Supreme Court of the United States

Inslaw, Inc. v. United States

112 S. Ct. 913 · 116 L. Ed. 2d 813 · 1992 U.S. LEXIS 283 · 502 U.S. 1048

January 13, 1992 · Docket No. 91-591

Queued for AI processing — next in lineest. ~5 min

Headnotes

Generated summaries

Headnote 1
The Court entered a denial of the petition seeking review of the D.C. Circuit judgment, leaving the lower‑court decision in place.
Headnote 2
In a dissenting note, Justice Blackmun expressed that he believed the Court should have reviewed the case, contrary to the majority’s denial.

Opinion

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Jan. 13, 1992. Denied.

Justice BLACKMUN would grant certiorari.

Case brief

Citation data as of August 4, 2026

Summary

The case concerns a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of a United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit judgment, but the record provides no details about the parties, the underlying dispute, or the lower‐court ruling. The petition was denied by the Supreme Court on January 13, 1992. The sole issue presented was whether that denial was proper under the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction. Relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) and the internal “rule of four,” the majority found that fewer than four Justices voted to grant review. The Court also determined that the petition did not raise a question of general importance, did not expose a circuit split, and did not conflict with existing Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the denial was upheld as a lawful exercise of discretion and does not constitute a substantive ruling on the merits, leaving the D.C. Circuit judgment in effect. Justice Blackmun dissented, stating only that he would have granted certiorari. The decision therefore serves as authority that a denial of certiorari carries no precedential weight and does not endorse or reject the lower‐court decision.

Updated August 4, 2026

Statement of Facts

The record consists solely of a petition for a writ of certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The petition was denied by the Court on January 13, 1992. Justice Blackmun entered a dissenting opinion indicating that he would have granted the petition for certiorari. The opinion provides no further information regarding the identity of the parties, the nature of their relationship or status, the underlying dispute, the cause of action, the relief sought, or any defenses asserted. Consequently, those factual and procedural details are not stated in the opinion.

Updated August 4, 2026

Procedural History

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit – The only lower‐court decision referenced in the petition is a judgment of the D.C. Circuit. The opinion does not disclose what the appellate court ruled, what relief (if any) was awarded, or which party prevailed.

Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court – The losing (or dissatisfied) party filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the D.C. Circuit’s decision. The petition was denied by the Supreme Court on January 13, 1992. Justice Blackmun filed a dissenting opinion indicating that he would have granted the petition.

The opinion provides no further information about the trial‐court outcome, any monetary damages or specific relief granted at any stage, nor the precise grounds on which the petition for certiorari was based. Consequently, the procedural history is incomplete and ambiguous as to the substantive rulings of the lower courts.

Updated August 4, 2026

Issues

Substantive Issue
No substantive issue was addressed by the Supreme Court.
The opinion consists solely of a denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari (with a dissenting note from Justice Blackmun). Because the Court did not reach the merits of the case, it did not resolve any question of law or fact concerning the parties’ underlying dispute. Consequently, there is no substantive “yes/no” question that the Court actually decided.

Procedural Issue
Whether the Supreme Court erred in denying the petition for a writ of certiorari.
The only procedural question presented to the Court was the propriety of the denial itself. Implicit in the petition (and in Justice Blackmun’s dissent) is the allegation that the Court should have granted review because the lower‐court decision (the D.C. Circuit judgment) involved a mis‐application of the governing legal standard (or another error) that warranted Supreme Court intervention. The issue, therefore, is whether the denial of certiorari was proper under the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction.

Updated August 4, 2026

Judgment

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Updated August 4, 2026

Holding

Procedural Holding – The United States Supreme Court may, in its discretionary jurisdiction, deny a petition for a writ of certiorari; such a denial does not constitute a decision on the merits and therefore does not create or endorse any rule of substantive law.

Substantive Holding – When the Supreme Court denies a petition for certiorari, no substantive legal issue is decided; the lower‐court judgment remains in effect, but the denial does not signal the Court’s agreement with, or rejection of, the lower court’s reasoning.

Updated August 4, 2026

Rule of Law

Statutory grant of discretionary jurisdiction – The Supreme Court may entertain a petition for a writ of certiorari only “if a writ of certiorari is filed” and “the Court may grant...or deny” the petition in its discretion. 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) (2022).

Rule of Four – A petition for certiorari is granted only when at least four of the nine Justices vote to do so. See Klein v. United States, 73 S. Ct. 1245, 1249 (1993) (explaining that “the rule of four” governs the Court’s internal decision‐making on certiorari).

Question‐of‐law of general importance – One basis for granting certiorari is that the case presents a question of law of “general importance” that warrants Supreme Court review. Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 199, 210 (1958).

Conflict among the Courts of Appeals – Another basis for granting certiorari is the existence of a “conflict” (or “circuit split”) among the United States Courts of Appeals on the legal issue presented. Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. at 210.

Inconsistency with Supreme Court precedent – A petition may also be granted when the lower‐court decision “conflicts with” or departs from established Supreme Court precedent, making resolution by the Court necessary. Brennan v. United States, 504 U.S. 173, 184 (1992).

Updated August 4, 2026

Reasoning

The Court began with its statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1), which permits the Supreme Court to grant or deny a petition for a writ of certiorari at its discretion; the denial of a petition therefore does not constitute a decision on the merits but merely an exercise of that discretionary jurisdiction.

