text:
    No. 6489.
    Lipscomb v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 6490.
    Hunter v. Locher et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6492.
    McClary v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6493.
    Ward v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6494.
    Gearing v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6498.
    Vital v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6501.
    Springle v. Zelker, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6503.
    Sellers v. Dixilyn Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6504.
    Salvi v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6507.
    Darby v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6510.
    Cookmeyer v. Louisiana Department of Highways.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6522.
    Tracy et ux. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6524.
    Strong v. California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6537.
    Stevenson v. Mancusi, Warden.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6551.
    Desonia v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6587.
    Victor v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6626.
    Di Giangiemo v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1102.
    Di Giamberardino v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1204.
    Haifley v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1134.
    Noonan v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1163.
    Dash et al. v. Commanding General, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1179.
    Sellers et al. v. Regents of the University of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1186.
    Mescalero Apache Tribe et al. v. Russell, Acting Secretary of the Interior.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1212.
    Chahoc et al. v. Hunt Shipyard, a Division of Hunt Tool Co., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certi-orari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1224.
    Daniell v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6089.
    Grohman v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6538.
    Aiken v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certi-orari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1147.
    Weissman v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1164.
    Yahr et al. v. Resor, Secretary of the Army, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1171.
    Los Angeles Free Press, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1213.
    Schipani v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Bbennan are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Mr. Justice Mabshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 1238.
    Mancusi, Warden, et al. v. Martinez.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 5999.
    Howard v. Craven, Warden, et al.
   Super. Ct. Cal., County of Sacramento. Certiorari and/ or habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 6110.
    Magezis et al. v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.

Me. Justice Black and Me. Justice Douglas would deny petition on ground that state remedies have not been exhausted.


text:
    No. 6239.
    Theriault v. Daggett, Acting Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6247.
    Theriault v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6426.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6279.
    Falgout v. Patterson, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Application for bail presented to Mr. Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6433.
    Moore v. Indiana et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion for leave to amend petition for certiorari granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6525.
    Dexter v. Indiana.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion for leave to amend petition for certiorari granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6452.
    Lucas v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 5796.
    Greene v. United States,
   400 U. S. 965. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 806.
    No. 6032.
    United Services Automobile Assn. v. United States et al., Williams v. Neil, Warden,
   400 U. S. 992; and

400 U. S. 1011. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    March 29, 1971
    No. 31.
    Cato et al. v. Georgia et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Ga. Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117, and Perez v. Ledesma, ante, p. 82.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.


text:
    No. 112.
    LeClair et al. v. O’Neil et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Mass. Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37; Samuels v. Mackell, and Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 66.

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


text:
    No. 217.
    Johnnie Reb’s Book & Card Shop et al. v. Slaton et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Ga. Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37; and Samuels v. Mackell, and Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 66.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents from affirmance.


text:
    No. 5462.
    Porter v. Kimzey et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Ga. Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37; Samuels v. Mackell, and Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 66.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents from affirmance.


text:
    No. 5952.
    Geiger v. Jenkins et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Ga. Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37; Samuels v. Mackell, and Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 66.


text:
    No. 236.
    Campbell, Commissioner of Agriculture of Georgia, et al. v. Lewis.
   Affirmed on appeal from C. A. 5th Cir. Campbell v. Hussey, 368 U. S. 297.

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


text:
    No. 1250.
    Starns et al. v. Malkerson et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Minn.

Mr. Justice White is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 5412.
    Brown v. Fallis, District Attorney of Tulsa County, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Okla. Motion of appellant for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Judgment affirmed, Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37.

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


text:
    No. 1266.
    Bartlett et al. v. United States et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y.

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


text:
    No. 1275.
    Oriental Boulevard Co. et al. v. Heller, Commissioner of Department of Air Pollution Control, et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 1282.
    Malinou v. Board of Elections of Rhode Island et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. R. I. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 1284.
    Balc v. Parsons et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio. Motion to dispense with printing jurisdictional statement granted. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6442.
    Hernandez v. Catherwood, Industrial Commissioner of New York.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90.
    Barlow et al. v. Gallant et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Tex. Motion of appellees Morris and Walters for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37.

Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and affirm the judgment.


text:
    No. 43.
    Shevin et al. v. Lazarus.
    [For earlier order herein, see 400 U. S. 924, sub nom. Faircloth v. Lazarus.]
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Fla. Motion of appellee for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37.

Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and affirm the judgment.


text:
    No. 102.
    Goodman et al. v. Wheeler et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. N. C. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37.

Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and affirm the judgment.


text:
    No. 116.
    McGrew et al. v. City of Jackson et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Miss. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37; Samuels v. Mackell, and Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 66.

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


text:
    No. 134.
    Hosey et al. v. City of Jackson et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Miss. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37; Samuels v. Mackell, and Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 66.

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


text:
    No. 484.
    Byrne, District Attorney of Suffolk County v. P. B. I. C., Inc., et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Mass. Judgment vacated and case remanded to consider question of mootness.


text:
    No. 844.
    ABC Books, Inc., et al. v. Benson, Commissioner of Revenue of Tennessee, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. Tenn. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37; Samuels v. Mackell, and Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 66.

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


text:
    No. 5164.
    Dyches v. Ryan et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Ga. Motion of appellant for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37; Samuels v. Mackell, and Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 66.

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


text:
    No. 888.
    Board of Public Instruction of Dade County v. Banks.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Fla. Judgment vacated and case remanded so that a fresh decree may be entered from which a timely appeal may be taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit if appellant so chooses.


text:
    No. 5013.
    Rollins et al. v. Shannon.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Mo. Motion of appellants for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37; Samuels v. Mackell, and Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 66; and Boyle v. Landry, ante, p. 77.

Mr. Justice Douglas concurs on basis of his separate opinion in Samuels v. Mackell, and Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 74.


text:
    No. 289.
    No. 290.
    Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County v. Buchanan et al.; and Buchanan et al. v. Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County.
   Appeals from D. C. N. D. Tex. Motion of North American Conference of Hemo-phile Organizations for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 290 granted. Judgment vacated and cases remanded for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37; Samuels v. Mackell, and Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 66.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that No. 289 should be dismissed as untimely filed and that probable jurisdiction should be noted in No. 290.

Reported below: 308 F. Supp. 729.


text:
      No. 20.
    Wright et al. v. City of Montgomery, Alabama, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37; Samuels v. Mackell, and Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 66.

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


text:
    No. 5539.
    Embry et al. v. Allen et al.
   C. A. 5th

Cir. Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, and judgment reversed and remanded. Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37; Samuels v. Mackell, and Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 66.

Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Blackmun are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for reconsideration in fight of above-cited cases. Mr. Justice Douglas dissents from reversal.


text:
    No. 500.
    Ferdon et al. v. Demich, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Perez v. Ledesma, ante, p. 82.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.


text:
    No. -.
    Gregory et al. v. Tarr, National Director of Selective Service System, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Application for recall of mandate and stay of mandate of United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heretofore granted by Mr. Justice Stewart pending further order of Court, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would extend stay granted by Mr. Justice Stewart.


text:
    No. 1028.
    United States v. Campos-Serrano.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 936.] Motions of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that John J. Cleary, Esquire, of Chicago, Illinois, a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 1262.
    Wyman, Commissioner of Social Services of New York, et al. v. Boddie et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 2d Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 1269.
    Swank, Director, Illinois Department of Public Aid v. Rodriguez et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 1184.
    No. 1231.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Plasterers’ Local Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers’ & Cement Masons’ International Assn., AFL-CIO, et al.; and Texas State Tile & Terrazzo Co., Inc., et al. v. Plasterers’ Local Union No. 79, Operative Plasterers’ & Cement Masons’ International Assn., AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 973.] Motion of Laborers’ International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 1184 granted. Motion of Associated General Contractors of America et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 6553.
    Jefferson et al. v. Hackney, Commissioner of Public Welfare, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Tex. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 5275.
    Austin v. United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus denied.

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


text:
    No. 538.
    Swarb et al. v. Lennox et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Pa. Motion to dispense with printing jurisdictional statement granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 814.
    No. 1104.
    Socialist Labor Party et al. v. Gilligan, Governor of Ohio, et al.; and Gilligan, Governor of Ohio, et al. v. Sweetenham et al.
   Appeals from D. C. S. D. Ohio. Probable jurisdiction noted. Cases consolidated and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 318 F. Supp. 1262.


text:
    No. 1288.
    Miller v. California.
   Appeal from App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Orange. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 1292.
    Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis et al.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. Pa. Probable jurisdiction postponed to hearing of case on the merits.


text:
    No. 127.
    D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc., of Ohio et al. v. Frick Co.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Lucas County. Certi-orari granted.


