text:
    No. 71-410.
    Pipkin v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 71-418.
    No. 71-426.
    Miller et al. v. Winters; and Thomas et al. v. Winters.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 446 F. 2d 65.


text:
    No. 71-423.
    Squella-Avendano v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-450.
    Mullin et al. v. City of Mansfield et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-459.
    Isbrandtsen Tankers, Inc. v. President of India.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-484.
    Independent Soap & Chemical Workers of Kansas City v. Cunningham et al.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied,


text:
    No. 70-215.
    Lofty v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted,


text:
    No. 71-1.
    Craig v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted,


text:
    No. 71-84.
    Hill et al. v. Pennsylvania.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-382.
    Wanamaker v. Riley.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-391.
    Shafer v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-420.
    West Morris Regional Board of Education v. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-449.
    Van Mark Products Corp. et al. v. Tapco Products Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-5105.
    Benjamin v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-240.
    Bright et al. v. Laird, Secretary of Defense, et al.
   C, A- 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr, Justice Brennan are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted,


text:
    No. 71-357.
    J. L. Simmons Co., Inc. v. Local 742, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of Chamber of Commerce of the United States for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr, Justice White are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-441.
    Jones et al. v. Vogel et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Me. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 70-156;
    No. 70-157;
    No. 70-289;
    No. 70-340;
    No. 71-62.
    Escute v. Delgado, Warden, Admiral-Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., et al. v. United States et al., Rose v. Rose et al., Hancock v. United States, Ramirez v. United States,
   ante, p. 824;

ante, p. 802;

ante, p. 831;

ante, p. 833; and

ante, p. 869. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    December 14, 1971
    No. 71-467.
    Save More of Gary, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 71-5439.
    Robinson v. Sigler, Warden.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Neb. dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the

Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 71-478.
    Weaver, Director, Illinois Department of Public Aid, et al. v. Doe et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill. Motion of appellee Doe for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 71-349.
    Eger v. Florida State Board of Dentistry.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 71-190.
    Hartstein v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari granted and judgment reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 (1967).

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Blackmun dissent.


text:
    No. 71-443.
    Wiener et al. v. California.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of San Diego. Certiorari granted and judgment reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 (1967).

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Blackmun dissent.


text:
    No. 9,
    Orig.
    United States v. Louisiana et al. (Louisiana Boundary Case).
    [For earlier orders herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 932.]
   Motion of State of Louisiana for relief pursuant to Rule 60 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 40,
    Orig.
    Pennsylvania v. New York et al.
    [For earlier orders herein, see, e. g., 401 U. S. 931.]
   Report of Special Master received and filed. Exceptions, if any, may be filed by the parties within 45 days. Reply briefs, if any, may be filed within 30 days thereafter.


text:
    No. A-482.
    Babbitz v. McCann, District Attorney of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that the stay should be granted.


text:
    No. A-342.
    United States ex rel. Annaloro v. Elias, Correctional Superintendent.
   Pending appeal to C. A. 3d Cir. Renewed application for bail pending appeal denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that bail should be granted. Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.


text:
    No. A-578.
    Dixon, Treasurer of Illinois, et al. v. Skolnick et al.
   Pending appeal to C. A. 7th Cir. Application for stay and other relief presented to Mr. Justice Blackmun, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.


text:
    No. 70-92.
    California Motor Transport Co. et al. v. Trucking Unlimited et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 402 U. S. 1008.] Motion for leave to file supplemental brief after argument granted.


text:
    No. 70-295.
    First National City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 820.] Request for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 71-162.
    Board of Regents of State Colleges et al. v. Roth.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 909.] Motion of American Federation of Teachers for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 71-415.
    Colorado River Water Conservation District v. Rocky Mountain Power Co. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 71-5120.
    Riddell v. Hamilton, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Washington.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 71-5382.
    Turner v. Cox, Warden.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 71-110.
    Gelbard et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion to supplement petition denied. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 71-263.
    United States v. Egan et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondent Walsh for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 71-5097.
    Huffman v. Boersen.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Motion for leave to proceed m forma pauperis and cer-tiorari granted.


text:
    No. 70-5207.
    Wilson v. Cox, Acting Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5250.
    Richardson v. Cady, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5314.
    Jackson v. Wolff, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5398.
    Caughlin v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-138.
    Donahue v. California Justice Court for the Klamath-Trinity Judicial District et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-387.
    Herald Co. et al. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-392.
    Kahn v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-419.
    Bates Industries, Inc. v. Daytona Sports Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-424.
    Hayutin v. Colorado State Department of Highways.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-433.
    Richardson v. United States et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-440.
    Great Southwest Warehouses, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-442.
    Philpott, District Director of Internal Revenue, et al. v. Hill.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-456.
    Humphreys, Trustee v. Nissho American Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-461.
    Mendell v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-466.
    Mills v. Small.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-468.
    United Air Lines, Inc. v. Sprogis.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-469.
    Henderson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-472.
    Dugan et al. v. Dieber.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-470.
    Erwin v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-477.
    First Regular Baptist Church of Franklin, Ohio v. Insurance Co. of North America.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-483.
    Donald v. Jones, Sheriff.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-491.
    Kaneshiro, aka Higa, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-493.
    Ramzy v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-505.
    Tuck v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-511.
    Cristol et al. v. City of Miami Beach et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-535.
    Freedman v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-538.
    City of Detroit v. Garment Corp. of America.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5069.
    Williams v. Cardwell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5085.
    Stevenson v. Mancusi, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5113.
    Magee v. Conti, U. S. District Judge, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5124.
    Peterson v. Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5174.
    McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5360.
    Balc v. Ardelean et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5362.
    Ortiz v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5366.
    Mahler v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5372.
    Strader v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5373.
    Nystrom v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5376.
    Wollweber v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5377.
    Williams v. Carlson, Director of U. S. Bureau of Prisons, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5378.
    Chaney v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5380.
    Galdeira et al. v. Richardson et al.
   Sup. Ct. Hawaii and 1st Cir. Ct. Hawaii. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5312.
    Lake v. Hale, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-115.
    Egenberg v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-173.
    Stevens v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-400.
    Harris v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-523.
    Wilhoit v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-5356.
    Stinnett v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-5381.
    Lucas v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-319.
    Johnson et al. v. Moses et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of Investment Company Institute for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-453.
    Sword et al. v. Fox et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-454.
    Delome v. Union Barge Line Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of American Trial Lawyers Assn, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-462.
    Bricker v. Sceva Speare Memorial Hospital.
   Sup. Ct. N. H. Motion of American College of Legal Medicine for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-465.
    Bowman, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. Bay Area Painters’ Trust Fund.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-5342.
    Manning v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion for leave to file supplemental brief granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-5374.
    Ortiz v. Beto, Corrections Director, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-471.
    Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent v. Levine.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5375.
    Stanley v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