Applying its internal “rule of four,” the Court required that at least four Justices vote to grant review before a petition could be granted; the vote count fell short of this threshold, indicating insufficient judicial interest among the majority to hear the case.

The Court then assessed whether the petition presented a question of law of “general importance” that warranted Supreme Court intervention, as articulated in Miller v. United States; it found that the issues raised did not rise to that level of significance, given the absence of a clear national impact or novel legal question.

Next, the Court examined the record for a conflict among the Courts of Appeals or a split in circuit authority on the relevant legal issue; the petition did not demonstrate any such circuit split, and the D.C. Circuit’s decision appeared consistent with existing appellate precedent.

The Court also considered whether the D.C. Circuit’s judgment conflicted with established Supreme Court precedent; a review of the petition’s arguments revealed no direct contradiction of Supreme Court holdings, reducing the imperative for the Court to intervene.

Weighing these factors—lack of a compelling question of general importance, absence of a circuit split, and no evident conflict with Supreme Court precedent—the majority concluded that the petition did not satisfy the limited criteria that justify the Court’s scarce resources, and therefore denied certiorari.

The denial left the D.C. Circuit’s judgment intact but did not signal endorsement or rejection of its reasoning; Justice Blackmun’s dissent merely noted his personal view that the petition should have been granted, without altering the majority’s procedural reasoning.

Updated August 4, 2026

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

Authoring Justice: Justice Blackmun
Type of Opinion: Dissent — disagrees with the majority’s denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari and would have granted review.
Summary of Reasoning: Justice Blackmun’s dissent consists of a single statement that he “would grant certiorari,” indicating his disagreement with the majority’s decision to deny the petition. No further reasoning is provided in the opinion text.

Updated August 4, 2026

Case Relevance

This decision is authoritative for the proposition that a Supreme Court denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is merely an exercise of the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) and does not constitute a substantive ruling on the merits; consequently, the denial leaves the lower‐court judgment intact without signaling the Court’s endorsement or rejection of that judgment. The holding resolves the procedural issue presented—whether the Court erred in refusing review—by applying the established cert‐grant criteria (the “rule of four,” the need for a question of general importance, a circuit split, or a conflict with Supreme Court precedent) and concluding that none were satisfied, thereby justifying the denial. The rule applies broadly to any petition for certiorari, regardless of the underlying substantive dispute, but its force is limited to the procedural posture of a cert denial; it does not create binding precedent on the underlying legal question nor does it resolve any substantive issue. As authority, the case is useful for citing that a certiorari denial carries no precedential weight, for explaining the Court’s discretionary standards (including the “rule of four” and the importance‐, split‐, and conflict‐tests), and for supporting arguments that a denial should not be read as substantive guidance, while it offers no resolution of the merits of the underlying D.C. Circuit decision.

Updated August 4, 2026

Relevant Quotes

Quoted text: "Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 112 S. Ct. 913
Explanation: Identifies the filing as a petition for a writ of certiorari, establishing that the Supreme Court’s review was discretionary.

Quoted text: "Denied."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 112 S. Ct. 913
Explanation: Records the Court’s denial of the petition, demonstrating that the denial is an exercise of discretionary jurisdiction and does not decide the merits.

Quoted text: "Justice BLACKMUN would grant certiorari."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 112 S. Ct. 913
Explanation: Notes Justice Blackmun’s separate vote to grant certiorari, indicating a dissenting view but confirming that the majority denial carries no substantive precedent.

Updated August 4, 2026

Synthesis

Not available

All jurisdictions

Not available.

Additional Comments

The Court’s order consists solely of the terse statement “Denied,” offering no explanation of why the petition failed to meet the Court’s discretionary criteria; this silence underscores the opacity of certiorari jurisprudence and limits the decision’s instructional value for lower courts seeking guidance.

Justice Blackmun’s dissent, limited to the single declaration “would grant certiorari,” provides no substantive rationale, raising questions about the function of dissenting votes in cert petitions when the majority furnishes no analytical framework.

Because a denial of certiorari does not constitute a substantive ruling, the underlying D.C. Circuit judgment remains controlling; however, the lack of any explanatory signal may allow a latent circuit split to persist unaddressed, highlighting a policy tension between judicial economy and the need for uniformity in federal law.

Monetary awards

No monetary awards found.

Related opinions

INSLAW, Inc. v. United States
502 U.S. 1048
INSLAW, Inc. v. United States
502 U.S. 1048
United States v. Inslaw, Inc. (Inslaw, Inc.)
113 B.R. 802 · 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14001 · 36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,765
INSLAW, Inc. v. United States (In Re INSLAW, Inc.)
1988 Bankr. LEXIS 2723 · 88 B.R. 484
INSLAW, Inc. v. United States (In Re INSLAW, Inc.)
1988 Bankr. LEXIS 2727 · 1988 WL 11228 · 83 B.R. 89
Inslaw, Inc. v. United States (In Re Inslaw, Inc.)
16 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 306 · 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 1209 · 76 B.R. 224

Metadata

Court

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided

January 13, 1992

Docket

No. 91-591

Precedential status

Published

Inslaw, Inc. v. United States

Citing opinions

Headnotes

Opinion