text:
    No. 1278.
    Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 6046.
    Lego v. Twomey, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 as set forth in the petition, which reads as follows:

“1. Was the Illinois evidentiary rule for determining the voluntariness of extra-judicial confessions so highly unreliable as to contravene the Appellant’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights and, necessarily, deprive the Appellant of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because:
“(a) The trial judge in his preliminary determination, removed from the jury, need not find the confession voluntary beyond reasonable doubt when judging its admissibility as evidence for the jury; and,
“(b) The defendant, as a matter of Illinois law, was precluded from having the jury instructed upon, and to determine the voluntariness of the confession along with the other factual issues upon which the jury verdict must rest?”


text:
    No. 1183.
    Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. Prepmore Apparel, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 1285.
    United States v. Bass.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 1205.
    Ford v. Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1237.
    No. 6431.
    Wolfe v. United States; and Holstein v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 435 F. 2d 144.


text:
    No. 1240.
    No. 6485.
    No. 6486.
    DiBartolo v. United States; Paniccioli v. United States; and Fiadini v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1241.
    Kramer v. Better Business Bureau of Los Angeles, Ltd., et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1247.
    Meagher v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1251.
    Southland Inc. v. Cox Enterprises, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1258.
    United Aircraft Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1256.
    Stifel v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1260.
    State of Israel v. The Nili et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1261.
    Altman v. Stockton et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1263.
    New York Stock Exchange v. Thill Securities Corp. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1264.
    Gibbs v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1268.
    Delano, Inc. v. Arnold.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1271.
    Davis et al. v. News et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1283.
    Virden v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6184.
    McGuane v. Chenango Court, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6225.
    Richeson v. Hornstein, dba Rogers Discountland, et al.
   Cir. Ct. Macon County, Ill. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6305.
    Brewer v. Cox, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6311.
    Mitchell v. Cardwell, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6471.
    Bowles v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6475.
    Gomez v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6479.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6481.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6483.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6496.
    Harrington v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6516.
    Young v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6528.
    Taylor v. Johnson, Sheriff.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6541.
    Hickman v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6544.
    Antonson v. Virginia A. B. C. Board et al.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6545.
    Lomax v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6547.
    Zenor v. Vogt et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6548.
    Eaton v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6552.
    Cordle v. Moynahan, Judge.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. 1166.
    Cook v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

with whom Mr. Justice Brennan concurs,

dissenting.

I would grant the petition on the issue of electronic surveillance.

In this criminal prosecution counsel for the defense asked if the Government had obtained any evidence by means of listening devices or electronic eavesdropping. The prosecutor would say only that “no illegal eavesdropping devices were used.” He would not state whether any eavesdropping equipment had been used. The trial judge refused to order the disclosure.

On appeal, petitioner contended that the Government must disclose whether there had been electronic surveillance, regardless of its views on the legality. The legality of such surveillance was for the court to determine, he argued, and he asked for a hearing to determine if such devices were used. The Government asserted on appeal that “there was no electronic surveillance involved in this case.” This statement was supported by a letter from the Department of Justice:

“Please be informed we have contacted the appropriate investigative agencies and have been informed Cook was not the subject of a direct microphone surveillance nor were any of his conversations monitored. Further, we are informed, no electronic surveillance was maintained on premises which were known to have been owned, leased, or licensed by the above individual.”

Petitioner contended that this letter was far from clear as it did not state which agencies were contacted and only stated that he was not the subject of “direct” microphone surveillance, suggesting “indirect” surveillance. The Court of Appeals agreed that the statement of the prosecutor was “not unequivocal,” 432 F. 2d 1093, 1109, and that the disclosure should have been made to the trial judge. Yet it affirmed the conviction without further inquiry.

Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a judicial determination of the existence and legality of electronic eavesdropping. He argues that the United States has never stated unequivocally that no electronic eavesdropping occurred. The Solicitor General relies on the letter which I have quoted. Moreover, he indicates that the procedure followed below is in accordance with “statutory procedures now provided with respect to claims of illegal electronic surveillance in proceedings occurring after October 15, 1970 . . . From now on, the United States will not even review its files to determine the existence of evidence stemming from electronic surveillance unless the defendant meets the “burden of raising any issue of illegal electronic surveillance . . .

