author: Mr. Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 71-5743.
    Torres et al. v. New York State Department of Labor et al.,
   405 U. S. 949. Motion of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Petition for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan concur,

dissenting.

By summarily denying this petition for rehearing, the Court finally disposes of important issues of constitutional law and statutory construction in a fashion which can only be characterized as bizarre. Although the case has now been before us on three separate occasions, my Brethren have yet to write so much as a single word in defense of a disposition which is seemingly inconsistent with a raft of our prior cases. See, e. g., Indiana Employment Security Division v. Burney, 409 U. S. 540 (1973); California Human Resources Dept. v. Java, 402 U. S. 121 (1971); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970). I cannot concur in this cavalier treatment of a question that is of vital importance to the thousands of citizens who, through no fault of their own, are temporarily unemployed.

Even a brief chronological recitation of the tortured progression of this case makes plain that it has not been treated in accordance with the high standards that litigants before the Court have come to expect. Petitioners originally instituted-this action in United States District Court to enjoin the enforcement of New York Labor Law §§ 597, 598, and 620 “insofar as they authorize the suspension or termination of unemployment compensation benefits without a prior hearing.” They based their claim on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been interpreted in Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, to require a hearing prior to the suspension of welfare benefits, and on the Social Security Act, which requires a state plan “reasonably calculated- to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due.” 42 U. S. C. § 503 (a)(1). A three-judge court was convened, but that court, over a dissent by Judge Lasker, found both the constitutional and statutory claims to be without merit.

An appeal was timely noted and docketed in this Court. But before we had considered petitioners’ jurisdictional statement, our decision in California Human Resources Dept. v. Java, supra, was handed down. In Java, a unanimous Court held that 42 U. S. C. § 503 (a)(1) invalidated a California statute which provided for the automatic suspension of unemployment compensation when the employer took an appeal from the initial eligibility determination.

Inasmuch as Java interpreted the very provision of the Social Security Act relied upon by the appellant in Torres, we entered an order vacating the District Court’s decision in Torres and remanding for reconsideration in light of Java. See 402 U. S. 968 (1971). When the case returned to the District Court, however, that court purported to find Java distinguishable and, in a brief per curiam, adhered to its prior decision. See Torres v. New York State Department of Labor, 333 F. Supp. 341 (SDNY 1971).

Once again, petitioners docketed an appeal in this Court, but this time an order was entered summarily affirming the District Court without the benefit of full briefing, oral argument, or an opinion. See 405 U. S. 949 (1972). Shortly thereafter, however, the Court did note probable jurisdiction in Indiana Employment Security Division v. Burney, supra, a case presenting identical issues with respect to the Indiana unemployment compensation scheme. See 406 U. S. 956 (1972). At the same time, the Court held in abeyance any disposition of the petition for rehearing in this case.

It thus appeared that the Court would finally rule upon the legality of prehearing suspensions of unemployment compensation in Burney and that the petition for rehearing in this case would be disposed of in accordance with the Burney decision. When Burney was ultimately decided, however, the Court failed to reach the merits. Instead, it pointed out that Mrs. Burney had eventually received a post-termination hearing at which it had been held that she had been wrongfully terminated. Pursuant to this decision, Mrs. Burney had received full retroactive compensation. In light of these developments, the Court remanded to the District Court for consideration of whether the case was moot. See 409 U. S. 540 (1973).

Thus, the questions which were initially to be decided in Burney must now be resolved in this petition for rehearing. Although I dissented from the remand in Burney, I think that, at the very least, by a parity of reasoning, the Court is obliged to treat this case in an identical fashion. The representative parties here, like the representative party in Burney, all received post-termination hearings at which their claims to compensation were decided on the merits. True, Mrs. Burney’s claim was vindicated at the hearing, while the termination of Mr. Torres’ benefits was reaffirmed. But this is a distinction without a difference. Since it has already been determined that the representative parties in this case are not in any event entitled to compensation payments, they no longer have any more stake in the outcome of this litigation than did Mrs. Burney in her case once her claim had been administratively resolved. Thus, under the Court’s apparent reasoning in Burney, the resolution of both parties’ claims on the merits may moot the controversy concerning the timing of a hearing, thereby calling for a remand of the case to consider that issue.