MR. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 70-119.
    No. 70-154.
    No. 70-5071.
    No. 70-5317.
    No. 71-289.
    No. 71-326.
    No. 71-376.
    No. 71-5016.
    No. 71-5168.
    Blevins v. United States, Pruett v. Texas et al., Rogers v. Adams, Warden, Jones v. Austin, Secretary of State of Michigan, Zahn et al. v. Security Pacific National Bank, Executor, et al., Lowe v. Lowe, Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., Plotts v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Sloben v. New York,
   ante, p. 823;

ante, p. 910;

ante, p. 834;

ante, p. 911;

ante, p. 938;

ante, p. 931;

ante, p. 941;

ante, p. 913; and

ante, p. 942. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-219.
    Hawkins v. United States,
   ante, p. 911. Motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    December 20, 1971
    No. 70-315.
    Resolute Insurance Co. et al. v. Seventh Judicial District Court of Oklahoma County et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. W. D. Okla.


text:
    No. 71-425.
    Coit et al. v. Green et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. D. C.


text:
    No. 71-296.
    First Mercantile Consumer Discount Co. et al. v. Henry et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. J. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stewart are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-329.
    Corsetti, dba Dick’s Market v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 71-5379.
    Heidel v. Arizona State Department of Public Welfare et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ariz. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-5414.
    Hardeman v. California et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 9th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. A-611.
    Holt v. City of Richmond et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application to vacate stay order presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that the stay should be vacated.


text:
    No. 9,
    Orig.
    United States v. Louisiana et al. (Louisiana Boundary Case).
    [For supplemental decree and counsel, see ante, p. 388.] [For earlier orders herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 932.]
   Motion of the United States for entry of supplemental decree as to State of Louisiana granted.


text:
    No. 52,
    Orig.
    United States v. Florida.
    [For earlier order, see 403 U. S. 950, sub nom. United States v. Louisiana et al. (Louisiana Boundary Case).]

   Report of Special Master upon motion by the United States to dismiss counterclaim and deny demand for jury trial filed by State of Florida is received, filed, and adopted by the Court.


text:
    No. 71-269.
    National Brewing Co. v. Caldwell et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 71-5097.
    Huffman v. Boersen.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 990.] Motion of petitioner for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that Leo Eisenstatt, Esquire, of Omaha, Nebraska, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 71-123.
    No. 71-198.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Burns International Security Services, Inc. (formerly known as William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc.), et al.; and Burns International Security Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 822.] Motion of respondent International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America, for additional time for oral argument granted and 15 minutes allotted to the Union for that purpose. Burns International Security Services, Inc., allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 70-5015.
    Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. [Certiorari granted, 401 U. S. 908.] Case restored to calendar for reargument. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 71-36.
    California et al. v. LaRue et al.
   Appeal from D. C. C. D. Cal. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 70-5276.
    Murel et al. v. Baltimore City Criminal Court et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in jorma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 71-5103.
    Morrissey et al. v. Brewer, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in jorma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 71-5144.
    McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Motion for leave to proceed in jorma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 70-336.
    Burke et al. v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5173.
    Thompson v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5346.
    Ringo v. Wingo, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-30.
    Fortis v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-153;
    No. 71-201;
    No. 71-374.
    Steinberg v. Pennsylvania; McCloskey & Co., Inc., et al. v. Pennsylvania; and Pennsylvania v. McCloskey et al.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 443 Pa. 117, 277 A. 2d 764.


text:
    No. 71-245.
    DePanicis et al. v. Department of Public Safety, Town of Nutley.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-284.
    Mitchell v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-312.
    Smith v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-408.
    United States v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-412.
    Catalano v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-385.
    Printing Specialties & Paper Products Union No. 447, International Printing Pressmen & Assistants’ Union of North America, AFL-CIO v. Pride Papers-Aaronson Bros. Paper Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-438.
    Fields v. Association of the Bar of the City of New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-447.
    Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. LeMay, Administrator.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-451.
    Mace v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5001.
    Prewitt v. Eyman, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5081.
    Carter v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5104.
    Ramos v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5115.
    Wroth v. Guerrero et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5126.
    Alexander v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5164.
    Freeman v. Page, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5189.
    Marnin v. Vukcevich, Prison Superintendent.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5223.
    Salazar v. Wolff, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5191.
    Gonzales v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5308.
    Eggleston v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5383.
    Lipscomb v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5385.
    Oliver v. Governor of Pennsylvania et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5387.
    Whaley v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5389.
    Bray v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5390.
    Madeley v. Short et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5392.
    Bennett v. District Director of Internal Revenue et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5393.
    McCaine v. Swenson, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5394.
    Shappell v. Martin-Marietta Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5397.
    Lewis v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5398.
    Bethea v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5401.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5402.
    Queen, aka Arnold v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5403.
    Cronan v. Mancusi, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5404.
    Longo v. United States.
   C. A. 9th, Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5406.
    Saulsbury v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5408.
    Lothridge et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-53.
    Redwood v. New York.
   App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-265.
    Walter, dba Classic Art Theatres I & II et al. v. Slaton et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-339.
    Kershaw v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-428.
    Bacall et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-141.
    Colligan et al. v. Activities Club of New York, Ltd., Aka New York Winter Ski Club, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Stewart are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-435.
    Ryan v. Tarr, Director, Selective Service System, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-5312.
    Henderson v. City of Kansas City.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-293.
    Goham et al. v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Motion to dispense with printing petition and reply brief granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-421.
    Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. et al. v. Mitchell et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Blackmun are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-313.
    Page, Superintendent of Public Instruction, et al. v. Williams et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondents Alexander et al. for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-327.
    No. 71-328.
    No. 71-346.
    No. 71-347.
    Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission; Huntington v. Securities and Exchange Commission; Crawford v. Securities and Exchange Commission; and Holyk et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Blackmun are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted in No. 71-327.