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, § 802, 82 Stat. 212, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510-2520 (1964 ed., Supp. Y), provides for electronic surveillance either on warrants issued by a magistrate, § 2516, or on the sole initiative of the designee of the Attorney General who “reasonably determines” that there is “an emergency situation” respecting “conspiratorial activities” which threaten the national security or which involve “organized crime.” §2518(7). The officer must apply for an order approving the interception within 48 hours, complying with procedures for obtaining an order of authorization. If the application is denied, or approval is not issued before the interception is terminated, the contents of any intercepted communication are to be treated as illegally obtained. §2518(7).

The Act sanctions free use of intercepted information among investigative personnel, § 2517 (1). It also widely protects “evidence derived therefrom,” §§2517 (1), (2), and (3), including the giving of testimonial evidence. But any person whose “wire or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used” in violation of the ways I have enumerated has suit for actual and punitive damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. § 2520.

The issue of “illegality” raised by the Government’s defense would raise a myriad of questions depending on the facts. They would pertain to the question of whether the showing required by § 2518 (1) of the Act had been made to the magistrate and raise the basic question whether, if a magistrate issued a warrant, there was “probable cause,” §2518(3). If there were a warrant, the question would also be whether the “search” was confined to the person, place, and time which were authorized. §§2518(4), (5). If there were no warrant but only the action of the Attorney General under § 2518 (7), a host of different questions would be raised on the issue of “illegality.”

These are new questions not yet decided under the new Act. They are important questions involving high matters of policy. They will affect many cases. It is appropriate that we reach the questions here and now, so that the procedures to be used in protecting the rights of the citizen and confining the prosecution within constitutional bounds be resolved.

While Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, was pending here, it was revealed that the United States had engaged in wiretapping which may have violated the Fourth Amendment and tainted the convictions of petitioner. We had earlier refused to accept “the ex parte determination” of the issues by the Department of Justice, Kolod v. United States, 390 U. S. 136, 137, and in Alderman worked out the procedures whereby the District Court would determine whether the evidence obtained was “the product of illegal surveillance.” 394 U. S., at 168. The questions in that case concerned the use of “evidence originating in electronic surveillance violative of his own Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.” Id., at 176. That is the question here and it is obviously not controlled by administrative practice or the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, both of which are subordinate to the Constitution.

The procedure to be designed here is not relevant only to criminals.

Electronic surveillance is today commorvand pervasive, as we know from reports filed pursuant to § 2519 (3) of the Act and from various Senate and House investigations, including the one being conducted by Senator Ervin. These invasions of privacy apparently touch not only criminals but also reputable people whose only offense is political, social, or ideological nonconformity. As stated in A. Westin, Privacy and Freedom 365-366 (1967):

“As of the 1960’s, the new surveillance technology is being used widely by government agencies of all types and at every level of government, as well as by private agents for a rapidly growing number of businesses, unions, private organizations, and individuals in every section of the United States.”

       Defense counsel gave as his reason: “For example, on cross examination there was some question about a conversation, a phone conversation that the defendant had.”

       “[W]e are not going to make it a practice in our office to show the Court during each trial what eavesdropping devices we used, because on its face it might be illegal.”
      “I don't think that we have to commit ourselves in any case and say, ‘Judge, since it might be illegal, we did not use it,’ so that we can make a record.”

       “I represent only to your Honor in this case, and we will in other cases, that there was nothing illegal about any of the evidence we presented, no illegal eavesdropping devices were used, and I don’t think that I have to tell defense counsel whether or not we used eavesdropping equipment.”

      “[T]hey have sort of a practice that the one who is honored to reveal these things has been left to the Solicitor General of the United States. I know of no district attorney that has made a disclosure yet. They either make it in the Supreme Court or they make it in the Seventh Circuit, but we haven’t got down to the lower echelon yet where that has been disclosed even by the Solicitor General.”

       “While defendant takes the position that disclosure in open court is the constitutionally preferred procedure, he submits at the same time that an in camera determination of legality or illegality was required as an absolute constitutional minimum under the Fourth Amendment.” (Brief for Defendant-Appellant in CA7, pp. 62-63.)

       There is the initial question whether any intercepted communications relating to the offense of which petitioner was convicted are evidence of “offenses other than those specified in the order of authorization or approval,” §2517 (5). If so, “[s]uch contents and any evidence derived therefrom may be used [as testimony at trial] when authorized or approved by a judge of competent jurisdiction where such judge finds on subsequent application that the contents were otherwise intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.” This would seem to place upon the Government the burden of knowing the source of its evidence, even without challenge from a defendant.

       The number of reported interceptions of communications made pursuant to the Act indicates the problem is not small. In the last six months of 1968 there were 174 authorizations issued, all to state officers. One hundred forty-seven devices were installed. The average period of time authorized was 20 days. There were 128 extensions, averaging 20 days. Approximately 4,312 persons were involved in 66,716 intercepted communications. One hundred twenty-six intercepts were in dwellings and 45 were in business establishments. Based on Report on Applications for Orders Authorizing or Approving the Interception of Wire or Oral Communications for the Period June 20,1968, to December 31,1968, Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
      In 1969, the pace did not perceptibly diminish.
      Total Federal State
      Number of applications. 304 34 270
      Authorizations issued. Average length of 302 33 269
      Authorization. Extensions granted. 26 days 16 days — 194 11 183
      Average length of extension.. Total period authorized. Number of devices installed.. 22 days 14 days — 9,019 days 462 days 8,557 days 271 30 241
      Telephone wiretap. 250 27 223
      Listening device. 15 1 14
      Both . 6 2 4

        Total Federal State
      Facility or place authorized in application Residence . 135 10 125
      Apartment . 68 7 61
      Multiple dwelling. 14 3 11
      Business establishment.... 71 10 61
      Business & living quarters. 5 2 3
      Other . 9 1 8
      Average number of intercepts per authorized device. 641 1,498 —
      Average number of persons involved per wiretap. 116 152 —
      Total number of intercepts (approx.) .. 178,300 44,900 133,300
      Total number of persons involved (approx.). 13,400 4,560 8,880
      Based on Report on Applications for Orders Authorizing or Approving the Interception of Wire or Oral Comunications for the Period January 1, 1969, to December 31, 1969, Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
      What number of interceptions are made in cases which involve the so-called “national security” is not known.

       See Hearings on the Computer and Invasion of Privacy before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966); Address of Cong. Gallagher, Technology and Society:., A Conflict of Interest?, 115 Cong. Rec. 8239; Privacy and the National Data Bank Concept, H. R. Rep. No. 1842, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968); Hearings, pursuant to S. Res. 39, on Invasions of Privacy (Government Agencies) before the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2 (1965). The hearings being conducted by Senator Ervin before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary have not as yet been concluded.


text:
    No. 6560.
    Osborn v. Rundle, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6564.
    Bellew v. Swenson, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6572.
    Schutz v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6575.
    Campbell v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6598.
    Yoder v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6619.
    Buckley v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 834.
    Mayfield v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Motions to dispense with printing petition and reply brief granted. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 874.
    Brewer, Warden v. Blanchard.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1197.
    Passaic County Bar Assn. et al. v. Hughes, Governor of New Jersey, et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1226.
    Mercado v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico et al.
   Sup. Ct. P. R. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1227.
    Housing Authority of the City of Durham, North Carolina, et al. v. Caulder.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice White are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1249.
    Overton v. Rieger.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certi-orari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1253.
    Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Sun Oil Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1255.
    Marcello v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6370.
    Blanton v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6543.
    Darden v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1686,
    Misc.,
    October Term, 1969.
    Delespine v. Beto, Corrections Director,
   397 U. S. 1030. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 949.
    No. 5537.
    No. 6007.
    No. 6118.
    No. 6074.
    Rubino v. United States, Furgison v. Iowa, Halley v. United States et al., Halley v. United States, Curtis v. United States,
   ante, p. 910;

400 U. S. 994;

ante, p. 905;

ante, p. 916; and

ante, p. 915. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 714.
    Zezoff v. United States,
   400 U. S. 957. Motion to dispense with printing motion for leave to file petition for rehearing granted. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    April 5, 1971
    No. 1252.
    Pratz et al. v. Louisiana Polytechnic Institute et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. W. D. La.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that the question of jurisdiction should be postponed to hearing on the merits and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 1229.
    Shipyard Drive-In Theatre, Inc., et al. v. Scuncio et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. R. I. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed.


text:
    No. 1313.
    Berry v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. La., 2d Cir. Motion of Arthur Cobb and Louisiana Trial Lawyers Assn, for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1330.
    Huntington National Bank of Columbus v. Kosydar, Tax Commissioner of Ohio.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1323.
    Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. Apache County et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ariz. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 422.
    United States v. McFadden.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Gillette v. United States, and Negre v. Larsen, ante, p. 437.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.


text:
    No. 1326.
    Smith, Governor of Texas, et al. v. Garza et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Tex. Judgment vacated and case remanded so that the District Court may enter a fresh judgment from which a timely appeal may be taken to United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit if appellants so choose. Gunn v. University Committee to End the War in Vietnam, 399 U. S. 383 (1970).

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that judgment should be affirmed, being of the view that appeal is properly before this Court.


text:
    No. 786.
    Childs v. Oregon et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted and judgment reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 (1967).

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Blackmun are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied.


text:
    No. 56.
    Epps v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma with directions to dismiss indictment. Durham v. United States, ante, p. 481.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Blackmun are of the opinion that motion of counsel for respondent to dismiss petition as moot should be granted. See dissenting opinions in Durham v. United States, supra, p. 483.


text:
    No. 72.
    United States v. Shields.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Gillette v. United States, and Negre v. Larsen, ante, p. 437.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.


text:
    No. 976.
    Somerville v. Illinois.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S. 470, and Downum v. United States, 372 U. S. 734 (1963).

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that the petition should be granted and judgment reversed. United States v. Jorn, supra.


text:
    No. 712.
    Triangle Improvement Council et al. v. Ritchie, Commissioner, State Road Commission of West Virginia, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 400 U. S. 963.] Motion for leave to file petitioners’ reply brief out of time granted.


text:
    No. 824.
    M. F. A. Central Cooperative et al. v. Bookwalter, District Director of Internal Revenue, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion to expedite consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied. Motion of petitioners to argue orally as amicus curiae in No. 1082 denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.


text:
    No. 6400.
    Webster et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for bail presented to Mr. Justice Black, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 1395.
    DeSapio v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to examine sealed briefs filed on behalf of respondent in No. 825, October Term, 1970, granted.

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


text:
    No. 5940.
    Haines v. Kerner et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 954.] Motion of petitioner for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that Stanley A. Bass, of New York, New York, a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 6307.
    Frias v. Nelson, Warden.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 1274.
    Rafter v. Hoyt, Judge.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 1325.
    North Carolina v. Rice.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 1332.
    Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 1103.
    In re Metropolitan Realty Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1254.
    District Council 51, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, et al. v. Goldberg et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1216.
    Sid W. Richardson Foundation v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1287.
    Grieco v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1290.
    Atwell v. Retail Credit Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1291.
    Kellwood Co., Ottenheimer Division v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1293.
    United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. Abrams et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1295.
    Ballou et al. v. General Electric Co.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1298.
    Preiser Scientific, Inc., of Ohio, et al. v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1299.
    Szot v. Florida Industrial Commission et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1301.
    Ruscito et al. v. Schaffer, Secretary of State of Connecticut.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1302.
    Bessesen v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1304.
    Alexander et al. v. Pacific Maritime Assn. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1306.
    Held v. United States et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1311.
    Burnett v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1312.
    Hubbard v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1318.
    Rogers, Guardian, et al. v. Ray Gardner Flying Service, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1319.
    City of Lackawanna, New York, et al. v. Kennedy Park Homes Assn., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1320.
    Shapiro v. East Windsor Municipal Utilities Authority.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1327.
    Olds v. Pennsalt Chemicals Corp.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1335.
    Butts et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6077.
    Ellis v. Oklahoma et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6117.
    Sabow v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6200.
    Emmons v. Taylor et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6223.
    In re Disbarment of Chipley.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6210.
    Braden v. Hocklander, Judge.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6282.
    Dooner v. Director, Kings Park State Hospital.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6297.
    Wright v. District Court of Montgomery County.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6350.
    Carr v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6456.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6472.
    Akin v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6482.
    No. 1303.
    Higdon v. United States; and Higdon v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 434 F. 2d 622.


text:
    No. 6499.
    Fassler v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6500.
    Geiger v. McBee.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6505.
    Niemeyer v. Ciccone, Medical Center Director, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6508.
    Goetluck v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6511.
    Smith v. Rodgers, Jail Superintendent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6517.
    Benoit v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6534.
    Mines v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6557.
    Sealey v. North Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6558.
    Koresko v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6571.
    Knight v. Gaffney, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6574.
    Hoag v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6576.
    Fannon v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6589.
    Schlette v. California Adult Authority et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6602.
    Baker v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6614.
    Vasquez v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6617.
    Fehlhaber et al. v. San Francisco Unified School District et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6649.
    Malone v. Beto, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 12.
    Cox, Penitentiary Superintendent v. McLaren.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would dismiss petition as moot.


