Collegiality

Home > Philosophy and Religion > Christianity > Christianity: General

Collegiality The unique structural characteristic of a collegial body such as the Supreme Court is the equality of formal authority of the members. Tension exists between the individual responsibility to form views in each case and the necessity for cooperation to produce collective decisions in the Court's collegial structure. Cooperation and the appearance of unity serve to increase power and respect for a collegial institution. Chief Justice John Marshall arranged accommodations in one boardinghouse to foster fellowship and developed the single opinion of the Court to create a symbol of judicial solidarity (see Seriatim Opinions). Yet, within the Court's collegial structure, contemporary justices freely exhibit individualism, as seen in the increase of separate opinions.

Effective action requires the cooperative participation of every justice. Collegiality does not mandate unanimity but does demand loyalty to the institution and civil treatment of colleagues. Evidences of the justices' strong commitment to the Court are long tenures, unanimity in cases that threaten institutional integrity, and resolution of internal difficulties without appeals for external intervention. Collegial relationships sometimes may be threatened by biting opinions, such as those written by Justice Antonin Scalia directing harsh language at opposing justices, and by divisive cases like Bush v. Gore. Still, justices assert that disagreements have not affected their relationships and that they remain friends who respect each other and enjoy each other's company. Justices have maintained cordial relations across ideological lines and warm friendships have developed between some pairs with shared values. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for instance, recounts a visit by Justice Scalia to give her a draft of his dissenting opinion so she would have time to respond. Court practices remind the justices of their mutual dependence, equal power, and personal esteem; for example, the handshakes before conference initiated by Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller, and the luncheons, letters, or gifts for significant personal occasions.

Other structural characteristics and changes in the Court's environment have affected the requirements of collegiality. The Court has remained a small group in size; therefore, skillful chief justices can satisfy individuals and harmonize Court functioning. However, the growth of the federal court system and the Court bureaucracy has diverted the chief justice's attention to other duties (see Bureaucratization of the Federal Judiciary). In the nineteenth century, short Court terms, circuit duties, and home offices limited contacts among justices. Longer Court terms and a separate building have brought justices into proximity, and the longevity of the current Court (with no personnel changes since 1994) has reinforced the justices' collegiality. Conversely, heavy workloads, personal staffs, and new office technologies have focused their energies upon individual rather than collective decision making. Resolution of the tensions between equal authority and collective duty requires different strategies in the twenty‐first century, when the Court has become a powerful institution and the justices work in relative isolation.

See also Chief Justice, Office of the; Workload.

Paul J. Wahlbeck

collegiality. A word used in a theological context to signify that the bishops constitute a body, of which each is a part, and not a mere collection of individuals. In the RC Church, the concept found some expression in the establishment of the Synod of Bishops in 1965.