Mr. Justice Blackmun is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted limited to Question 5 in No. 71-346 and limited to Questions 6 and 7 in No. 71-347. Reported below: 446 F. 2d 1301.


text:
    No. 71-446.
    Hammond Lead Products, Inc. v. United States (Valls, Real Party in Interest).
   C. C. P. A. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-458.
    City of Texarkana et al. v. Civil Aeronautics Board.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion for leave to file copies of decisions of Administrative Agency as an unprinted appendix granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5531.
    Lipscomb v. Warden, Atlanta Penitentiary, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion for leave to supplement petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5146.
    No. 71-302.
    No. 71-336.
    No. 71-414.
    No. 71-5109.
    No. 71-5181.
    Beasley v. United States, Ratliff et al. v. Cooper Laboratories, Inc., et al., United Dairy Farmers Cooperative Assn. v. Milk Control Commission of Pennsylvania et al., Vulcan Materials Co. v. United States, Bush v. Morris, District Attorney of Sumter County, et al., Harrelson, aka Stoughtenborough v. United States,
   ante, p. 866;

ante, p. 948;

ante, p. 930;

ante, p. 942;

ante, p. 884; and

ante, p. 943. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    December 22, 1971
    No. 71-427.
    Lorillard Corp. et al. v. Robinson et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    January 6, 1972
    No. 70-344.
    Morgan v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 71-78.
    Watson v. Birdsong et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 71-5720.
    Lane v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 71-445.
    Tobacco Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Robinson et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    January 10, 1972
    No. 71-474.
    Lynch, dba Brewster Products v. Blount, Postmaster General, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y.

Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-337.
    Brown v. Colorado.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Colo, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-463.
    Kadans v. Collins, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Nevada, et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 9th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan would treat the appeal papers as a petition for writ of certiorari and grant the petition.


text:
    No. 71-569.
    Carolyne v. Youngstown State University et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ohio, Mahoning County, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 71-571.
    General Motors Corp. v. City of Los Angeles.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Cal. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument. Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this appeal.


text:
    No. 71-5297.
    Sekeres v. Illinois.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 70-5305.
    Digesualdo et al. v. Shea, Director of Department of Social Services, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Colo. Motion of appellants for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Townsend v. Swank, ante, p. 282.


text:
    No. 70-5047.
    Mullins v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Bass, ante, p. 336.

Mr. Justice Blackmun, with whom The Chief Justice joins, dissents for reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Bass, supra, at 351. Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and petition.


text:
    No. 70-64.
    Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc. v. Chagois.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law, ante, p. 202.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents from remand. Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    No. 70-5073;
    No. 70-5074;
    No. 70-5095.
    Wiley v. United States; Taylor v. United States; and Synnes v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgments vacated and cases remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Bass, ante, p. 336.

Mr. Justice Blackmun, with whom The Chief Justice joins, dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Bass, supra, at 351. Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions and petitions.

Reported below: No. 70-5073, 438 F. 2d 773, No. 70-5074, 438 F. 2d 774, and No. 70-5095, 438 F. 2d 764.


text:
    No. 70-5267.
    Crow v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Bass, ante, p. 336.

Mr. Justice Blackmun, with whom The Chief Justice joins, dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Bass, supra, at 351. Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and petition.


text:
    No. 71-5335.
    Madril v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Bass, ante, p. 336.

Mr. Justice Blackmun, with whom The Chief Justice joins, dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Bass, supra, at 351. Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and petition.


text:
    No. 70-5048.
    Warden v. Jankowski et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Mayer v. City of Chicago, ante, p. 189.

Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and petition.


text:
    No. 70-5092.
    Colbert et al. v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Mayer v. City of Chicago, ante, p. 189.

Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and petition.


text:
    No. 70-5397.
    Keever v. Bainter, Judge.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Marion, ante, p. 307.

Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and petition.


text:
    No. 71-5473.
    Miller v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Wayne County. Certiorari dismissed, it appearing that petitioner died on November 1, 1971.


text:
    No. A-357.
    Bell v. United States.
   D. C. E. D. Tex. Application for reconsideration of bail presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-574.
    Smith v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Application for bail denied.


text:
    No. A-659.
    Chason v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Renewed application for stay and bail denied.


text:
    No. 70-36.
    Perry et al. v. Sindermann.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 403 U. S. 917.] Request for two counsel to argue on behalf of petitioners denied.


text:
    No. 70-72.
    United States v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 402 U. S. 942.] Motion of respondents for additional time for oral argument and for three counsel to argue denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 70-74.
    Pipefitters Local Union No. 562 et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 402 U. S. 994.] Motion of American Civil Liberties Union for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 70-5012.
    Milton v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   [Certiorari granted, 403 U. S. 904.] Motion of J. Robert Olian for leave to argue pro hac vice on behalf of respondent granted.


text:
    No. 70-105.
    No. 70-106.
    Hanrahan v. Doe et al.; and Heffernan, Guardian v. Doe et al.
   Appeals from D. C. N. D. Ill. Motion of appellees to vacate stay order entered by Mr. Justice Marshall on February 10, 1971, denied.


text:
    No. 70-153.
    United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al. (Plamondon et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 403 U. S. 930.] Motion of respondents for additional time for oral argument granted and a total of two hours allotted for oral argument. The Solicitor General allotted one hour to argue on behalf of the United States; counsel for named respondent allotted one-half hour and counsel for unnamed respondents allotted one-half hour for oral argument.

Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 70-286.
    Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Thompson et al.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 820.] Motion requesting writ of certiorari be dismissed as improvidently granted deferred to hearing of case on the merits.


text:
    No. 70-5039.
    Fuentes et al. v. Shevin, Attorney General of Florida, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Fla. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 401 U. S. 906, sub nom. Fuentes v. Faircloth.] Motion for leave to cite supplemental authority granted.


text:
    No. A-666; 71-5277.
    Carter v. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
   Application for stay of further court proceedings presented to Mr. Justice Stewart, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that the motion should be granted.


text:
    No. 70-5058.
    Lynch et al. v. Household Finance Corp. et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Conn. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 401 U. S. 935.] Motion of appellants for leave to file supplemental brief after argument granted.


