text:
    No. 1198.
    Reliance Insurance Co. v. Blount Brothers Corp.

      Edward Gallagher for petitioner. Douglas Arant for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 1194.
    Chase v. United States.

      Louis Koutoulakos for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion for leave to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1040.
    Quinault Tribe of Indians v. Gallagher, Sheriff, et al.

      Charles A. Hobbs for petitioner. John J. O’Connell, Attorney General of Washington, pro se, and Jane Dawdle Smith, Assistant Attorney General, for Gallagher et al., respondents. Briefs amicus curiae, in support of the petition, were filed by James B. Hovis for Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, and James J. McArdle for Makah Indian Tribe. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Nathan Lewin and Beatrice Rosenberg filed a memorandum for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1205.
    Spivak et al. v. United States.

      Myron L. Shapiro for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin and Crombie J. D. Garrett for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1207.
    Lawrence v. United States.
    J. B. Tiets for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome M. Feit for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1212.
    Symonette Shipyards, Ltd. v. Clark et al.

      W. F. Parker for petitioner. Arthur Roth, Charlotte J. Roth and Joseph S. Marcus for respondents.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1112.
    Foster v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc.

      Charles R. Maloney for petitioner. William E. Wright for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1062.
    Schmitz et al. v. Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S. A., et al.

      Daniel W. O’Donoghue and Ross O’Donoghue for petitioners. John J. Wilson and Frank H. Strickler for Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S. A., and Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Sanders, Morton Hollander and Richard S. Salzman for the Secretary of the Treasury, respondents.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 1275.
    Creditors’ Committee of Drive-In Development Corp. et al. v. National Boulevard Bank of Chicago.

      G. Kent Yowell for petitioners.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1210.
    Sarfaty et al. v. Nowak, Mayor of Calumet City, et al.

      John Powers Crowley and Anna R. Lavin for petitioners.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1132.
    No. 1248.
    Florists’ Nationwide Telephone Delivery Network-America’s Phone-Order Florists, Inc. v. Florists’ Telegraph Delivery Association; and Florists’ Telegraph Delivery Association v. Florists’ Nationwide Telephone Delivery Network-America’s Phone-Order Florists, Inc.

      Thomas C. McConnell and Francis J. McConnell for petitioner in No. 1132 and for respondent in No. 1248. Norman Diamond and Melville C. Williams for petitioner in No. 1248 and for respondent in No. 1132.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 371 F. 2d 263.

Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.


text:
    No. 884,
    Misc.
    Pettit v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Julia P. Cooper for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1201.
    Pepe v. New York.

      Hyman Bravin and Irving Anolik for petitioner. Frank S. Hogan for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1158.
    Hurst v. United States.

      Ellis G. Arnall for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome M. Feit for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 848,
    Misc.
    Bowers v. Rundle, Correctional Superintendent.
    Petitioner pro se. Arlen Specter for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 988,
    Misc.
    Schiebelhut v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Ronald L. Gainer for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1170,
    Misc.
    Durham v. Virginia.

      David G. Simpson for petitioner. Joseph A. Massie, Jr., for respondent.
   Cir. Ct., Frederick County, Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1431,
    Misc.
    Vida v. United States.

      Jerome Goldman for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1350,
    Misc.
    King v. United States.

      Richard M. Millman for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. May-sack for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1178,
    Misc.
    Beltowski v. Minnesota.
    Petitioner pro se. Douglas M. Head, Attorney General of Minnesota, George M. Scott and Henry W. McCarr, Jr., for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1438,
    Misc.
    Garrison v. Lacey et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall for respondents.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1473,
    Misc.
    Carter v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1476,
    Misc.
    McConnell v. Patterson, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1477,
    Misc.
    Davidson v. Indiana.

      William C. Erbecker for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1479,
    Misc.
    Bloomer v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1486,
    Misc.
    Gordon v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1496,
    Misc.
    Rivera v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1499,
    Misc.
    Nieto v. California.

      Caryl Warner for petitioner.
   Dist. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1504,
    Misc.
    Pletcher v. Russell, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1505,
    Misc.
    Kuk v. Warden, Nevada State Prison.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1507,
    Misc.
    Rodriguez v. Dunbar, Corrections Director, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1508,
    Misc.
    Haines v. Frye, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1509,
    Misc.
    Beltowski v. Larson, Judge.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1511,
    Misc.
    Crosby v. Brierley, County Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1513,
    Misc.
    Seiterle v. California.

      Earl Klein for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1518,
    Misc.
    Hardeman v. California.

      Melvin M. Belli for petitioner.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1536,
    Misc.
    Chromiak v. Field, State Institution Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1519,
    Misc.
    Overstreet v. Southern Railway Co.

      Charles A. Horsky and M. M. Roberts for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. W. S. Murphy for petitioner.


text:
    No. 1533,
    Misc.
    Beasley v. Wilson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1535,
    Misc.
    Phelps v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1538,
    Misc.
    Parrish v. United States.

      John J. Dwyer for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1546,
    Misc.
    Williams v. Oliver, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1549,
    Misc.
    Stiltner v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1560,
    Misc.
    Groleau v. United States et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1629,
    Misc.
    Cowens v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1569,
    Misc.
    Stiltner v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1580,
    Misc.
    Fodrey v. Peyton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1582,
    Misc.
    Scott v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1589,
    Misc.
    Fitzgerald v. California et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 823,
    Misc.
    Blessing v. Michigan.
    Petitioner pro se. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Curtis G. Beck, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 939,
    Misc.
    Kushmer v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1080,
    Misc.
    Senk v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1556,
    Misc.
    Castro v. New York.