But even if I accepted the Court’s unarticulated conclusion that this case is distinguishable from Burney, I would still object to the summary fashion in which the District Court’s judgment is affirmed today. When probable jurisdiction was noted in Burney, it was apparently thought that the questions posed by that case were of sufficient importance and complexity to require briefing and oral argument. Since the Court failed to reach the merits in Burney, the proper course would seem to be a notation of probable jurisdiction in this case so that the questions can be addressed in that context. But instead, the issues which in Burney were considered so significant as to require setting the case for argument have now, inexplicably, become so trivial as not even to require an opinion. It is not without irony that petitioners, who claim a deprivation of due process because vital benefits are denied them without a hearing, are unable to secure a hearing before this Court.

Since we have not had the benefit of full briefing and oral argument on the questions presented by petitioners, I am not prepared to state my views at length. But from the papers before us, it seems quite likely to me that by withholding benefits from putatively eligible recipients without a pretermination hearing, New York has failed to comply with the federal requirement that benefits be provided “when due.” Cf. California Human Resources Dept. v. Java, supra. More significantly, the decision below seems flatly inconsistent with our prior decision in Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, wherein we held that due process demands a pretermination hearing for welfare benefits. See also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 (1972); Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535 (1971).

Apparently a majority of the Court disagrees, although it is impossible to discern from the Court’s silence either the source or nature of this disagreement. I would have thought that if the rights recognized in Goldberg and Java were to be sharply limited, the Court would at least have found it necessary to explicate the basis for this limitation and delineate the new reach of those decisions. Instead, the Court has elected to bury an apparently significant shift in the law in that portion of the United States Reports devoted to petitions for rehearing. Because I cannot agree that this disposition is consistent with our obligation to engage in reasoned decisionmaking, I must respectfully dissent.

      Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice BreNNan and I indicated in a separate statement that we would have noted probable jurisdiction and reversed on the basis of Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 71-827.
    No. 71-830.
    Hughes Tool Co. et al. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.; and Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co. et al.,
   409 U. S. 363. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 72-5410.
    No. 72-5470.
    Black v. United States, Castaneda v. California,
   409 U. S. 1027; and

409 U. S. 1126. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    March 7, 1973
    No. 72-960.
    Creamer v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    March 16, 1973
    No. 72-1039.
    United States v. Kismetoglu.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    March 19, 1973
    No. 72-990.
    Whitcomb, Governor of Indiana, et al. v. Communist Party of Indiana et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Ind.


text:
    No. 72-996.
    Koelfgen et al. v. Jackson, Director, Civil Service Department of Minnesota, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Minn.


text:
    No. 72-608.
    Colorado ex rel. L. B. et al. v. L. V. B.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Colo, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-1008.
    City of Piney Point Village et al. v. Harris County et al.
   Appeal from Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 1st Sup. Jud. Dist. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-5960.
    Fair et al. v. Nixon, President of the United States, et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 5th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this appeal.


text:
    No. 72-1021.
    Barry & Barry, Inc., et al. v. Department of Motor Vehicles of Washington et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Wash, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-849.
    Avery v. Maryland.
   Appeal from Ct. Sp. App. Md. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6082.
    Shaffer v. Graham, Commissioner, Department of Public Welfare of Arizona, et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. 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 Brennan, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Marshall would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. A-935 (72-1147).
    Dorfman v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 40,
    Orig.
    Pennsylvania v. New York et al.
    [For earlier orders herein, see, e. g., 409 U. S. 1122.]
   Supplemental report of Special Master hereby adopted by the Court.


text:
    No. D-5.
    In re Disbarment of Signer.
   It having been reported to the Court that Burton R. Signer, of Cincinnati, Ohio, has been disbarred from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of Ohio, duly entered June 28, 1972, and this Court by order of November 6, 1972 [409 U. S. 975], having suspended the said Burton R. Signer from the practice of law in this Court and directing 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, and that a response thereto has been filed;

It Is Ordered that the said Burton R. Signer be, and he is hereby, disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.


text:
    No. 60,
    Orig.
    Pennsylvania v. New York et al.
   Motion for leave to file bill of complaint denied. Mr. Justice Stewart would set motion for leave to file bill of complaint for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-1182.
    Mattz v. Arnett, Director, Department of Fish and Game.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. [Certiorari granted, 409 U. S. 1124.] Motion of petitioner to divide oral argument granted.