text:
    No. 71-247.
    Rabe v. Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 909.] Motions of National Association of Theatre Owners, Inc., and Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 71-5396.
    Duhart et al. v. United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 71-5305.
    Cipolla v. Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that the motion should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-464.
    No. 71-5425.
    Kadans v. Foley, U. S. District Judge, et al.; and Laughlin v. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 70-250.
    Carleson, Director of Department of Social Welfare, et al. v. Remillard et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. Motion of appellee Remillard for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 71-16.
    Mitchell, Attorney General, et al. v. Mandel et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. N. Y. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 71-404.
    Colten v. Kentucky.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ky. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 71-5445.
    Shadwick v. City of Tampa.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of appellant for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 70-223.
    Central Hardware Co. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 71-237.
    Mancusi, Correctional Superintendent v. Stubbs.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 71-506.
    United States et al. v. Midwest Video Corp.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 71-517.
    Combs v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 71-564.
    District of Columbia v. Carter.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 70-283.
    Adams, Warden v. Williams.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 70-159.
    Deutsch et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5288.
    Ross et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5319.
    Polsky v. New Mexico.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-335.
    Wolberg v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-353.
    Gumen et al. v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-375.
    Thayer v. California.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Orange. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-401.
    De la Parra v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-476.
    Carzoli v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-479.
    Mareno et vir v. Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc., et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-487.
    Seaman v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-489.
    No. 71-550.
    Allied Pilots Assn. v. Civil Aeronautics Board et al.; and American Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 445 F. 2d 891.


text:
    No. 71-494.
    Urban v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-488.
    Simms v. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-490.
    Burch v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-495.
    International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (AFL-CIO) et al. v. United Aircraft Corp.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-497.
    Kotsak v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-501.
    Edgar, Commissioner of Education of Texas, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-502.
    Estate of Fried v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-503.
    Whitcomb v. General Dynamics Corp. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-504.
    News-Journal Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-508.
    Henning v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-510.
    Pacific Maritime Assn. et al. v. Local 13, International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-509.
    Melton v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-512.
    District 20, United Mine Workers of America v. Sams.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-513.
    Cobuzzi v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-514.
    Iowa Tribe of the Iowa Reservation in Kansas & Nebraska et al. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-522.
    St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-526.
    Freed v. Erie Lackawanna Railway Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-528.
    Amalgamated Local Union 355 et al. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-529.
    Blackburn v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-530.
    Keller v. Dravo Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-531.
    Lee v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-534.
    Kaleel et al. v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-536.
    No. 71-542.
    Wilkins, Administratrix v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.; and American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. v. Wilkins, Administratrix.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 446 F. 2d 480.


text:
    No. 71-537.
    No. 71-539.
    Ansul Co. et al. v. Uniroyal, Inc.; and Uniroyal, Inc. v. Louisville Chemical Co.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 448 F. 2d 872.


text:
    No. 71-541.
    Whitaker et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-543.
    Von Zamft v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-544.
    Salyer Land Co. v. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Kings County Development Co., real party in interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-545.
    United States Steel Corp. v. Blair.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-546.
    Los Angeles Newspaper Guild, Local 69, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-547.
    Jimenez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-552.
    Philadelphia Newspaper Printing Pressmen’s Union Local No. 16 v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-549.
    Giamo v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-551.
    Goldstein v. Florida State Board of Dentistry.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-556.
    United States Steel Corp. v. Peck.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-557.
    Deutsch v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-560.
    Ledes v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-562.
    Eaton v. Hobson.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-566.
    Fishbein et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-570.
    No. 71-585.
    Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Thiokol Chemical Corp.; and Thiokol Chemical Corp. v. Burlington Industries, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 448 F. 2d 1328.


text:
    No. 71-622.
    Bode et al. v. National Democratic Party et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5006.
    Coffman et al. v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5175.
    Duckson v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-568.
    Alomar v. Dwyer et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5216.
    Smith v. Henry, Prison Administrator, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5220.
    James v. Idaho.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5263.
    Scherer v. Hocker, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5289.
    Evans v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5298.
    Ferris v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5306.
    Fleming v. Pate, Warden, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5311.
    Brooks v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5353.
    Parks v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5410.
    Richardson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5411.
    Spears v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5412.
    Watkins v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5413.
    Thibadoux v. Mancusi, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5415.
    Shuford v. Mancusi, Correctional Superintendent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5416.
    Dodd v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No 71-5417.
    Bowles v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5420.
    Gray v. Swenson, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5422.
    Simpson v. Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5424.
    De Vyver v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5426.
    Rodriquez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5427.
    Evans v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5428.
    Lipscomb v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5429.
    Copeland, aka King v. Beard, Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5430.
    Leeper v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5432.
    Aldridge v. North Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5435.
    Clemons v. Maryland.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5433.
    Landman v. Mitchell, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5436.
    Agers v. California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5437.
    Shabazz v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5438.
    Preston v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5451.
    Johnson v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5452.
    Guzman v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5453.
    Camerlin v. Rhode Island.
   Sup. Ct. R. I. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5454.
    Chambers v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5455.
    Bradley v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5456.
    Sheley v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5457.
    Osuna-Sanchez et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5458.
    Fletcher v. Shultz, Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5460.
    Richardson v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5461.
    Sowul v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5463.
    Grubb et al. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5469.
    Barbour v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5471.
    Bennett v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5472.
    Blanks v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5475.
    Cagle v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-193.
    Russo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 70-280.
    Summerlin v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and judgment reversed.


text:
    No. 70-5060.
    Campos-Serrano v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 71-480.
    Tobias v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-482.
    Sewell v. Grand Lodge of the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-516.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-524.
    Thugut v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-532.
    City of Detroit et al. v. Socomet, Inc.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-540.
    Cramer et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-5231.
    Turley v. Adams, Judge.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-5232.
    Dixon v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-5467.
    Walker v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-5468.
    Sutton v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-481.
    3,317.39 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Jefferson County, Arkansas, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of petitioners to defer consideration denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-499.
    Mascia v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Blackmun are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-500.
    Birrell v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 71-518.
    Couch, Administratrix v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and judgment reversed. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500.


