1391 | ||
| Rubin v. United States (1998) | 524 U.S. 1301 | Rehnquist | Stay | Denied | 3 Rapp 1389 | ||
| Netherland v. Gray | 519 U.S. 1301 | Rehnquist | Vacate stay (capital) | Denied | 3 Rapp 1387 | ||
| Netherland v. Tuggle | 517 U.S. 1301 | Rehnquist | Vacate stay (capital) | Denied | 3 Rapp 1386 | ||
| FCC v. Radiofone, Inc. | 516 U.S. 1301 | Stevens | Vacate stay | Granted | 3 Rapp 1385 | ||
| McGraw-Hill v. Procter & Gamble | 515 U.S. 1309 | Stevens | Stay | Denied | 3 Rapp 1382 | ||
| Rodriguez v. Texas | 515 U.S. 1307 | Scalia | Stay (capital) | Denied | 3 Rapp 1381 | ||
| Penry v. Texas | 515 U.S. 1304 | Scalia | Extension of time (capital) | Denied | 3 Rapp 1377 | ||
| Foster v. Gilliam | 515 U.S. 1301 | Rehnquist | Stay | Granted in part | 3 Rapp 1374 | ||
| O'Connell v. Kirchner | 513 U.S. 1303 | Stevens | Stays | Denied | 3 Rapp 1372 | ||
| In re Dow Jones and Company, Inc. | 513 U.S. 1301 | Rehnquist | Stay | Denied | 3 Rapp 1370 | ||
| Edwards v. Hope Medical Group for Women | 512 U.S. 1301 | Scalia | Stay | Denied | 3 Rapp 1367 | ||
| Packwood v. Senate Select Committee on Ethics | 510 U.S. 1319 | Rehnquist | Stay | Denied | 3 Rapp 1364 | ||
| CBS Inc. v. Davis | 510 U.S. 1315 | Blackmun | Stay | Granted | 3 Rapp 1360 | ||
| Planned Parenthood v. Casey | 510 U.S. 1309 | Souter | Stay | Denied | 3 Rapp 1354 | ||
| Capital Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette | 510 U.S. 1307 | Stevens | Stay | Denied | 3 Rapp 1352 | ||
| INS v. Legalization Assistance Project | 510 U.S. 1301 | O'Connor | Stay | Granted | 3 Rapp 1346 | ||
| DeBoer v. DeBoer | 509 U.S. 1301 | Stevens | Stay | Denied | 3 Rapp 1343 | ||
| Blodgett v. Campbell | 508 U.S. 1301 | O'Connor | Vacate order (capital) | Dismissed | 3 Rapp 1338 | ||
| Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC | 507 U.S. 1301 | Rehnquist | Injunction | Denied | 3 Rapp 1335 | ||
| Grubbs v. Delo[2] | 506 U.S. 1301 | Blackmun | Stay (capital) | Granted | 3 Rapp 1334 | ||
| Reynolds v. IAAF | 505 U.S. 1301 | Stevens | Stay | Granted | 3 Rapp 1332 | ||
| Campos v. City of Houston | 502 U.S. 1301 | Scalia | Injunction and stay | Denied | 3 Rapp 1330 | ||
| Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Plan | 501 U.S. 1301 | Scalia | Stay | Granted | 3 Rapp 1325 | ||
| Cole v. Texas | 499 U.S. 1301 | Scalia | Stay (capital) | Granted | 3 Rapp 1324 | ||
| Mississippi v. Turner | 498 U.S. 1306 | Scalia | Extension of time (capital) | Denied | 3 Rapp 1323 | ||
| Madden v. Texas | 498 U.S. 1301 | Scalia | Extension of time (capital) | Granted | 3 Rapp 1317 |
The rules of some other multi-member American appellate courts sometimes authorize a single judge or justice to take certain actions. Sometimes these actions are procedural in nature, such as granting extensions of time or granting or denying permission to file an amicus curiae brief. In other courts, the powers of a single judge can be more extensive; for example, in the New York Court of Appeals, a single judge rules on a defendant's motion for leave to appeal in a criminal case, and his or her decision is final.
It is relatively unusual for single judges or justices of lower courts to issue opinions explaining their rulings on these matters, but when they do, the designation "in chambers" is sometimes used.