Antonin Scalia

How Judge Scalia rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Scalia no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Position
circuit
Status
Retired 1986
Served
1982–1986
Appointed by
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Commissioned
1982-08-17
Education
Georgetown University (A.B., 1957); Harvard Law School (LL.B., 1960)
Signed orders read
27

How Judge Scalia decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Agency action stands or falls on the reasons the agency actually assigned. A reviewing court will not supply a rational basis that the agency itself did not give.

“We must affirm its action on the basis of the reasons assigned or not at all.”

A regulation carrying civil or criminal sanctions must give fair warning of what it prohibits or requires. Deference cannot cure an agency’s failure to express the sanctioned obligation with adequate clarity.

“Where the imposition of penal sanctions is at issue, however, the due process clause prevents that deference from validating the application of a regulation that fails to give fair warning of the conduct it prohibits or requires.”

Procedural preferences

Disclosure of grand-jury material requires a strong, particularized showing. The movant must demonstrate a need tied to avoiding injustice that outweighs continued secrecy and limits the request to necessary material.

“The Supreme Court has firmly established that a petitioner seeking Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i) disclosure must make a ‘strong showing of particularized need for grand jury materials.’”

Cautions

An agency may waive a nonjurisdictional deadline, but a court cannot create jurisdiction outside the statutory filing period. Publicly knowable finality rules displace case-specific equitable exceptions.

“While the Commission may, and can even be required to, waive nonjurisdictional deadlines, we are bound by the terms of our jurisdictional grant.”

A forum contact compelled by subpoena does not constitute purposeful activity supporting personal jurisdiction under the local long-arm provision.

“The giving of testimony in the present case, having been compelled by subpoena, does not suffice.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

United States v. Jerome F. Donelson, United States of America v. Andre Washington
· 1982-12-07
Appeal (appellants (criminal defendants Jerome Donelson and Andre Washington)) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, we uphold the sentences imposed on appellants Donelson and Washington by the District Court.”

William P. Tavoulareas v. George D. Comnas
· 1983-10-28
Appeal (appellant (plaintiffs William and Peter Tavoulareas)) Denied

“Since none of the asserted bases for personal jurisdiction was valid, the district court correctly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.”

New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of America, Carolina Power & Light Co., Intervenors
· 1984-02-07
Petition for review (petitioner (New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution)) Granted

“Accordingly, we remand the rule to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Port Norris Express Company, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America
· 1984-03-13
Petition for review (petitioner (Port Norris Express Company, Inc.)) Denied

“Petition denied.”

Margo Bouchet v. The National Urban League, Inc.
· 1984-03-23
Appeal (appellant (Margo Bouchet)) Denied

“Judgments affirmed.”

United States v. Jeffrey I. Cohen
· 1984-05-04
Appeal (appellant (criminal defendant Jeffrey I. Cohen)) Denied

“Judgment affirmed.”

United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. v. Ronald Wilson Reagan, President of the United States
· 1984-07-17
Appeal (appellants (United Presbyterian Church and other political/religious organizations and individuals)) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is affirmed.”

Stephen Thompson v. William P. Clark, Secretary of the Interior
· 1984-08-07
Appeal (appellant (Stephen Thompson, independent oil and gas developer)) Denied

“Judgment affirmed.”

Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
· 1984-10-02
Petition for review (petitioner (Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc.)) Denied

“For these reasons, the petitions are Denied.”

Center for Auto Safety v. Ruckelshaus
· 1984-10-26
Petition for review (petitioner (Center for Auto Safety)) Granted

“Petition granted.”

American Trucking Ass'n's v. Interstate Commerce Commission
· 1984-11-09
Petition for review (petitioner (American Trucking Associations, Inc.)) Moot / procedural

“the petition for review is Dismissed.”

Mario S. Romero, Administrator of the Estate of Orlando Gonzalez-Angel v. National Rifle Association of America, Inc.
· 1984-12-17
Appeal (appellant (plaintiff Mario S. Romero, estate administrator)) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the judgments in favor of both defendants must be”

A historical record

Judge Scalia no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.