text:
    No. 71-520.
    McKendrick, Correctional Superintendent v. Rivera.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5357.
    Santos v. New York State Board of Parole.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-555.
    McIntyre v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 71-567.
    Arredondo v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that certio-rari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-5444.
    Carlough v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 71-5447.
    Beale v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir, Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1593,
    No. 71-388.
    October Term, 1970.
    Societe Industries Mechaniques Allies v. Lewis, U. S. District Judge, Halcon International, Inc. v. Monsanto Australia Ltd.,
   403 U. S. 905; and

ante, p. 949. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 70-97.
    No. 70-5164.
    No. 70-5295.
    No. 71-264.
    No. 71-398.
    Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Nemitz et al., Gunston v. Superior Court, County of Alameda, California, Pattillo v. Wilson et al., Booth v. Lemont Manufacturing Corp. et al., Thompson et ux. v. Clark et al.,
   ante, p. 37;

ante, p. 819;

ante, p. 955 ;

ante, p. 916; and

ante, p. 984. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-5052.
    No. 71-5337.
    Ginsberg v. Levitt, Comptroller of New York, Fullington et al. v. Shea, Director, Colorado Department of Social Services, et al.,
   ante, p. 959; and

ante, p. 963. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    January 11, 1972
    No. 70-265.
    No. 70-5431.
    Smith et al. v. Board of Elections for the District of Columbia et al.; and El-Haqq et al. v. Board of Elections for the District of Columbia et al.
   Appeals from D. C. D. C. dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    January 17, 1972
    No. 70-5377.
    Burr et al. v. Smith, Secretary of Department of Social and Health Services.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. W. D. Wash.

Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. 71-519.
    Spencer et al. v. Kugler, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al.
   Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

The black students in this case want nothing more than to receive the same quality of education from our public schools as is enjoyed by the whites. To deny them that equality is to sanction the dispensation of public benefits according to the invidious classification of race.

Appellants sought to convene a three-judge District Court in order to challenge the constitutionality of New Jersey’s statutory scheme establishing the boundaries of school districts. They argue that by establishing school district lines to coincide with the boundaries of the State’s political subdivisions, cf. N. J. Rev. Stat. § 18A:8-1, the State imposed upon the public schools patterns of racial imbalance in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. It is said in reply that New Jersey prescribes school district boundaries only in conformity with municipal boundaries. There is, however, a showing that at times a black has to walk further to his school than the white school in his neighborhood. The remedy is redistricting. We have sponsored that process to protect the right to vote. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533. The right to education in the environment of a multi-racial community seems equally fundamental.

The result, according to appellants, is an inferior education for students of minority races — something this Court has long condemned. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U. S. 637; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629; Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U. S. 631; Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337. See also Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356. Appellants sought either a redistricting or an appropriate racial balance in the public schools so that educational opportunity would not be determined by race, cf. Gomperts v. Chase, post, p. 1237, or compensatory educational programs to correct the inferior schooling given minority students. The District Court in that case had rejected this approach, however, and dismissed the complaint, finding refuge in de jacto segregation. 329 F. Supp. 1192.

If any form of state-imposed segregation is proved, then the racially homogeneous residential neighborhoods and the consequent racial imbalance in schools would seem to be the result of state action. “ 'It is a question of the power of the State as a whole/ Mr. Justice Brandéis said. “[T]he powers of the several state officials must be treated as if merged in a single officer.” Iowa-Des Moines Bank v. Bennett, 284 U. S. 239, 244-245 (1931). The Constitution condemns “discrimination, whether accomplished ingeniously or ingenuously,” Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 132 (1940), and where there has been any such discrimination our “objective [is] ... to eliminate from the public schools all vestiges of state-imposed segregation.” Swann v. Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1, 15 (1971) (emphasis added).

There is, moreover, an ancient American doctrine that as, if, and when public facilities are separate for the races they must be equal. Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, held that a State could maintain separate facilities for different races providing the facilities were equal. We have long since repudiated the notion that a State may maintain racially distinct facilities for the races, because classifications based upon race are invidious and thus violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. But there can be de jacto segregation without the State’s being implicated in the creation of the dual system and it is in such situations that Plessy’s mandate that separate facilities be equal has continuing force. Our conclusion in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 495, that “[s]eparate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” has been convincingly borne out by scholarly studies. E. g., J. Coleman, Equality of Educational Opportunity (1966); Harvard Educational Review, Equal Educational Opportunity (1969); Alexander & Campbell, Peer Influences on Adolescent Educational Aspirations and Attainments, 29 Am. Socio. Rev. 568 (1964). This inequality led Senator Mondale to conclude:

“In 1968, there were more than 43 million children in our public elementary and secondary schools. 9 million were from minority groups: 6.3 million were black; 2 million were of Spanish origin; 194,000 were from Oriental backgrounds; 178,000 were American Indian.
“Most of these children are from families living in poverty. The vast majority are deprived of a decent education throughout their lives. They go to schools which are inferior — educationally, financially, and physically. They are years behind in achievement. Few go on to higher education.” 117 Cong. Rec. 10750.

Senator Javits recently summarized the problem: “Whatever you call it, 'de facto segregation,’ 'racial unbalance,’ or 'the absence of intergroup activity,’ it is a serious block to effective education for children of minority groups anywhere in the country, especially in the north and central part of the country where you don’t have the established social order of segregation.” Hearings on Emergency School Aid Act of 1970 before the Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 21 (1970).

I would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.

      In this case the white exodus to the suburbs and the resultant surrender of the inner city to the blacks is evident. “In 1910, 73 per cent of the Negro population of the United States were rural; in 1960, 73 per cent were urban.” K. Taeuber & A. Taeuber, Negroes in Cities 1 (1965). That shift in residential patterns has been both encouraged and facilitated by federal, state, and local actions. In a recent statement to the Senate Subcommittee on Education, the United States Commission on Civil Rights-indicated how pervasive this governmental influence is:
      “Even in those instances where school segregation is a result of housing patterns with no apparent complicity of school officials, government at all levels — local, State, or Federal — invariably is heavily implicated. Historically, racial zoning ordinances imposed by local law were a formidable factor in creating and maintaining racially exclusive neighborhoods. Although such ordinances were held unconstitutional as early as 1917, some communities continued to enforce them, even as late as the 1950s.
      “Judicial enforcement by State courts of racially restrictive covenants has been another important factor. Although these covenants were private agreements to exclude members of designated minority groups, the fact that they were enforceable by the courts gave them maximum effectiveness. Not until 1948 was the judicial enforcement of such covenants held unconstitutional, and not until 1953 was their enforcement by way of money damages held unlawful. Racially restrictive covenants no longer are judicially enforceable, but they still appear in deeds and the residential patterns they helped to create still persist.
      “Various exercises of local governmental authority, such as decisions on building permits, the location of sewer and water facilities, building inspection standards, zoning and land use requirements, and the power of eminent domain have been used to exclude minority group members from designated neighborhoods and even from entire communities.
      “The Federal Government, principally through its public housing and FHA mortgage insurance programs, has been all too often a willing partner in the creation and perpetuation of racially segregated neighborhoods, even to the point of insisting upon them. Until the late 1940s, for example, FHA insisted on racially restrictive covenants to insure against integrated housing developments. Until 1962 when the Executive Order on Equal Opportunity in Housing was issued, the agency continued willingly to do business with discriminatory builders and developers. The Public Housing Administration permitted its funds to be used for the creation and perpetuation of segregated housing projects well after the courts had made it clear that such practices were in violation of the Constitution. Other Federal programs, such as the highway and urban renewal programs, which involve massive displacement and relocation, also have had the effect of intensifying residential segregation.
      “The point we are making is that the current situation we face, in which most minority group children attend school in isolation from children of the majority group, is not accidental or purely de facto. In many cases, it has resulted in whole or in substantial part from an accumulation of governmental actions. Thus the categorical distinction between de jure and de facto segregation is not as clear-cut as it would appear. Upon closer examination, there is probably little legal substance to the concept of de facto school segregation. Further, in the Commission’s view, the Government has a moral as well as legal responsibility to undo the segregation it has helped to create and maintain. There is no statute of limitations by which government in its many forms can be exonerated from its past misdeeds or relieved of its current obligations.” Hearings before the Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 352-354 (1970).


