William H. Rehnquist, Hutto v. Finney — Dissenting opinion
“ The ancillary-effect doctrine recognized in Edelman is a necessary concomitant of a federal court's authority to require state officials to conform their conduct to the dictates of the Constitution. "State officials, in order to shape their official conduct to the mandate of the Court's decrees, would more likely have to spend money from the state treasury than if they had been left free to pursue their previous course of conduct." ”
William H. Rehnquist, Hutto v. Finney — Dissenting opinion
“ A State's jealous defense of its authority to operate its own correctional system cannot casually be equated with contempt of court. [3] [p716] Even were I to agree with the Court that petitioners had willfully defied federal decrees, I could not conclude that the award of fees against the taxpayers of Arkansas would be justified, since there is a less intrusive means of insuring respondents' right to relief. ”
William H. Rehnquist, Hutto v. Finney — Dissenting opinion
“ There is no reason for the federal courts to engage in speculation as to whether the imposition of a fine against the State is "less intrusive" than "sending high state officials to jail." Ibid. So long as the rights of the plaintiffs and the authority of the District Court are amply vindicated by an award of fees, it should be a matter of no concern to the court whether those fees are paid by state officials personally or by the State itself. ”
