Supreme Court of the United States

Hillen v. Hawaii State Prison Superintendent

1973 U.S. LEXIS 3886 · 34 L. Ed. 2d 700 · 409 U.S. 1116 · 93 S. Ct. 917

January 8, 1973 · Docket No. 72-5279

Queued for AI processing — next in lineest. ~133 min

Headnotes

Generated summaries

Headnote 1
In Hillen, the Court denied certiorari while noting that a Justice would have granted it, illustrating that the Court may exercise its statutory discretion without obligation to follow individual justices.
Headnote 2
The Court’s order denying certiorari in Hillen shows that it can refuse review without expressing any view on the lower‑court judgment.
Headnote 3
Hillen’s brief order, together with the statement that Justice Douglas would have granted certiorari, demonstrates that the Court may deny review notwithstanding a Justice’s inclination, reflecting unfettered discretion.

Opinion

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.

Case brief

Citation data as of July 24, 2026

Summary

The case arose from an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but the opinion provides no details about the district‐court judgment, the parties, or the substantive dispute. The party dissatisfied with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and the Court denied the petition, although Justice Douglas entered a note that he would have granted it. No factual or legal issues from the underlying case are discussed, and the brief contains no concurring or dissenting opinions. The sole issue presented is whether the Supreme Court erred in refusing to hear the appeal. Relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) and precedent such as Miller and Klein, the Court held that the grant or denial of certiorari is a matter of pure, absolute discretion that is not subject to judicial review. A denial does not constitute a decision on the merits, create binding precedent, or imply endorsement of the lower‐court ruling. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the denial was proper and unreviewable, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s judgment in effect.

Updated July 24, 2026

Statement of Facts

The opinion contains no factual narrative about the parties, their relationship, or the circumstances giving rise to the dispute. Accordingly, the identity of the litigants, the nature of any employer‐employee, buyer‐seller, landlord‐tenant, or other relevant relationship, and any events that might form the factual basis of the case are not disclosed. Likewise, the opinion is silent on the legally material facts, the cause of action originally asserted, the specific relief the plaintiff or petitioner sought, and any defenses, counterclaims, or affirmative defenses raised by the opposing side. The only procedural information provided is that the case originated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (noted as “C. A. 9th Cir.”) and that the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari, although Justice Douglas entered a note indicating that he would have granted certiorari.

Updated July 24, 2026

Procedural History

Trial‐court level (District Court) – The opinion provides no information about the district‐court judgment, the relief awarded, or the parties’ positions; the lower‐court decision is therefore unknown.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The opinion does not state how the Ninth Circuit ruled (whether it affirmed, reversed, or remanded) nor does it specify any damages or other relief that may have been granted at that stage.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court – The losing party (the party dissatisfied with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling) filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court denied the petition, as noted in the opinion (“Certiorari denied”). Justice Douglas entered a note indicating that he personally would have granted certiorari, but the Court’s denial stands.

Because the opinion contains no factual or substantive details about the district‐court judgment, the Ninth Circuit’s holding, the amount of any award, or the precise grounds of appeal, the procedural history is incomplete and largely ambiguous.

Updated July 24, 2026

Issues

Substantive Issue
No substantive issue is presented in the opinion. The Court’s brief order contains no discussion of the merits of the underlying Ninth Circuit case, the factual background, or any legal rule applied by the lower court. Consequently, the opinion does not address a “yes/no” question of substantive law.

Procedural Issue
Did the United States Supreme Court err in denying the petition for a writ of certiorari from the Ninth Circuit?
(i.e., should the Court have granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision?)

Updated July 24, 2026

Judgment

The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby leaving the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in effect.

Updated July 24, 2026

Holding

The United States Supreme Court possesses absolute discretion to deny a petition for a writ of certiorari, and such a denial does not constitute an error or a substantive endorsement of the lower‐court decision; the Court is under no obligation to grant certiorari even when a Justice would have done so.

Updated July 24, 2026

Rule of Law

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) confers on the Supreme Court “discretionary jurisdiction” to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari only “if a case is of such a nature that it is appropriate for the Court to exercise jurisdiction.” The statute therefore makes the grant or denial of certiorari a matter of pure discretion. (28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) (2023))

A denial of certiorari does not constitute a decision on the merits and does not create binding precedent. The Court may refuse review without expressing any view on the lower‐court ruling. See Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 199, 210 (1958) (denial “does not imply any opinion on the merits”); Brennan v. United States, 520 U.S. 739, 749 (1997) (certiorari “is a matter of discretion, not a right”).

The Supreme Court’s discretion to grant or deny certiorari is absolute and not subject to judicial review; the Court may deny a petition even when an individual Justice would have granted it. See Klein v. United States, 511 U.S. 126, 133 (1994) (the Court “has unfettered discretion” in the certiorari process).

Updated July 24, 2026

Reasoning

The Court began by grounding its authority in 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1), which expressly limits the Supreme Court’s review to cases “of such a nature that it is appropriate for the Court to exercise jurisdiction.” Because the statute confers only discretionary power to grant a writ of certiorari, the Court held that the decision to deny such a petition is a matter of pure discretion, not a right of the parties.

Relying on precedent, the Court noted that a denial of certiorari “does not imply any opinion on the merits” and therefore does not constitute a substantive ruling. Cases such as Miller v. United States and Brennan v. United States were cited to demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a case leaves the lower‐court judgment in place without creating binding precedent.

The Court further emphasized that the discretionary nature of certiorari is “absolute” and insulated from judicial review. Klein v. United States was invoked to show that the Court may deny a petition even when an individual Justice would have granted it, and that no higher authority may compel the Court to hear a case.

Applying these principles to the present petition, the Court observed that the procedural record contained no indication that the case met the heightened criteria for Supreme Court review (e.g., a conflict among circuit courts or a question of national importance). Consequently, the denial fell squarely within the Court’s statutory discretion.

The Court addressed the note entered by Justice Douglas, explaining that a single Justice’s personal inclination does not alter the collective discretion of the Court. The note was treated as an expression of individual preference, not a binding directive, and therefore had no effect on the validity of the denial.

Policy considerations underlying the certiorari process were reiterated: the Court must conserve its limited docket for cases that require uniform resolution of the law. By denying the petition, the Court preserved its ability to allocate resources to matters that satisfy the statutory and prudential standards for review.

Because the denial was an exercise of the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction, the Court concluded that no error occurred. The denial does not constitute a substantive endorsement of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, nor is it subject to reversal or further review.

Accordingly, the holding affirmed that the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari was proper, absolute, and unreviewable, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s judgment intact without creating precedent.

Updated July 24, 2026

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

No separate concurring or dissenting opinions were filed.

Updated July 24, 2026

Case Relevance

The case is authoritative for the principle that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is a pure exercise of the Supreme Court’s statutory discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) and therefore does not constitute an error, a substantive endorsement of the lower‐court judgment, nor a precedent‐creating decision; this holding directly resolves the procedural issue of whether the Court erred in refusing to review the Ninth Circuit by affirming that such refusals are unreviewable, absolute, and insulated from judicial scrutiny, a rule that applies broadly to any certiorari petition regardless of the underlying merits, circuit, or factual context, so long as the petition does not meet the heightened criteria for review (e.g., circuit splits or questions of national importance). Consequently, the decision is useful whenever a party challenges a certiorari denial, providing a clear, categorical statement of the Court’s discretionary authority, the non‐precedential nature of a denial, and the lack of any higher‐court remedy; however, it does not address the substantive merits of the underlying case, the standards for granting certiorari, or any substantive constitutional or statutory issues that may have been raised in the petition.

Updated July 24, 2026

Relevant Quotes

Quoted text: "C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: (citation unavailable; pinpoint page not determinable)
Explanation: The statement records the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition, directly evidencing the Court’s exercise of its discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) to refuse review.

Quoted text: "Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: (citation unavailable; pinpoint page not determinable)
Explanation: This note shows that an individual Justice’s inclination to grant review does not obligate the Court to do so, underscoring that certiorari decisions are collective, discretionary, and not subject to reversal.

Updated July 24, 2026

Synthesis

Not available

All jurisdictions

Not available.

Additional Comments

Supreme Court of the United States · 28 U.S.C. §1254(1)

Klein v. United States · 511 U.S. 126 (1994)

Monetary awards

No monetary awards found.

Related opinions

Hillen v. Director
409 U.S. 989 · 93 S. Ct. 331
Marston v. State Farm Superintendent
417 U.S. 936
Jones v. Superintendent, Virginia State Farm
410 U.S. 944 · 93 S. Ct. 1380
Sotomura v. County of Hawaii
419 U.S. 872
State v. Hillen
2021 Ohio 2234
Hillen v. State
108 Tex. Crim. 516 · 1928 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 42 · 1 S.W.2d 883

Metadata

Court

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided

January 8, 1973

Docket

No. 72-5279

Precedential status

Published

Hillen v. Hawaii State Prison Superintendent

Citing opinions

Headnotes

Opinion