text:
    No. 72-459.
    No. 72-620.
    Sloan, Treasurer of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Lemon et al.; and Crouter v. Lemon et al.
   Appeals from D. C. E. D. Pa. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 907.] Motion of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania for additional time for oral argument granted and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Appellees also allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 72-402.
    United States v. General Dynamics Corp. et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 409 U. S. 1058.] Motion of the Solicitor General for additional time for oral argument granted and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Ap-pellees also allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 72-419.
    Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations et al.
   Pa. Ct. Commw. [Certiorari granted, 409 U. S. 1036.] Motion to permit two counsel to argue orally on behalf of respondents granted.


text:
    No. 72-490.
    McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 409 U. S. 1036.] Motion of respondent for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant the motion.


text:
    No. 72-549.
    No. 72-550.
    School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia, et al. v. State Board of Education of Virginia et al.; and Bradley et al. v. State Board of Education of Virginia et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 409 U. S. 1124.] Motion of petitioners for additional time for oral argument granted and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondents also allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.

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


text:
    No. 72-624.
    United States v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corp.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 409 U. S. 1074.] Motion of United States Steel Corp. et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae denied.


text:
    No. 72-486.
    No. 72-488.
    Federal Power Commission v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division et al.; and Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division et al.
   C. A. D. C.

Cir. [Certiorari granted, 409 U. S. 1037.] Motion to permit two counsel to argue orally on behalf of respondents granted.


text:
    No. 72-694.
    No. 72-753.
    No. 72-791.
    No. 72-929.
    Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty et al. v. Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al.; Anderson v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty et al.; Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al. v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty et al.; and Cherry et al. v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty et al.
   Appeals from D. C. S. D. N. Y. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 907.] Motion of United Americans for Public Schools for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 72-1035.
    Rogers v. Loether et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 72-1227.
    Morton, Secretary of the Interior v. Wilderness Society et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion to expedite consideration granted insofar as it requests that respondents file a brief on or before March 28, 1973.


text:
    No. 72-5592.
    No. 72-5849.
    Goldsmith v. Wyoming et al.; and Reardon v. Meacham et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 72-6100.
    No. 72-6129.
    Gerardi v. Faver; and Gerardi v. MacLaughlin et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 72-6035.
    Ruderer v. Sirica, U. S. District Judge.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of prohibition denied.

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


text:
    No. 72-847.
    Memorial Hospital et al. v. Maricopa County et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ariz. Motion of Legal Aid Society of Maricopa County, Arizona, to dispense with printing amicus curiae brief granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 72-1040.
    Communist Party of Indiana et al. v. Whitcomb, Governor of Indiana, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ind. Further consideration of question of jurisdiction postponed to hearing of case on the merits.


text:
    No. 72-403.
    Kunzig, Administrator, General Services Administration, et al. v. Murray.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-481.
    No. 72-746.
    Department of Game of Washington v. Puyallup Tribe et al.; and Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game of Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari granted. Cases consolidated and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 80 Wash. 2d 561, 497 P. 2d 171.


text:
    No. 71-1669.
    Gustafson v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument with No. 72-936, immediately infra.


text:
    No. 72-936.
    United States v. Robinson.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument with No. 71-1669, immediately supra.


text:
    No. 71-992.
    Wollack v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-1210.
    Figueroa v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-1479.
    No. 71-6769.
    Moore v. United States; and Guridi et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 458 F. 2d 1234.


text:
    No. 71-6085.
    Wooden v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-818.
    School Board of Brevard County, Florida v. Weaver et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-828.
    No. 72-5824.
    Bratko v. United States; and Nielsen v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 467F. 2d 1032.


text:
    No. 72-941.
    No. 72-946.
    Lugosch v. United States; and Musto v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-843.
    Powers v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-940.
    Pacelli v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-962.
    Phelps v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-989.
    Aleman v. Sugarman, Commissioner, New York City Department of Social Services.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-999.
    Hiatt v. Stanadyne, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1006.
    Graham v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1030.
    Harvey v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1033.
    Russ v. Mira Compania Naviera, S. A., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1036.
    Bloom v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 10th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1043.
    Love v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1044.
    Johnson Bonding Co., Inc., et al. v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1055.
    Glasser v. Willard Alexander, Inc.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1049.
    Schulman v. New York.
   App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1065.
    Maloney, dba Apalachicola Times v. Gibson et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5068.
    Singleton v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5300.
    Barbara v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5442.
    McKinney v. Jones, Sheriff.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5528.
    No. 72-5865.
    Corbett et al. v. United States; and Milisci v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 465 F. 2d 700.


