Jackson Certifies Direct Appeal to Supreme Court, Stays Judgment

(June 20, 2000) Judge Jackson issued an order which certifies the Microsoft appeal for direct consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court, and stays his Final Judgment pending decision on the appeal.

Judge Jackson's Orders
15 USC 29(b) Order and Stay, 6/20/00.
Final Judgment, 6/7/00.
Memorandum and Order, 6/7/00.
Conclusions of Law, 4/3/00.
Select Pleadings
(links to HTML copies in web sites of DOJ and Microsoft)
DOJ's Reply to Microsoft's Opposition to Motion for Certification of Direct Appeal to the Supreme Court, 6/20/00.
Microsoft's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Direct Appeal to the Supreme Court, 6/19/00.
DOJ's Reply on Their Motions for Summary Dismissal of Microsoft's Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Stay Pending Appeal on the Ground That it is Premature, or to Defer Consideration Pending a Determination as to Jurisdiction, 6/16/00.
Microsoft's Response to the Motion of the United States of America for Summary Dismissal of Microsoft's Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, 6/15/00.
DOJ's Motion for Summary Dismissal of Microsoft's Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Stay Pending Appeal on the Ground that it is Premature, or to Defer Consideration Pending a Determination as to Jurisdiction, 6/14/00.
Microsoft Request to Respond to Government Motion Regarding Direct Appeal to Supreme Court, 6/14/00.
DOJ's Motion for Certification of Direct Appeal to the Supreme Court Under 15 U.S.C. § 29, 6/13/00.
DOJ's Proposed Order Certifying Direct Appeal to the Supreme Court, 6/13/00.
Microsoft's Notice Of Appeal, 6/13/00
Microsoft's Motion For a Stay Of The Judgment Pending Appeal, 6/13/00.
Microsoft's Motion For Leave To Submit An Overlength Motion For Stay Pending Appeal, 6/13/00.
DOJ's Response to Microsoft's Motion for Stay, 6/12/00.
DOJ's Proposed Scheduling Order No. 10, 6/12/00.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Jackson issued a brief Order on Tuesday, June 20, certifying direct consideration of Microsoft's appeal of his Final Judgment by the Supreme Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 29(b).

Judge Jackson ordered that "the joint motion by plaintiffs for certification pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 29(b) is granted, and this Court hereby certifies that immediate consideration by the Supreme Court of the appeal taken herein is of general public importance in the administration of justice;"

15 U.S.C. § 29 covers appellate procedure in antitrust cases brought by the federal government. It allows a District Court judge to certify that an appeal should be heard by the Supreme Court, without first being heard by the Court of Appeals. Such a determination does not require the Supreme Court to hear an immediate appeal. The section 29(b) provides in part that:

"An appeal from a final judgment . . . shall lie directly to the Supreme Court, if, upon application of a party filed within fifteen days of the filing of a notice of appeal, the district judge who adjudicated the case enters an order stating that immediate consideration of the appeal by the Supreme Court is of general public importance in the administration of justice. . . . The Supreme Court shall thereupon either (1) dispose of the appeal and any cross appeal in the same manner as any other direct appeal authorized by law, or (2) in its discretion, deny the direct appeal and remand the case to the court of appeals, which shall then have jurisdiction to hear and determine the same as if the appeal and any cross appeal therein had been docketed in the court of appeals in the first instance pursuant to subsection (a) of this section."

Judge Jackson also ordered that "the Final Judgment of June 7, 2000, is stayed in its entirety until the appeal therefrom is heard and decided, unless the stay is earlier vacated by an appellate court."

The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice issued a press release regarding the order. "We are very pleased with the Court's decision to place the appeal directly in the Supreme Court. This decision affirms the Department's position that a quick and effective remedy is necessary to resolve this significant case."

"As our filings in District Court explained, this is an appropriate case to go directly to the Supreme Court under the Expediting Act because of its importance to the American economy and to all consumers," wrote the DOJ.

"As we also explained, the sooner a meaningful remedy is in place, the better it will be for consumers and the marketplace by providing increased innovation, more choices and better products. Given the District Court's decision to stay the remedy during the appeal process, the direct appeal to the Supreme Court is of particular importance to the national interest," wrote the DOJ.

Microsoft responded in a press release which quoted its spokesman, Mark Murray. "We're obviously very pleased that the District Court has rejected the government's arguments and decided to stay the entire judgment pending appeal," said Murray. "This action will allow the appeal to go forward without unnecessary disruption to consumers and the high-tech industry, and we are confident that the final judgment will be reversed on appeal."