The concept of summary disposition was first raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in U.S. v. Allen, 408 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1969). One commentator questioned the benefits of that court’s use of summary disposition and noted — 25 years ago — that the practice had not been “universally embraced” by other circuits. Stephen Bennett, “Summary Disposition of Appeals: Lessons from the D.C. Circuit,” 30 St. Louis U.L.J. 463, 466-70 (1986). But most of the federal circuits today do embrace some form of summary disposition — affirming, dismissing and occasionally reversing appeals before briefing or argument on the merits. The local rules, procedures and standards for summary disposition, however, vary from circuit to circuit, as the courts have tried to balance the need for judicial efficiency with the importance of ensuring that litigants feel they have had a fair opportunity to present their case on appeal.
The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure do not include a rule on summary disposition. Some courts have found authority for summary disposition in Rule 2, which provides that, “on its own or a party’s motion, a court of appeals may — to expedite its decision or for other good cause — suspend any provision of these rules in a particular case.” See, e.g., U.S. v. Monsalve, 388 F.3d 71, 73 (2d Cir. 2004) (Rule 2 authorizes summary affirmance if appeal presents only frivolous issues). Most of the circuits, however, have addressed summary disposition in their local rules.