text:
    No. 72-5609.
    Curley v. South Carolina et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5698.
    Karen v. Park et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5702.
    Stoddard v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5719.
    Smith v. Kansas.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5725.
    Polak v. Craven, Warden.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5744.
    Carter v. Masco Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
   County Civ. Ct. at Law No. 2, Harris County, Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5752.
    Fiore v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5791.
    Anglin v. Caldwell, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5792.
    McRae v. Bounds et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5893.
    Henderson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5895.
    Edwards v. United States Marshal.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5915.
    Navallez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5920.
    King v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5921.
    Stokes v. United States Postal Service et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5934.
    Tyson v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5936.
    Romero v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5938.
    Landman v. Carlson, Director, Bureau of Prisons, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5945.
    Harden v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5946.
    Rodriquez-Camacho v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5957.
    Lucas et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5959.
    Solomon v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5963.
    Matson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari‘denied.


text:
    No. 72-5967.
    Seibert v. Anderson, Warden.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5970.
    Esperti v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5975.
    Nelson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5977.
    Bradford v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5980.
    Paige v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5985.
    Harris v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5986.
    Penix v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5989.
    Barnes v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5994.
    Delker v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5997.
    Gandy v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6000.
    Wilkerson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5999.
    Roots v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6004.
    Tate v. Henderson, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6005.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6010.
    Holloman v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6018.
    Lisznyai v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6064.
    Layton v. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6067.
    MaGee v. Carrow et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6068.
    Washington v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6069.
    Wooden v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6070.
    Moore v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6072.
    Gomez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6073.
    Ramirez v. Rodriguez, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6074.
    Gardner v. Decker, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6079.
    Freeman v. Lockhart, Correction Superintendent.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6081.
    Stokes v. Harlan et al.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6098.
    Guthridge v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6103.
    Coons v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6104.
    Gonzalez v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6107.
    Johnson v. North Carolina et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6111.
    Logan v. Butler, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6118.
    Baldwin v. Cardwell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6123.
    Howard v. Vincent, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6130.
    Combs v. Cardwell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6132.
    Swinick v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6134.
    Spencer v. Turner, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6136.
    Martin v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6138.
    Hewlett v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6139.
    Collazo v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6141.
    Smith v. Kansas.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6150.
    Saunders v. Johnson, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6157.
    Logan v. New York.
   Sup. Ct. N. Y., Queens County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6161.
    Eckert v. Paper Manufacturers Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6199.
    Johnson v. Parker.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-6687.
    Page v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-837.
    De Simone v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-860.
    Ross v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-952.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-958.
    Cirillo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1047.
    Weather Wise Co. v. Aeroquip Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5045.
    Navarro v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5066.
    Ross v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5227.
    Ortiz v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5625.
    Epps v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5815.
    Crovedi v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5978.
    Anderson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-801.
    Anderson v. City of Phoenix et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-967.
    Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Greco.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari. Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 72-923.
    Bridge v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would deny certiorari on ground of mootness.


text:
    No. 72-1022.
    Popoff v. Johnston.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1027.
    In re Gross.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Cer-tiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 72-1067.
    Columbia Standard Corp. v. Ranchers Exploration & Development Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 72-5707.
    Bassett v. Smith, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6002.
    Cheaney, aka Owens v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied for want of standing of petitioner. Doremus v. Board of Education of the Borough of Hawthorne, 342 U. S. 429. Mr. Justice Douglas would deny certiorari on grounds that petitioner, who was convicted of performing an abortion, is not a doctor and that the decisions of this Court in Roe v. Wade, ante, p. 113, and Doe v. Bolton, ante, p. 179, were confined to the condition, inter alia, that the abortion, if performed, be based on an appropriately safeguarded medical judgment.


text:
    No. 72-5988.
    Eisenberg v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari for the reason stated in his dissent in No. 71-1656, United States v. Achtenberg, 409 U. S. 932.


text:
    No. 72-5133.
    Buchanan v. Texas,
   409 U. S. 814 and 1029. Motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied.