Hunter v. United States · ¶112

To the extent that one can infer any source of law from the Court's opinion, it appears to be its so-called supervisory power over lower federal courts. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 97– 99, 116–118. The Court's reasoning today is reminiscent of its precedents purporting to exercise that power. Like the Court's decision today, see ante, at 726–728, these supervisory-power decisions have justified themselves based on general “considerations of justice not limited to the strict canons” of law. McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, 341 (1943). And, like the Court's decision today, see ante, at 717, 725–727, prior supervisory-power decisions have justified themselves based on “public perception of the integrity” of the courts. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S. A., 481 U. S. 787, 811 (1987) (plurality opinion). Thus, though the Court conspicuously avoids mentioning its name, the…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.