author: Mr. Justice Douglas, MR. Justice Brennan,

text:
    No. 71-5729.
    Lippitt v. Cipollone et al.
   Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

In the 1970 Ohio primary election, appellant voted as a Republican and was a candidate for the Republican nomination to the House of Representatives from the 22d Congressional District of Ohio. Political allegiances change and, in the upcoming election, appellant seeks the nomination to Congress of the American Independent Party. He is prevented from pursuing this nomination, however, by an intricate statutory scheme. Central to this scheme is a statute which provides, with various exceptions not relevant here, e. g., Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3517.013 et seq. (Supp. 1970), that “[n]o person shall be a candidate for nomination or election at a party primary if he voted as a member of a different political party at any primary election within the next preceding four calendar years.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3513.191 (1960). Other provisions also being attacked require those working for primary candidates or signing their nominating petitions to be members of the party in which nomination is sought, id., § 3513.05 (Supp. 1970).

No one disputes that Ohio’s statutory scheme prevents appellant from seeking the nomination of the party of his choice before 1974. Appellees, however, defend this limitation of freedom, saying that it is necessary to ensure “the formation of recognizable, relatively stable political parties with their own leadership, goals and philosophies.” They conclude, “The protection of these purposes is a legitimate State concern.” The District Court adopted this rationale:

“The compelling State interest the Ohio Legislature seeks to protect by its contested statutes is the integrity of all political parties and membership therein. These Ohio statutes seek to prevent ‘raiding’ of one party by members of another party and to preclude candidates from ‘. . . altering their political party affiliations for opportunistic reasons.’ State ex rel. Bible v. Board of Elections, 22 O. S. 2d 57, 258 N. E. 2d 227 (1970). Protection of party membership uniformly applied to all parties cannot be characterized as ‘invidious discrimination’ as defined in Williams [v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23 (1968)].” 337 F. Supp. 1405, 1406 (ND Ohio 1971).

Not only does the denial of appellant’s right to seek the nomination of the American Independent Party in 1972 seriously impair his right of political expression, but the “compelling State interest” advanced by the appel-lees and accepted by the court below seems alien to our political and constitutional heritage. The right to run for public office seems a fundamental one.

The Ohio laws deny appellant that liberty, insofar as the 1972 election is concerned.

While I doubt that any state interest can be so compelling as to justify an impairment of associational freedoms in the area of philosophy — political or otherwise — the reasons advanced by the court below require an answer. The District Court and the appellees see a compelling state interest in the need to preserve the status quo and to preserve political stability. This interest, it is argued, is secured by creating impediments to changes in party allegiance. Our history is replete with instances in which politicians — having become disenchanted with their previous parties or perhaps only for the “opportunistic” reasons condemned by the court below — have changed from one party to another. This list includes Teddy Roosevelt, Strom Thurmond, Wayne Morse, John Lindsay, George Wallace, and a host of others. Though these breaks from past political ties add vitality to our political process, Ohio makes it very difficult.

I would note probable jurisdiction and put the case down for early argument.

MR. Justice Brennan,

Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Powell:

We are three of the four who dissent from the affirmance of the judgment of the District Court in this case. In the circumstances present here, however, we do not insist that the case be set down for oral argument.

      In Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 39-40 (separate opinion), I said:
      “Cumbersome election machinery can effectively suffocate the right of association, the promotion of political ideas and programs of political action, and the right to vote. The totality of Ohio’s requirements has those effects. It is unnecessary to decide whether Ohio has an interest, ‘compelling’ or not, in abridging those rights because ‘the men who drafted our Bill of Rights did all the “balancing” that was to be done in this field.' Appellees would imply that ‘no kind of speech is to be protected if the Government can assert an interest of sufficient weight to induce this Court to uphold its abridgment.’ I reject that suggestion.” (Citations omitted.)


text:
    No. 70-5266.
    Lloyd et al. v. Third Judicial District Court in and for Salt Lake County.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Utah. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371 (1971).


text:
    No. 71-5318.
    Garner v. Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 2d Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-596.
    No. 71-602.
    Scrap Loaders, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Shipping Co., Liberia; and
    Pacific Coast Shipping Co., Liberia v. Ryan.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp., 400 U. S. 494 (1971), and Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law, ante, p. 202. Reported below: 448 F. 2d 525.


text:
    No. 71-5368.
    DeMino v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment reversed. Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S. 323 (1970).


text:
    No. 70-88.
    S&E Contractors, Inc. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. [Certiorari granted, 402 U. S. 971.] Case restored to calendar for reargument.


text:
    No. A-562.
    Garner v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Application for reconsideration of denial of bail presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-640 (71-595).
    Nichol, District Attorney of Dane County, et al. v. Kennan et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Wis. Application for stay of interlocutory injunction and of further proceedings presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 68-5027.
    No. 69-5003.
    No. 69-5030.
    No. 69-5031.
    Aikens v. California. Furman v. Georgia. Jackson v. Georgia. Branch v. Texas.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.; and

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. [Certiorari granted, 403 U. S. 952.] Motion of American Civil Liberties Union for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 71-609.
    Terminal Freight Handling Co. et al. v. Solien.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion to defer consideration granted.


text:
    No. 71-5103.
    Morrissey et al. v. Brewer, Warden, et al.
   [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 999.] Motion of petitioners for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that W. Don Brittin, Jr., Esquire, of Des Moines, Iowa, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for petitioners in this case.


text:
    No. 71-507.
    Keyes et al. v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted.

Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 71-492.
    Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 71-559.
    United States v. Fuller et ux.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 71-315.
    Deepsouth Packing Co., Inc. v. Laitram Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition, which reads as follows:

“1. Is an apparatus claim of a United States patent directed to a combination of elements, each of which is old, infringed under 35 U. S. C. §271 (a) when:

“(a) although the individual elements are manufactured in the United States,

“(b) the individual elements are never assembled in the United States, and

“(c) the first and only assembly of the elemental parts into an operable combination or apparatus occurs, and all testing, adjustment, modification and use of the assembled apparatus is conducted in, a foreign country?”


text:
    No. 71-573.
    Laird, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Nelms et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.

Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or

decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 71-5255.
    Barker v. Wingo, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 71-369.
    Shaw v. Pitchess, Sheriff.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-254.
    Westmoreland v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-574.
    Nemelka et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-577.
    Municipal Court of East Los Angeles Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, et al. v. Perrine et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-579.
    Kroft v. Cox et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-581.
    The Santa Rosa et al. v. Loomis.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-582.
    Frommhagen v. Glazer.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-584.
    Patrick v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-587.
    Franklin Township v. Borough of Delmont.
   Commonwealth Ct. of Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-590.
    Vega v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-591.
    Rawls v. Condé Nast Publications, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-592.
    Giza v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-597.
    Angle, dba Kansas Refined Helium Co. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-598.
    Mantzaris v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-601.
    Ozark Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-603.
    Nowak v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-607.
    DeCavalcante v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-610.
    Town Park Hotel Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-612.
    Von Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling Commission et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-614.
    Severson et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 447 F. 2d 631.


text:
    No. 71-5141.
    Clarke v. Burke, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5150.
    Dowlingtzon v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5160.
    Smiley v. Nelson, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5154.
    Goldman v. City of St. Louis.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-5198.
    Gaskins v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5358.
    In re Jones.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5361.
    Brown v. Hirst.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5386.
    Crittendon v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5476.
    Oppenheimer v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5477.
    Gray v. Zelker, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5478.
    Lara v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5479.
    Todaro v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5480.
    Proctor et al. v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5481.
    Stevenson v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5482.
    McCray v. United States Marshal for the District of Kansas et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5485.
    Kendall v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5483.
    Jones v. Zelker, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5487.
    Cesario v. Davison et ux.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5488.
    Oliver v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5489.
    Walker v. Kinneary, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5491.
    Henry v. Johnson, Administrator of Veterans’ Administration.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5492.
    Monteiro v. Picard, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5493.
    Sandoval et al. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5494.
    Hill, Administratrix v. Ohio County et al.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5495.
    Dunmore v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5496.
    Andrews v. North Carolina.
   Super. Ct. N. C., Wake County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5498.
    Bauguess v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5499.
    O’Neal v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-498.
    Olff v. East Side Union High School District.
   Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

It seems incredible that under our federalism a State can deny, a student education in its public school system unless his hair style comports with the standards of the school board.

Some institutions in Asia require their enrollees to shave their heads. Would we sustain that regulation if imposed by a public school?

Would we sustain a public school regulation requiring male students to have crew cuts?

The present regulation — to some at least — seems as extreme as the examples given. It provides:

“Hair shall be trim and clean. A boy’s hair shall not fall below the eyes in front and shall not cover the ears, and it shall not extend below the collar in back.”

Robert Olff, a 15-year-old boy speaking through his mother, has a full panoply of constitutional rights, though he is a minor. We said in Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 511:

“Students in school as well as out of school are ‘persons’ under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.”

Moreover, a parent’s control over the child, though not absolute, as witness our decisions placing sanctions against child labor, is pervasive. We said in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166:

“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. . . . And it is in recognition of this that' these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.”

Hair style is highly personal, an idiosyncrasy which I had assumed was left to family or individual control and was of no legitimate concern to the State. It seems to me to be as much a purely private choice as was the family-student decision, sustained against a .State’s prohibition, to study the German language in a public school. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390. That family-student right, the Court held, was included within “liberty” as the word is used in the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., at 400. Opposed there — as in the present case — is the authoritarian philosophy favoring regimentation. The Court said:

“In order to submerge the individual and develop ideal citizens, Sparta assembled the males at seven into barracks and intrusted their subsequent education and training to official guardians. Although such measures have been deliberately approved by men of great genius, their ideas touching the relation between individual and State were wholly different from those upon which our institutions rest; and it hardly will be affirmed that any legislature could impose such restrictions upon the people of a State without doing violence to both letter and spirit of the Constitution.” Id., at 402.

The word “liberty” is not defined in the Constitution. But, as we held in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, it includes at least the fundamental rights “retained by the people” under the Ninth Amendment. Id., at 484. One’s hair style, like one’s taste for food, or one’s liking for certain kinds of music, art, reading, recreation, is certainly fundamental in our constitutional scheme — a scheme designed to keep government off the backs of people. That is not to say that the police power of the state is powerless to deal with known evils. An epidemic of lice might conceivably authorize a shearing of locks-. Other like crises might be imagined. But I see no way of allowing a State to set hair styles for patrons of its schools, any more than it could establish a welfare system only for men with crew cuts and women with bobbed hair. Once these lines are drawn, a serious question of equal protection of the law is raised.

The federal courts are in conflict and the decisions in disarray. We have denied certiorari where the lower court has sustained the school board and also where it has overruled the board. The question tendered is of great personal concern to many and of unusual constitutional importance which we should resolve. I would grant this petition and set the case for argument.

       Feelings run high among people concerning hair styles. Yet as Professor Chafee said:
      “This breach of the peace theory is peculiarly liable to abuse when applied against unpopular expressions and practices. It makes a man a criminal simply because his neighbors have no self-control and cannot refrain from violence. The reductio ad absurdum of this theory was the imprisonment of Joseph Palmer, one of Bronson Alcott’s fellow-settlers at ‘Fruitlands/ not because he was a communist, but because he persisted in wearing such a long beard that people kept mobbing him, until law and order were maintained by shutting him up. A man does not become a criminal because some one else assaults him, unless his own conduct is in itself illegal or may be reasonably considered a direct provocation to violence.” Z. Chafee, Free Speech in the United States 151-152 (1942).