text:
    No. 45.
    Pratt v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1000.
    Scudder & German v. Pearlstein.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1243.
    Hopkins v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1297.
    Board of Education of Netcong et al. v. State Board of Education et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1300.
    Curtin, Administratrix v. Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1321.
    Maker v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and judgment reversed. Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U. S. 199 (1960).


text:
    No. 5311.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Mr. Justice Harlan is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for reconsideration in light of his opinion in Welsh v. United States, 398 U. S. 333, 344 (1970), and Gillette v. United States, ante, p. 437.


text:
    No. 5722.
    Compton v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6224.
    Haffke v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Motion to strike exhibits submitted by respondent and certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6272.
    Smith v. Bloom, Judge.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6491.
    Evans v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 6515.
    Meadows et al. v. United States Marshal, Northern District of Georgia.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 988.
    Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Norton Co. et al.,
   ante, p. 925. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 989.
    Billy Baxter, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co. et al.,
   ante, p. 923. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 1016.
    Jones v. United States,
   ante, p. 926. Motion for leave to dispense with printing petition for rehearing granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 47.
    No. 80.
    No. 109.
    No. 787.
    No. 901.
    No. 1001.
    No. 1004.
    No. 5964.
    No. 6068.
    No. 6096.
    No. 6155.
    No. 6189.
    Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp. et al., Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., Time, Inc. v. Pape, Ohlendorf et ux. v. Gayles et al., Sherman et al. v. United States, National Screen Service Corp. v. Poster Exchange, Inc., Hansen v. Haagensen, Walker v. Brantley, Warden, Wimberley v. Craven, Warden, et al., Maranze v. Dayton School Board et al., Bryant v. Maryland, McPeak et al. v. Adjustment Corp.,
   400 U. S. 494;

ante, p. 321;

ante, p. 279;

ante, p. 929;

ante, p. 908;

ante, p. 912;

ante, p. 912;

ante, p. 942;

ante, p. 915;

ante, p. 916;

ante, p. 917; and

ante, p. 919. Petitions for rehearing denied.


author: Mr. Justice Black, Circuit Justice.

text:
    KARR v. SCHMIDT, PRINCIPAL OF CORONADO HIGH SCHOOL, et al.
    Decided February 11, 1971
    See: 320 F. Supp. 728.
   Mr. Justice Black, Circuit Justice.

This “Emergency Motion to Vacate Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal” has been presented to me as the Supreme Court Justice assigned to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The motion concerns rules adopted by the school authorities of El Paso, Texas, providing that schoolboys’ hair must not “hang over the ears or the top of the collar of a standard dress shirt and must not obstruct vision.” The rules also provide that boys will not be admitted to or allowed to remain in school unless their hair meets this standard. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, held after hearings that this local student hair length rule violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and enjoined its enforcement, declining to suspend its injunction pending appeal. On motion of the school authorities, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed and suspended the District Court’s injunction and the student appellees have asked me to vacate the Court of Appeals’ stay of the injunction. Should I vacate the stay the El Paso school authorities would remain subject to the District Court’s injunction and would thereby be forbidden to enforce their local rule requiring public school students not to wear hair hanging over their collars or obstructing their vision.

I refuse to hold for myself that the federal courts have constitutional power to interfere in this way with the public school system operated by the States. And I furthermore refuse to predict that our Court will hold they have such power. It is true that we have held that this Court does have power under the Fourteenth Amendment to bar state public schools from discriminating against Negro students on account of their race but we did so by virtue of a direct, positive command in the Fourteenth Amendment, which, like the other Civil War Amendments, was primarily designed to outlaw racial discrimination by the States. There is no such direct, positive command about local school rules with reference to the length of hair state school students must have. And I cannot now predict this Court will hold that the more or less vague terms of either the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause have robbed the States of their traditionally recognized power to run their school systems in accordance with their own best judgment as to the appropriate length of hair for students.

The motion in this case is presented to me in a record of more than 50 pages, not counting a number of exhibits. The words used throughout the record such as “Emergency Motion” and “harassment” and “irreparable damages” are calculated to leave the impression that this case over the length of hair has created or is about to create a great national “crisis.” I confess my inability to understand how anyone would thus classify this hair length case. The only thing about it that borders on the serious to me is the idea that anyone should think the Federal Constitution imposes on the United States courts the burden of supervising the length of hair that public school students should wear. The records of the federal courts, including ours, show a heavy burden of litigation in connection with cases of great importance — the kind of litigation our courts must be able to handle if they are to perform their responsibility to our society. Moreover, our Constitution has sought to distribute the powers of government in this Nation between the United States and the States. Surely the federal judiciary can perform no greater service to the Nation than to leave the States unhampered in the performance of their purely local affairs. Surely few policies can be thought of that States are more capable of deciding than the length of the hair of schoolboys. There can, of course, be honest differences of opinion as to whether any government, state or federal, should as a matter of public policy regulate the length of haircuts, but it would be difficult to prove by reason, logic, or common sense that the federal judiciary is more competent to deal with hair length than are the local school authorities and state legislatures of all our 50 States. Perhaps if the courts will leave the States free to perform their own constitutional duties they will at least be able successfully to regulate the length of hair their public school students can wear.

Motion denied.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas, Circuit Justice.

text:
    HAYWOOD v. NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSN.
    Decided March 1, 1971
   Mr. Justice Douglas, Circuit Justice.

This is an application for a stay of an order issued by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It raises questions under the Sherman Act concerning the legality of the professional basketball college player draft. The hearing on the merits will be heard by the District Court for the Central District of California.

The Seattle club for which the applicant now plays basketball has joined in the request for the stay, while the NBA opposes.

Under the rules of the NBA a college player cannot be drafted until four years after he has graduated from high school. Players are drafted by teams in the inverse order of their finish during the previous season. No team may negotiate with a player drafted by another team.

Applicant played with the 1968 Olympic team and then went to college. Prior to graduation he signed with the rival American Basketball Association, but upon turning 21 he repudiated the contract, charging fraud. He then signed with Seattle of the NBA. This signing was less than four years after his high school class had graduated (thus leaving him ineligible to be drafted under the NBA rules). The NBA threatened to disallow the contract and also threatened Seattle’s team with various sanctions.

Applicant then commenced an antitrust action against the NBA. He alleges the conduct of the NBA is a group boycott of himself and that under Fashion Originators’ Guild v. FTC, 312 U. S. 457, and Klor’s v. Broadway-Hale Stores, 359 U. S. 207, it is a per se violation of the Sherman Act. He was granted an injunction pendente lite which allowed him to play for Seattle and forbade NBA to take sanctions against the Seattle team. The District Court ruled:

“If Haywood is unable to continue to play professional basketball for Seattle, he will suffer irreparable injury in that a substantial part of his playing career will have been dissipated, his physical condition, skills and coordination will deteriorate from lack of high-level competition, his public acceptance as a super star will diminish to the detriment of his career, his self-esteem and his pride will have been injured and a great injustice will be perpetrated on him.”

The college player draft binds the player to the team selected. Basketball, however, does not enjoy exemption from the antitrust laws. Thus the decision in this suit would be similar to the one on baseball’s reserve clause which our decisions exempting baseball from the antitrust laws have foreclosed. See Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U. S. 200; Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U. S. 356. This group boycott issue in professional sports is a significant one.

The NBA appealed the granting of the preliminary injunction to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court stayed the injunction, stating:

“We have considered the status quo existing prior to the District Court’s action and the disturbance of that status resulting from the injunction; the nature and extent of injury which continuation of the injunction or its stay would cause to the respective parties; and the public interest in the institution of professional basketball and the orderly regulation of its affairs.”

The matter is of some urgency because the athletic contests are under way and the playoffs between the various clubs will begin on March 23. Should applicant prevail at the trial his team will probably not be in the playoffs, because under the stay order issued by the Court of Appeals he is unable to play. Should he be allowed to play and his team not make the playoffs then no one, of course, will have been injured. Should he be allowed to play and his team does make the playoffs but the District Court decision goes in favor of the NBA, then it would be for the District Court to determine whether the NBA could disregard the Seattle victories in all games in which he participated and recompute who should be in the playoffs.

To dissolve the stay would preserve the interest and integrity of the playoff system, as I have indicated. Should there not be a decision prior to beginning of the playoffs and should Seattle make the playoffs then the District Court could fashion whatever relief it deems equitable.

In view of the equities between the parties, 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (a), I have decided to allow the preliminary injunction of the District Court to be reinstated. The status quo provided by the Court of Appeals is the status quo before applicant signed with Seattle. The District Court preserved the status quo prior to the NBA’s action against Seattle and Haywood. That is the course I deem most worthy of this interim protection: The stay will issue.