      Leon B. Polsky for petitioner. Frank S. Hogan for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1487,
    Misc.
    McShane et al. v. Cleaver et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 467,
    October Term, 1962.
    Alvado et al. v. General Motors Corp.
   Motion for leave to file fifth petition for rehearing denied.

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

[See, e. g., 384 U. S. 1028.]


text:
    No. 1091.
    No. 1092.
    No. 275,
    No. 1076,
    No. 1210,
    No. 1247,
    No. 1439,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Ogletree et al. v. Ohio, Franklin et al. v. McDaniel, Smith v. Ohio, Bjornsen v. LaVallee, Warden, Pittman v. United States, Everett v. United States, Smith v. Wilson, Warden,
   386 U. S. 1007;

386 U. S. 993;

386 U. S. 1008;

386 U. S. 998;

386 U. S. 995;

386 U. S. 1013; and

386 U. S. 1002. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    May 22, 1967.
    No.-.
    Levy v. Corcoran, U. S. District Judge.

      Anthony G. Amsterdam and Charles Morgan, Jr., for applicant. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States in opposition.
   Application for a stay presented to Mr. Chief Justice Warren, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 1298,
    Misc.
    Osborn v. California Mens Colony Superintendent.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Jack K. Weber, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. -.
    Wallace, Governor of Alabama v. Lee et al.

      MacDonald Gallion, Attorney General of Alabama, Gordon Madison, Assistant Attorney General, Nicholas S. Hare, Special Assistant Attorney General, John C. Satterfield and Maury Smith for applicant. Charles S. Ralston, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and Fred D. Gray for Lee et al., and Solicitor General Marshall and Assistant Attorney General Doar for the United States in opposition.
   D. C. M. D. Ala. Application for a stay presented to Mr. Justice Black, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 895.
    Katz v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. (Certiorari granted, 386 U. S. 954.) Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted. Burton Marks on the motion.


text:
    No. 1643,
    No. 1652,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Rivera v. Government of the Virgin Islands; and Allen v. Russell, Warden.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 1539,
    Misc.
    Boles v. Burnett, Chief Justice.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 1218.
    International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 1291, et al. v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Association.

      Abraham E. Freedman and Martin J. Vigderman for petitioners.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument immediately following No. 892.


text:
    No. 1122.
    Brown et al., dba Gem Dairy v. United States et al.

      George Louis Creamer for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Sanders, Alan S. Rosenthal and Richard S. Salzman for the United States et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1124.
    Bissell et al. v. McElligott, Administrator, et al.

      Alan B. Slayton for Bissell et al., and Tom B. Kretsinger for Gampher et al., petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall for respondent United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1130.
    Noren et al. v. McCarthy, Manager of United States Land Office.

      Edson Abel for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Weisl and Roger P. Marquis for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1150.
    No. 1151.
    No. 1152.
    Goodman v. United States; Cohen v. United States; and Coughlin v. United States.

      E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., and James E. Murray for petitioners in all three cases. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Sanders, Morton Hollander and John C. Eldridge for the United States in all three cases. Elmer Neumann for American Federation of Government Employees, as amicus curiae, in support of the petitions in all three cases.
   Ct. Cl. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1220.
    Delfino v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1173.
    Still et al. v. Rossville Crushed Stone Co., Inc.

      Joe Tim-berlake for petitioners. Frank M. Gleason for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1214.
    Strathmore Securities, Inc., et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission.

      Maurice J. Mahoney for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, Philip A. Loomis, Jr., and Walter P. North for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1215.
    Babcock et ux. v. Phillips.

      Gene W. Reardon for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin and Harry Baum for respondent.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1219.
    Beall Pipe & Tank Corp. v. Shell Oil Co.

      Kenneth E. Roberts for petitioner. Arden E. Shenker for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1222.
    Gary Aircraft Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board.

      L. G. Clinton, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1225.
    Colson Corp. v. Everest & Jennings, Inc., et al.

      Barry L. Kroll for petitioner. Allan D. Mockabee for respondents.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1226.
    Mallon et al. v. United States.

      Robert V. Blade for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1228.
    Tool Research & Engineering Corp. v. Honcor Corp.

      Sidney Dorfman for petitioner. Wm. Douglas Sellers for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1232.
    Hellams v. United States.

      Porter B. Byrum for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1235.
    Martin et al. v. United States.

      Richard E. Gorman for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1237.
    Corson et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

      Robert M. Taylor for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin and Joseph M. Howard for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1239.
    Jackson County Public Water Supply District, No. 1 v. Ong Aircraft Corp. et al.

      Albert Thomson for petitioner. Roy P. Swanson for respondent Ong Aircraft Corp.
   K. C. Ct. App. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1244.
    Rocco v. Life Magazine et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Homer I. Mitchell and Harold R. Medina, Jr., for respondents.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1200,
    Misc.
    Franklin v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1247.
    Stevens v. Frick.

      Simon H. Rijkind for petitioner. David B. Buerger for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1256.
    Dulaine v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1264.
    O’Brien et al. v. Great Northern Railway Co. et al.

      Alfred B. Coate for petitioners. Edwin S. Booth for respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1267.
    Scoleri v. United States.

      Frank G. Whalen for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1288.
    Arroyo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

      Nathan T. Notkin for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1221,
    Misc.
    Velasquez v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
    Petitioner pro se. John J. O’Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Stephen C. Way and Lee D. Rick-abaugh, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1230,
    Misc.
    Herrington v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1069,
    Misc.
    Tivey v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
    Petitioner pro se. John J. O’Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Stephen C. Way and Lee D. Rickabaugh, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1217.
    No. 1320.
    International Railways of Central America v. United Fruit Co.; and United Fruit Co. v. International Railways of Central America.

      Aaron Lewittes for petitioner in No. 1217 and for respondent in No. 1320. Ralph M. Carson for petitioner in No. 1320 and for respondent in No. 1217.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.


text:
    No. 378.
    Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Skibinski.

      Sidney A. Schwartz for petitioner. William A. Blank and Wilfred L. Davis for respondent. Cornelius P. Coughlan for American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc., as amicus curiae, in support of the petition. Arthur J. Mandell for American Trial Lawyers Association, as amicus curiae, in opposition to the petition.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc., and American Trial Lawyers Association for leave to file briefs, as amici curiae, granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1344,
    No. 1502,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    English v. Tennessee; and Grant v. Tennessee.
    Petitioners pro se. George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Edgar P. Calhoun, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent in No. 1344, Misc.
   Sup. Ct. Term Certiorari denied.

Reported below: - Term -, -, 411 S. W. 2d 702.


text:
    No. 1330.
    Grace Line, Inc., et al. v. Scopaz et al.

      Louis J. Gusmano for petitioners. Chester A. Hahn for respondents.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1279,
    Misc.
    Lawrence v. California.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Bradley A. Stoutt, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1300,
    Misc.
    Miles v. Oliver, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, and Nelson P. Kempsky, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1308,
    Misc.
    Stiltner v. Washington et al.
    Petitioner pro se. John J. O’Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and Stephen C. Way, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1348,
    Misc.
    Pino v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1458,
    Misc.
    Kilpatrick v. United States.

      Richard D. Andrews for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome M. Feit for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1353,
    Misc.
    Cheely v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1320,
    Misc.
    Sheppard v. Arkansas.

      George Howard, Jr., for petitioner. Joe Purcell, Attorney General of Arkansas, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1389,
    Misc.
    Hankins v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1399,
    Misc.
    Harrell v. United States.

      John J. Cleary for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1429,
    Misc.
    Weiymann et al. v. Allgood, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1471,
    Misc.
    Hall v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1489,
    Misc.
    Shipp v. City of Toledo.
    Petitioner pro se. John J. Burkhart for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1526,
    Misc.
    Manning v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1520,
    Misc.
    Schildhaus v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
    Petitioner pro se. Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Acting Assistant Attorney General Pugh and Robert N. Anderson for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1537,
    Misc.
    Nadile v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1540,
    Misc.
    Kinnett v. Kentucky.

      Robert D. Simmons for petitioner.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1541,
    Misc.
    Nelson v. Miller, Captain, United States Navy, et al.

      James J. Orlow for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall for respondents.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1544,
    Misc.
    Rohde v. Oregon.
    Petitioner pro se. George Van Hoomissen and Jacob B. Tanzer for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1552,
    Misc.
    Sumpter v. City of Cleveland.

      Frank C. Lyons and Alexander H. Martin, Jr., for petitioner. Donald J. Guittar for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1655,
    Misc.
    Fargo v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1563,
    Misc.
    Brown v. Indiana.

      Max Cohen for petitioner. John J. Dillon, Attorney General of Indiana, and Douglas B. McFadden, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1567,
    Misc.
    Abney v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1568,
    Misc.
    McIntosh v. Ohio.
    Petitioner pro se. Melvin G. Rueger and Calvin W. Prem for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1620,
    Misc.
    Gonzales v. Texas.

      John J. Browne for petitioner.
   Ct. Crina. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1634,
    Misc.
    Dorado v. California Adult Authority et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1656,
    Misc.
    Stiltner v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1591,
    Misc.
    Hawks v. Peyton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 999,
    Misc.
    Canada v. Arizona.
    Petitioner pro se. Darrell F. Smith, Attorney General of Arizona, and James S. Tegart, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1665,
    Misc.
    Schack v. Florida.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1590,
    Misc.
    Wendell v. United States.

      John G. Clancy for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1361,
    Misc.
    Whittlesey et al. v. United States.

      Frank D. Reeves and Herbert O. Reid, Sr., for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion for leave to file amended petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 110.
    No. 111.
    No. 646.
    No. 1019.
    No. 1034.
    No. 1075.
    No. 1409,
    Misc.
    National Woodwork Manufacturers Association et al. v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. National Woodwork Manufacturers Association et al., Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. Federal Power Commission, Berman v. Board of Elections, City of New York, et al., Stewart et al. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois et al., Stickler v. Tehan, Sheriff, Anderson v. United States,
   386 U. S. 612;

386 U. S. 612;

385 U. S. 972;

386 U. S. 481;

386 U. S. 683;

386 U. S. 992;

386 U. S. 1025. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 1014.
    Walker v. Arkansas,
   386 U. S. 682. Motion to present oral argument in support of rehearing and petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    May 25, 1967.
    No. 1420,
    Misc.
    McVail v. Cavell, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    May 29, 1967.
    No. -.
    In re Shott.
   It is ordered that Edgar I. Shott, Jr., of Cincinnati, Ohio, be permitted to resign voluntarily from the Bar of this Court. It is further ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice in this Court.


text:
    No. -.
    Pierce v. Pinto, Prison Farm Superintendent.
   Application for bail denied.

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


text:
    No. 371.
    Crown Coat Front Co., Inc. v. United States,

      Edwin J. McDermott for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States in opposition.
   386 U. S. 503. Motion for allowance of costs

denied.


text:
    No. 1308.
    Ober et al. v. Nagy et al.
   The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 1820,
    Misc.
    In re Disbarment of Quimby.
   It is ordered that Charles H. Quimby III of Washington, District of Columbia, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within forty days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 1679,
    No. 1684,
    No. 1697,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Gauze v. Oliver, Warden, et al.; Key v. Arizona et al.; and Greenlee v. California.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied. Treating the papers submitted as petitions for writs of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1605,
    No. 1653,
    No. 1670,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Pope v. Parker, Warden, et al.; Lewis v. Illinois et al.; and Hudson v. Texas et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 1677,
    No. 1678,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Skolnick v. Federal Circuit Judges of Seventh Judicial Circuit; and Skolnick v. Cummings et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 1604,
    Misc.
    Morgan v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Joseph M. Howard and John P. Burke for the United States in opposition.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 1208.
    Lee, Corrections Commissioner, et al. v. Washington et al.

      MacDonald Gallion, Attorney General of Alabama, Gordon Madison, Assistant Attorney General, Nicholas S. Hare, Special Assistant Attorney General, for Lee et ah, and J. M. Breckenridge for Austin, appellants. Charles Morgan, Jr., for appellees.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. Ala. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 1236.
    United States v. Jackson et al.

      Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Robert S. Rifkind, Beatrice Rosenberg and Sidney M. Glaser for the United States.
   Appeal from D. C. Conn. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 952.
    Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, Trustee in Bankruptcy.

      Irwin L. Langbein for petitioner. William P. Simmons, Jr., for respondent. Solicitor General Marshall, Daniel M. Friedman, Philip A. Loomis, Jr., David Ferber, Paul Gonson and Robert W. Cox filed a memorandum for the Securities and Exchange Commission.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 1161.
    Terry et al. v. Ohio.

      Jack G. Day for petitioners. John T. Corrigan for respondent. Bernard A. Berkman for American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument immediately following No. 1192.


text:
    No. 1153.
    Kyer v. United States.

      Warren E. Magee for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1120.
    No. 1254.
    Beigel v. United States; and Lapi v. United States.

      Eugene Feldman for petitioner in No. 1120. Frank A. Lopez for petitioner in No. 1254. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States in both eases.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 370 F. 2d 751.


text:
    No. 1240.
    Cream Crest-Blanding Dairies, Inc. v. National Dairy Products Corp.

      Douglas K. Reading for petitioner. Gordon B. Wheeler for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1242.
    Green v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1243.
    Jackson v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1245.
    Wax v. Illinois.

      Charles A. Bellows for petitioner.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1249.
    Board of Transportation of New Castle County v. Civil Aeronautics Board.

      Robert M. Beckman for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Joseph B. Goldman, O. D. Ozment, Warren L. Sharfman and Frederic D. Houghtel-ing for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1260.
    Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co. et al.

      Joseph B. Bagley for petitioner.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1250.
    American Guild of Variety Artists v. Smith, dba Smith Entertainment Agency et al.

      Albert F. Kimball for petitioner. Jerome G. Raidt for respondent.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1252.
    Fager v. Ohio.

      Robert W. Jones for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1261.
    Rimerman v. United States.

      Joseph S. Rosenthal and Allen Surinsky for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1262.
    Wilcox et al. v. Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc.

      Jack B. Josselson for petitioners. Ambrose H. Lindhorst for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1263.
    Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. v. Federal Power Commission.

      Cameron F. MacRae for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Richard A. Solomon, Peter H. Schiff, Drexel D. Journey and Israel Convisser for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1268.
    Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools, Independent District No. 89, et al. v. Dowell et al.

      Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and U. Simpson Tate for respondents.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Coleman Hayes for petitioners.


text:
    No. 1310.
    Kibby et al. v. United States.

      Gerald L. Seegers for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1285.
    Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.

      Peter H. Ratner for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come for respondent National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1340.
    Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Case-Swayne Co., Inc.

      Charles E. Beardsley and Seth M. Hufstedler for petitioner. William H. Henderson and W. Glenn Harmon for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1105.
    McBride v. Smith, Commandant, United States Coast Guard.
    Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Melvin L. Wulf and Marvin M. Karpatkin for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Kevin T. Maroney and Lee B. Anderson for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1253.
    Tolan v. United States.

      Finton J. Phelan, Jr., for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1272.
    Green Street Association et al. v. Daley et al.
    Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Richard F. Watt for petitioners. Raymond F. Simon for Daley et al., and Solicitor General Marshall for Weaver et al., respondents.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1324.
    Mastini v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Henry B. Ashton for respondents.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1386.
    Powell et al. v. McCormack et al.

      Arthur Kinoy, William M. Kunstler, Jean Camper Hubert T. Delany, Herbert O. Reid, Sr., Frank D. Reeves and Henry R. Williams for petitioners. Bruce Bromley, John R. Hupper, Thomas D. Barr, Victor M. Earle III, Lloyd N. Cutler, John H. Pickering, Louis F. Oberdorfer, Max O. Truitt, Jr., and Timothy B. Dyk for respondents. Briefs of amici curiae, in support of the petition, were filed by Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, pro se; J. Lee Rankin, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, pro se; Ernest Angell, Osmond K. Fraenkel, Edward J. Ennis, Marvin M. Karpatkin, Lawrence Speiser and Joseph B. Robison for American Civil Liberties Union et al.; Floyd McKissick for Congress of Racial Equality; Frederick E. Samuel for Harlem Lawyers Association, Inc.; Revius Ortigue for National Bar Association; and Ralph Shapiro and David M. Freedman for New York City Chapter of National Lawyers Guild.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion for leave to file supplement to petition granted. Motion of American Civil Liberties Union et al. for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, granted. Motion of Congress for Racial Equality for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted. Motion of Harlem Lawyers Association, Inc., for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted. Motion of National Bar Association for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted. Motion of New York City Chapter of National Lawyers Guild for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, granted. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, prior to the judgment, denied.


text:
    No. 1313.
    Perth Amboy Dry Dock Co. v. Hansen.

      Isidor Kalisch for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1212,
    Misc.
    Rascon v. California.
    Petitioner pro se. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Edsel W. Haws and Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1213,
    Misc.
    Mistretta v. Wilkins, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. Louis J. Lejkowitz, Attorney General of New York, and Murray Sylvester, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1245,
    Misc.
    Kimmons v. Florida.
    Petitioner pro se. Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and George R. Georgieff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1355,
    Misc.
    Fulwood v. United States.

      John H. Myers for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1367,
    No. 1386,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Horton v. New York; and Alvarez v. New York.

      Rolon W. Reed and Leon B. Polsky for petitioner in No. 1367, Misc. Patrick M. Wall for petitioner in No. 1386, Misc. Frank S. Hogan for respondent in both cases.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 18 N. Y. 2d 355, 221 N. E. 2d 909; 19 N. Y. 2d 600, 224 N. E. 2d 884.


text:
    No. 1311,
    Misc.
    Randel v. Beto, Corrections Director.

      Tom Martin Davis, Jr., for petitioner. Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, and R. L. Lattimore and Howard M. Fender, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1319,
    Misc.
    Hayes, aka Hasan v. Hendrick, County Prisons Superintendent.
    Petitioner pro se. Arlen Specter for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1411,
    Misc.
    Lipka, Administratrix, et al. v. United States et al.

      George S. Lettko for petitioner Lipka et al. Acting Solicitor General Spritzer, Assistant Attorney General Sanders, Alan S. Rosenthal and Martin Jacobs for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1452,
    Misc.
    Mills v. Ciccone, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall for respondent.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1456,
    Misc.
    Chopping v. First National Bank of Lander.

      John J. Spriggs, Sr., and John J. Spriggs, Jr., for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1457,
    Misc.
    Ginger v. Circuit Court for the County of Wayne et al.
    Petitioner pro se. Aloysius J. Suchy and George H. Cross for Circuit Court for the County of Wayne et al., and Peter P. Gilbert for State Bar of Michigan et al., respondents.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1468,
    Misc.
    Faustin v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1470,
    Misc.
    Verzino v. United States.

      Joseph I. Stone for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1561,
    Misc.
    Charlton et al. v. United States.

      Dale M. Quillen for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1575,
    Misc.
    Wacker v. Bisson, Consul General, Dominion of Canada.
    Petitioner pro se. M. Hepburn Many for respondent.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1584,
    Misc.
    Poulson v. Turner, Warden.

      William G. Fowler for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1585,
    Misc.
    Fletcher v. New York.
    Petitioner pro se. Michael F. Dillon for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1586,
    Misc.
    Burnside v. Sigler, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1587,
    Misc.
    Rodes v. Rodes.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1597,
    Misc.
    Blanchard, dba Inferno Co. v. Texsteam Corp. et al.
    Petitioner pro se. J. V. Martin and A. H. Evans for Texsteam Corp., and Ned L. Conley for Schoenfeld, respondents.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1598,
    Misc.
    Ward v. Mancusi, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1599,
    Misc.
    Fair v. Florida.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1600,
    Misc.
    Gilmore v. Reagan et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1601,
    Misc.
    Harden v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1608,
    Misc.
    Troglio v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
    Petitioner pro se. Irving Olds Murphy for respondent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1611,
    Misc.
    Morgan v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Joseph M. Howard and John P. Burke for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1616,
    Misc.
    Brown v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1630,
    Misc.
    Huskey v. Yankwich, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1698,
    Misc.
    Barnes v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1495,
    Misc.
    Alford v. United States.

      Leon B. Polsky for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 206.
    No. 413.
    No. 981.
    No. 1049.
    No. 1067.
    No. 1101.
    No. 1126.
    Houston Insulation Contractors Association v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Houston Insulation Contractors Association, Felber v. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Dacey et al. v. Grievance Committee of the Bar of Fairfield County, Miller Brewing Co. v. Jones, Director of Revenue of Illinois, Evanson et al. v. Northwest Holding Co., Washington v. Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Co.,
   386 U. S. 664;

386 U. S. 664;

386 U. S. 1005;

386 U. S. 683;

386 U. S. 684;

386 U. S. 1004; and

386 U. S. 1007. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 711.
    Forster Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. v. Federal Trade Commission,
   385 U. S. 1003. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 1359,
    No. 1362,
    No. 1372,
    No. 1393,
    No. 1400,
    No. 1408,
    No. 1410,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Skolnick v. Robson, U. S. District Judge, Honea v. Florida, Tkaczyk et al. v. Gallagher et al., Krohn v. Chase Manhattan Bank, Sartain v. Pitchess, Sheriff, Carey v. George Washington University, Foggy v. Arizona,
   386 U. S. 1002;

386 U. S. 1012;

386 U. S. 1013;

386 U. S. 1023;

386 U. S. 1025;

386 U. S. 1013; and 386 U. S. 1025. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 1004,
    No. 1310,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Jacquez v. Wilson, Warden, Price v. Allgood, Warden,
   386 U. S. 1009; and 386 U. S. 998. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing

denied.


text:
    June 5, 1967.
    No. 29,
    Original.
    Texas et al. v. Colorado.
   This case is held without action on the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint until October 16, 1967, or further order of the Court.


text:
    No. 83.
    United States v. Robel.
   D. C. W. D. Wash. Case is restored to the calendar for reargument and counsel are directed to brief and argue, in addition to the questions presented, the question whether the delegation of authority to the Secretary of Defense to designate “defense facilities” satisfies pertinent constitutional standards. [For earlier order herein, see 384 U. S. 937.]


text:
    No. 1119.
    Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Association, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a further brief expressing the views of the United States in light of Title 33 U. S. C. § 933 (g). [For earlier order herein, see 386 U. S. 1002.]


text:
    No. 1624,
    No. 1736,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Williams v. Wilson, Warden; and Welsh v. California et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 1752,
    Misc.
    Leser v. United States.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 1346,
    Misc.
    In re Disbarment of Rekeweg.
   It having been reported to the Court that Wilmer D. Rekeweg, of Paulding, State of Ohio, has been disbarred from the practice of law in all of the courts of the State of Ohio by judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio, duly entered on the 27th day of April, 1966, and this Court by order of February 13, 1967, having suspended the said Wilmer D. Rekeweg from the practice of law in this Court and directed that a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred;

And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued and served upon the respondent, who has filed a return thereto; now, upon consideration of the rule to show cause and the return aforesaid;

It is ordered that the said Wilmer D. Rekeweg be, and he is hereby, disbarred, and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.


text:
    No. 1845,
    Misc.
    In re Disbarment of Lombard.
   It is ordered that Earl J. Lombard, of Washington, District of Columbia, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within forty days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 1846,
    Misc.
    In re Disbarment of McCullough.
   It is ordered that James M. McCullough, of Chevy Chase, State of Maryland, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within forty days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 1607,
    Misc.
    In re Whittington.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Fairfield County. Motion for stay of execution and other relief denied. Judson C. Kistler on the motion.


text:
    No. 1738,
    Misc.
    Green v. Hooey, Judge, et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 1301.
    Tcherepnin et al. v. Knight et al.

      Arnold I. Shure, Anthony Bradley Eben and Robert A. Sprecher for petitioners. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., Charles J. O’Laughlin for respondents City Savings Association et al., and William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, for respondents Knight et al. Solicitor General Marshall, Philip A. Loomis, Jr., David Ferber, Edward B. Wagner and Richard E. Nathan for the Securities and Exchange Commission, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 488.
    United States v. Citizens National Bank of Evansville, Executor.

      Solicitor General Marshall, Jack S. Levin, Robert N. Anderson, Morton K. Rothschild and Albert J. Beveridge III for the United States. Edwin W. Johnson John L. Carroll for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1175.
    Hinchcliff v. Clarke, Internal Revenue Agent, et al.

      William Patrick Clyne for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Joseph M. Howard and John M. Brant for respondent United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1184.
    Domany et al. v. Otis Elevator Co. et al.

      Edward I. Stillman for petitioners. Sumner Canary for Otis Elevator Co., and Russell E. Leasure for Sears, Roebuck & Co., respondents.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1230.
    Schafitz v. Federal Communications Commission.

      Carl L. Shipley for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall and Henry Getter for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1277.
    Fermin v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1241.
    Dutton, Warden v. Mosley.

      Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, and G. Ernest Tidwell, Executive Assistant Attorney General, for petitioner.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1251.
    No. 1257.
    No. 1327.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Garwin Corp. et al.; Garwin Corp. et al. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.; and Local 57, International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board.

      Solicitor General Marshall, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli, Norton J. Come and Lawrence M. Joseph for petitioner in No. 1251 and for respondent in Nos. 1257 and 1327. Guy Farmer and Joseph A. Perkins for petitioners in No. 1257 and for respondents in No. 1251. Morris P. Glushien and Max Zirnny for petitioner in No. 1327.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 126 U. S. App. D. C. 81, 374 F. 2d 295.


text:
    No. 1238.
    Rush et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1266.
    Oregon v. Brewton.

      George Van Hoomissen and Jacob B. Tanzer for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1271.
    Somolinos v. Hitt et al.
   Sup. Ct. P. R. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1280.
    Oertle et al. v. United States.

      Pat Malloy for Oertle and Robert S. Rizley for McCague, petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Joseph M. Howard and John M. Brant for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1305.
    Paroutian v. United States.

      Robert J. Carluccio for petitioner. Acting Solicitor General Spritzer for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1283.
    Seas Shipping Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

      John Logan O’Donnell for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Harry Baum and Loring W. Post for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1298.
    Heidrich v. United States.

      James L. Guilmartin and Stanley Jay Bartel for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin, Joseph M. Howard and Burton Berkley for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1282.
    Romano v. United States.

      Abraham Glasser and Jerome Lewis for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1303.
    City of New Orleans et al. v. United States et al.

      Alvin J. Liska for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Rogovin and Harold C. Wilkenfeld for the United Statés, and Eugene D. Saunders and David J. Conroy for Chrysler Corp., respondents.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1304.
    In re Brauer.

      Abraham Glasser for petitioner. Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Richard Newman, Deputy Attorney General, for Supreme Court of New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1306.
    Fenton v. A/S Glittre et al.

      Jacob Rassner for petitioner. J. Ward O’Neill for respondent A/S Glittre.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1307.
    Dale Boat Yards, Inc. v. Szumski.

      Edward B. Meredith for petitioner. Herman M. Wilson for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1370.
    Golay & Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.

      William E. Roberts for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Arnold Ordmatn, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come for respondent National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1309.
    Reginelli v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1322.
    McCaffrey v. United States.

      George J. Francis and Frances De Lost for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Ronald L. Gainer for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1326.
    Luftig v. McNamara, Secretary of Defense, et al.

      Stanley Faulkner and Selma W. Samols for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall for respondents.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1352.
    Northern States Power Co. et al. v. Rural Electrification Administration et al.

      Kenneth W. Green and Joe A. Walters for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Sanders, Alan S. Rosen-thal and Harvey L. Zuckman for respondents.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1305,
    Misc.
    Suarez v. Follette, Warden.
    Petitioner pro se. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1278,
    Misc.
    Barney v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Marshall Tamor Golding for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1233,
    Misc.
    Shane v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1267,
    Misc.
    Moccio v. New York.

      Robert M. de Poto for petitioner. William Cahn for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1347,
    Misc.
    Young v. Judicial Circuit Court of Mobile County.
    Petitioner pro se. MacDonald Gallion, Attorney General of Alabama, and John C. Tyson III, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1363,
    Misc.
    Narro v. United States.

      James R. Gillespie for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Marshall Tamor Golding for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1615,
    Misc.
    Phillips v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1610,
    Misc.
    Cox v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1523,
    Misc.
    Osborne v. United States.

      Morris A. Shenker and Murry L. Randall for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Philip R. Monahan for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1501,
    Misc.
    Fee v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1516,
    Misc.
    Brown v. United States.

      Brooks Taylor for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. 5th

Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1528,
    Misc.
    Walsh v. United States.

      Charles F. Choate for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Julia P. Cooper for the United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1542,
    Misc.
    Townes v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1547,
    Misc.
    Brown v. United States.

      S. Carter McMorris for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1618,
    Misc.
    Carico v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1664,
    Misc.
    Ferganchick et al. v. United States.

      William A. Dougherty for petitioners. Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1667,
    Misc.
    Prendez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1628,
    Misc.
    Howard v. Norton, Warden, et al.
    Petitioner pro se.

      Solicitor General Marshall for respondents.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1666,
    Misc.
    Nolen v. Wilson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1671,
    Misc.
    Brown v. Wilson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1688,
    Misc.
    Dodd v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1703,
    Misc.
    Stiltner v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1710,
    Misc.
    Cheadle v. United States.
    Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1729,
    Misc.
    Flores v. Beto, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1734,
    Misc.
    Hernandez v. Wilson, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1735,
    Misc.
    Devoe v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 18.
    Utah Pie Co. v. Continental Baking Co. et al.,
   386 U. S. 685. Petitions for rehearing denied.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.


text:
    No. 750.
    Granello et al. v. United States,
   386 U. S. 1019. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 870.
    Curtis et al. v. Boeger, Warden,
   386 U. S. 914, 978. Motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 1488,
    No. 1574,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Lorenzana v. Puerto Rico, Johnson v. Schneckloth, Superintendent, et al.,
   386 U. S. 1040; and 386 U. S. 1028. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 303,
    Misc.
    Curry v. United States,
   385 U. S. 873. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


author:
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
      Mr. Justice Stewart,

text:
    LOVING et ux. v. VIRGINIA.
    No. 395.
    Argued April 10, 1967.
    Decided June 12, 1967.

      Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschlcop argued the cause and filed a brief for appellants. Mr. Hirschkop argued pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.

      R. D. Mcllwaine III, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Robert Y. Button, Attorney General, and Kenneth C. Patty, Assistant Attorney General.

      William M. Marutani, by special leave of Court, argued the cause for the Japanese American Citizens League, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
    Briefs of amici curiae, urging reversal, were filed by William M. Lewers and William B. Ball for the National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice et al.; by Robert L. Carter and Andrew D. Weinberger for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and by Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and Michael Meltsner for the N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.

      T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, and Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of North Carolina, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.
   Mr. Chief Justice Warren

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

After their convictions, the Lovings took up residence in the District of Columbia. On November 6, 1963, they filed a motion in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the ground that the statutes which they had violated were repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The motion not having been decided by October 28, 1964, the Lovings instituted a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia requesting that a three-judge court be convened to declare the Virginia antimiscegenation statutes unconstitutional and to enjoin state- officials from enforcing their convictions. On January 22, 1965, the state trial judge denied the motion to vacate the sentences, and the Lovings perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. On February 11, 1965, the three-judge District Court continued the case to allow the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the highest state court.

The Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the antimiscegenation statutes and, after modifying the sentence, affirmed the convictions. The Lovings appealed this decision, and we noted probable jurisdiction on December 12, 1966, 385 U. S. 986.

The two statutes under which appellants were convicted and sentenced are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial marriages. The Lovings were convicted of violating § 20-58 of the Virginia Code:

“Leaving State to evade law. — If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.”

Section 20-59, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:

“Punishment for marriage. — If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.”

Other central provisions in the Virginia statutory scheme are § 20-57, which automatically voids all marriages between “a white person and a colored person” without any judicial proceeding, and §§ 20-54 and 1-14 which, respectively, define “white persons” and “colored persons and Indians” for purposes of the statutory prohibitions. The Lovings have never disputed in the course of this litigation that Mrs. Loving is a “colored person” or that Mr. Loving is a “white person” within the meanings given those terms by the Virginia statutes.

Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. Penalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery and have been common in Virginia since the colonial period. The present statutory scheme dates from the adoption of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, passed during the period of extreme nativism which followed the end of the First World War. The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a “white person” marrying other than another “white person,” a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that the applicants’ statements as to their race are correct, certificates of “racial composition” to be kept by both local and state registrars, and the carrying forward of earlier prohibitions against racial’ intermarriage.

I.

In upholding the constitutionality of these provisions in the decision below, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to its 1955 decision in Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, 87 S. E. 2d 749, as stating the reasons supporting the validity of these laws. In Naim, the state court concluded that the State’s legitimate purposes were “to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,” and to prevent “the corruption of blood,” “a mongrel breed of citizens,” and “the obliteration of racial pride,” obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. Id., at 90, 87 S. E. 2d, at 756. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment.

While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State’s police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are un--limited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535 (1942). Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages.

Because we reject the notion that the mere “equal application” of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment’s proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State’s contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City, Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U. S. 106 (1949), or an exemption in Ohio’s ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse, Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 522 (1959). In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race.

The State argues that statements in the Thirty-ninth Congress about the time of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment indicate that the Framers did not intend the Amendment to make unconstitutional state miscegenation laws. Many of the statements alluded to by the State concern the debates over the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, which President Johnson vetoed, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, enacted over his veto. While these statements have some relevance to the intention of Congress in submitting the Fourteenth Amendment, it must be understood that they pertained to the passage of specific statutes and not to the broader, organic purpose of a constitutional amendment. As for the various statements directly concerning the Fourteenth Amendment, we have said in connection with a related problem, that although these historical sources “cast some light” they are not sufficient to resolve the problem; “[a]t best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among 'all persons bom or naturalized in the United States.’ Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect.” Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 489 (1954). See also Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 310 (1880). We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184 (1964).

The State finds support for its “equal application'’ theory in the decision of the Court in Pace v. Alabama, 106 U. S. 583 (1883). In that case, the Court upheld a conviction under an Alabama statute forbidding adultery or fornication between a white person and a Negro which imposed a greater penalty than that of a statute proscribing similar conduct by members of the same race. The Court reasoned that the statute could not be said to discriminate against Negroes because the punishment for each participant in the offense was the same. However, as recently as the 1964 Term, in rejecting the reasoning of that case, we stated “Pace represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court.” McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 188. As we there demonstrated, the Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71 (1873); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 307-308 (1880); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 344-345 (1880); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1 (1948); Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U. S. 715 (1961).

There can be no question but that Virginia’s miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated “[distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry” as being “odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 100 (1943). At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the “most rigid scrutiny,” Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they “cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person’s skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense.” McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 198 (Stewart, J., joined by Douglas, J., concurring).

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

II.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

]It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Stewart,

concurring.

I have previously expressed the belief that “it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor.” McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184, 198 (concurring opinion). Because I adhere to that belief, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

       Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:
      “All persons bom or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

       206 Va. 924, 147 S. E. 2d 78 (1966).

       Section 20-57 of the Virginia Code provides:

        “Marriages void without decree. — All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process.” Va. Code Ann. § 20-57 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

       Section 20-54 of the Virginia Code provides:

        “Intermarriage ■prohibited; meaning of term ‘white persons.’ — It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this chapter, the term 'white person’ shall apply only to such person as has no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this chapter.” Va. Code Ann. §20-54 (1960 Repl. Vol.).
      The exception for persons with less than one-sixteenth “of the blood of the American Indian” is apparently accounted for, in the words of a tract issued by the Registrar of the State Bureau of Vital Statistics, by “the desire of all to recognize as an integral and honored part of the white race the descendants of John Rolfe and Pocahontas . . . .” Plecker, The New Family and Race Improvement, 17 Va. Health Bull., Extra No. 12, at 25-26 (New Family Series No. 5, 1925), cited in Wadlington, The Loving Case: Virginia’s Anti-Miscegenation Statute in Historical Perspective, 52 Va. L. Rev. 1189, 1202, n. 93 (1966).
      Section 1-14 of the Virginia Code provides:

        “Colored persons and Indians defined. — Every person in whom there is ascertainable any Negro blood shall be deemed and taken to be a colored person, and every person not a colored person having one fourth or more of American Indian blood shall be deemed an American Indian; except that members of Indian tribes existing in this Commonwealth having one fourth or more of Indian blood and less than one sixteenth of Negro blood shall be deemed tribal Indians.” Va. Code Ann. § 1-14 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

       After the initiation of this litigation, Maryland repealed its prohibitions against interracial marriage, Md. Laws 1967, c. 6, leaving Virginia and 15 other States with statutes outlawing interracial marriage: Alabama, Ala. Const., Art. 4, § 102, Ala. Code, Tit. 14, §360 (1958); Arkansas, Ark. Stat. Ann. §55-104 (1947); Delaware, Del. Code Ann., Tit. 13, § 101 (1953); Florida, Fla. Const., Art. 16, § 24, Fla. Stat. § 741.11 (1965); Georgia, Ga. Code Ann. § 53-106 (1961); Kentucky, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.020 (Supp. 1966); Louisiana, La. Rev. Stat. §14:79 (1950); Mississippi, Miss. Const., Art. 14, §263, Miss. Code Ann. §459 (1956); Missouri, Mo. Rev. Stat. §451.020 (Supp. 1966); North Carolina, N. C. Const., Art. XIV, § 8, N. C. Gen. Stat. § 14-181 (1953); Oklahoma, Okla. Stat., Tit. 43, § 12 (Supp. 1965); South Carolina, S. C. Const., Art. 3, § 33, S. C. Code Ann. §20-7 (1962); Tennessee, Tenn. Const., Art. 11, §14, Tenn. Code Ann. §36-402 (1955); Texas, Tex. Pen. Code, Art. 492 (1952); West Virginia, W. Va. Code Ann. §4697 (1961).
      Over the past 15 years, 14 States have repealed laws outlawing interracial marriages: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
      The first state court to recognize that miscegenation statutes violate the Equal Protection Clause was the Supreme Court of California. Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P. 2d 17 (1948).

       For a historical discussion of Virginia’s miscegenation statutes, see Wadlington, supra, n. 4.

       Va. Code Ann. § 20-54 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

       Va. Code Ann. § 20-53 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

       Va. Code Ann. § 20-50 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

       Va. Code Ann. § 20-54 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

       Appellants point out that the State’s concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act’s title, “An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity,” extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia’s miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve “racial integrity.” We need not reach this contention because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the “integrity” of all races.