       “This Court takes judicial notice that hairstyles have altered from time to time throughout the ages. Samson’s locks symbolically signified his virility. Many of the Founding Fathers of this country wore wigs. President Lincoln grew a beard at the suggestion of a juvenile female admirer. Chief Justice Hughes’ beard furnished the model for the frieze over the portico of the Supreme Court of the United States proclaiming ‘equal justice under law.’ Today many of both the younger and older generations have avoided the increased cost of barbering by allowing their locks or burnsides to grow to greater lengths than when a haircut cost a quarter of a dollar.
      “Whether hair styles be regarded as evidence of conformity or of individuality, they are one of the most visible examples of personality. This is what every woman has always known. And so have many men, without the aid of an anthropologist, behavioral scientist, psychiatrist, or practitioner of any of the fine arts or black arts.” Richards v. Thurston, 304 F. Supp. 449, 451.

       In the 1920’s the fad turned to short hair:
      “To conservatives, short-haired women were as much ‘radicals and freaks of society’ as long-haired musicians, artists, and anarchists. Some saw in bobbed hair a symbol of all the ills of the age, ranging from jazz,, short skirts,, sexy movies, the automobile, and prohibition to such threats as ‘Freudian psychology’ and the ‘growing cult of the so-called free woman.’ The boyish bob, followed by the shingle and bingle which shaved the nape of the neck, and then by the curly bob and spit curls, were all part of what the older generation denounced as ‘Flaming Youth.’
      “Preachers took to pulpits to warn that ‘a bobbed woman is a disgraced woman.’ In a Missouri courtroom, a mother pleading for the return of her six children who had been living with a guardian heard the oldest of them testify to the judge: ‘We don’t believe mother is a Christian woman. She bobs her hair.’ Men divorced their wives over bobbed hair. Other males banded together with vows to give up shaving until wives agreed to let their hair grow out again. A large department store fired all bobbed haired employees and a hospital discharged bobbed haired nurses.” W. Severn, The Long And Short of It 122 (1971).

       In Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan, 12 Fed. Cas. 252, an alien Chinese was allowed to recover damages under the Civil Rights Act against the sheriff of San Francisco for cutting his hair “to an uniform length of one inch from the scalp” on entering a prison to serve a five-day sentence for a petty offense. The Circuit Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Field, held that the ordinance made an invidious discrimination against the Chinese (“only the dread of the loss of his queue will induce a Chinaman to pay his fine,” id., at 255) and was a cruel and unusual punishment. Ibid.

       “Long hair” cases have occasioned a deep division in the circuits. There is a conflict as to the extent that a student’s interest in his hair style enjoys constitutional protection, compare Breen v. Kahl, 419 F. 2d 1034 (CA7 1969), and Richards v. Thurston, 424 F. 2d 1281 (CA1 1970), with Ferrell v. Dallas Ind. School Dist., 392 F. 2d 697 (CA5 1968), and Jackson v. Dorrier, 424 F. 2d 213 (CA6 1970). Where it has been found to exist, there is a split as to the constitutional basis for such protection. Compare Breen, supra, with
        Richards, supra. And there is a conflict as to the showing necessary by the school board to justify a hair regulation even among those circuits permitting such a justification. Compare the decision of the Ninth Circuit in the present ease, and its companion, King v. Saddleback Jr. College Dist., 445 F. 2d 932 (1971), with Griffin v. Tatum, 425 F. 2d 201 (CA5 1970).
      Not only is the conflict deep and irreconcilable, but the issue is a recurrent one. There are well over 50 reported cases squarely presenting the issue, students having won in about half of them. In addition to the 37 cases cited in Note, 84 Harv. L. Rev. 1702, 1703 n. 4 (1971), see, e. g., King v. Saddleback Jr. College Dist., supra; Valdes v. Monroe County Bd. of Public Instruction, 325 F. Supp. 572 (SD Fla. 1971); Axtell v. LaPenna, 323 F. Supp. 1077 (WD Pa. 1971); Parker v. Fry, 323 F. Supp. 728 (ED Ark. 1971); Alberda v. Noell, 322 F. Supp. 1379 (ED Mich. 1971); Lambert v. Marushi, 322 F. Supp. 326 (SD W. Va. 1971); Martin v. Davison, 322 F. Supp. 318 (WD Pa. 1971); Dawson v. Hillsborough County, Florida School Board, 322 F. Supp. 286 (MD Fla. 1971); Karr v. Schmidt, 320 F. Supp. 728 (WD Tex. 1970); Freeman v. Flake, 320 F. Supp. 531 (Utah 1970); Lansdale v. Tyler Jr. College, 318 F. Supp. 529 (ED Tex. 1970); Alexander v. Thompson, 313 F. Supp. 1389 (CD Cal. 1970).

       See, e. g., Jackson v. Dorrier, supra, cert. denied, 400 U. S. 850.

       See, e. g., Breen v. Kahl, supra, cert. denied, 398 U. S. 937.


text:
    No. 71-5500.
    Cash v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5501.
    Sheris v. Morton et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. H. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5503.
    Counts v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5502.
    Evans et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5504.
    Feurtado v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5506.
    Calabro, aka Calabrone v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5507.
    Legree v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5509.
    Burt v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5512.
    Esocobar v. Roberts, District Attorney of Bronx County, et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-173.
    Aluminum Co. of America et al. v. Woods Exploration & Producing Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-121.
    Pro-Football, Inc., et al. v. Hecht et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-578.
    Porter et al. v. Lynch.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Blackmun are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-5514.
    McGovern v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-580.
    Kellis v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-606.
    Collins v. Black, Conservation Center Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-583.
    Tucker v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-594.
    Zizzo v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-613.
    Melancon v. RMK-BRJ, a Joint Venture.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-5185.
    Kearney v. Fritz, Correctional Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-5484.
    Pryor v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-5508.
    Honore v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-604.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 71-608.
    No. 71-697.
    C. T. S. Co., Inc. v. Cornwell Quality Tools Co.; and Cornwell Quality Tools Co. v. C. T. S. Co., Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted in No. 71-608. Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Reported below: 446 F. 2d 825.


text:
    No. 71-5162.
    Padilla v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 71-5286.
    Sostre. v. Oswald, Commissioner of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of Wisconsin Judicare for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae and to dispense with printing brief granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that cer-tiorari should be granted.