United Industrial, Service, Transportation, Professional & Government Workers of North America Seafarers International Union Ex Rel. Bason v. Government of the Virgin Islands
61 V.I. 753
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- A Union filed a petition for certiorari challenging the Virgin Islands Supreme Court's November 2012 decision adverse to reinstatement of Ernest Bason, an Assistant Attorney General, and related back-pay issues.
- H.R. 6116 was enacted to strip the Third Circuit of certiorari jurisdiction over Virgin Islands Supreme Court decisions and grant direct U.S. Supreme Court review for certain questions of federal law.
- The Third Circuit in Kendall I held the act applies to cases commenced on or after enactment, but not to pending cases; Kendall II refined that both pending petitions and granted petitions before enactment retain jurisdiction.
- The Virgin Islands Supreme Court had reversed the reinstatement portion of the Superior Court's order and remanded to issue a final judgment consistent with that ruling; back-pay issues remained unresolved at that stage.
- Bason died during the pendency of the certiorari proceedings, which raised mootness concerns and affected the Union’s ability to seek reinstatement relief.
- The Third Circuit ultimately held the certiorari petition moot due to Bason’s death and vacated the reinstatement portion, while remanding to vacate reinstatement language in the Virgin Islands Superior Court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HR 6116 divests the Third Circuit of certiorari jurisdiction over pre-enactment cases | Union: pre-enactment filings retain jurisdiction | Gov't/VI Supreme Court: jurisdiction belongs to the Supreme Court for all cases after enactment | We retain jurisdiction for pre-enactment cases; petition moot due to death |
| Whether Bason's death moots the certiorari petition | Union: back-pay and reinstatement claims survive; case not moot | Gov't: reinstatement moot due to death; merits may survive via back-pay claims | Petition dismissed as moot because Bason's death moots reinstatement relief |
| Whether to apply Munsingwear vacatur on remand given mootness | Union: vacate judgment to allow future relitigation | VI Supreme Court sought different remedy; district-like mootness approach | We vacate the VI Supreme Court’s order and remand with instructions to vacate reinstatement-related portions |
| Whether the 'cases commenced' language of HR 6116 applies to pre-enactment filings | Slack-based reading supports broader meaning to include VI Superior Court filings | Slack is distinguishable; the act applies to cases commenced after enactment | We read 'cases commenced' to include pre-enactment VI Superior Court proceedings |
| Whether the VI Supreme Court’s reinstatement ruling is consistent with VI law and federal preemption | Union: arbitration reinstatement supported by CBAs and law | VI law, including 3 V.I.C. § 113, precludes reinstatement of AAGs under the circumstances | Reinstatement portion is reversed to the extent it orders reinstatement; remand for final judgment consistent with that holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Kendall v. Daily News Publ’g Co., 716 F.3d 82 (3d Cir. 2013) (discusses pre/post-enactment effect of H.R. 6116 on certiorari jurisdiction)
- In re Kendall, 712 F.3d 814 (3d Cir. 2013) (Kendall II clarifies ‘cases commenced’ scope and pending petitions)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court) (AEDPA timing and appellate review under post-enactment statutes)
- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (Supreme Court) (jurisdiction-stripping statutes and retroactivity principles)
- Defoe v. Phillip, 702 F.3d 735 (3d Cir. 2012) (Virgin Islands jurisdiction and review framework)
- Munsingwear, Inc. v. Hobbst, 340 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court) (Munsingwear vacatur doctrine for moot cases on appeal)
- Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236 (Supreme Court) (cases commenced and interpretive approach to statutes governing reviews)
- Limtiaco v. Camacho, 549 U.S. 482 (Supreme Court) (post-Hamdan interpretation of jurisdiction-stripping precedents)
- Santos v. Guam, 436 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2006) (Santos on retroactivity of jurisdiction-stripping statutes)
- DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court) (courts vacating and remanding in mootness contexts)