text:
    No. 78-6885.
    Hicks v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 963.] Motion of petitioner for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that David M. Ebel, Esquire, of Denver, Colo., be appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 79-539.
    Maine v. Dana et al.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 79-755.
    No. 79-5653.
    Lecht v. Levinson et al; and Kierstead v. Princi, U. S. Magistrate.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 79-97.
    California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 824.] Motion of respondent Midcal Aluminum, Inc., for reconsideration of order of November 26, 1979 [ante, p. 961], granting divided argument denied. Further consideration of suggestion of mootness of respondent Midcal Aluminum, Inc., is deferred to hearing of case on the merits.

Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of these matters.


text:
    No. 79-5516.
    Jaffer v. White, Clerk, Supreme Court of Florida.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 79-5514.
    Kennedy v. Shellinger, Warden, et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 79-488.
    General Telephone Company of the Northwest, Inc., et al. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 79-639.
    United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians et al.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 79-244.
    United States v. Salvucci et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motions of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument in tandem with No. 79-5146, Rawlings v. Kentucky, immediately infra.


text:
    No. 79-5146.
    Rawlings v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument in tandem with No. 79-244, United States v. Salvucci, immediately supra.


text:
    No. 79-616.
    Mohasco Corp. v. Silver.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 79-5175.
    Adams v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to the questions presented by the Court:

(1) Is the doctrine of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, applicable to the bifurcated procedure employed by Texas in capital cases? (2) If so, did the exclusion from jury service in the present case of prospective jurors pursuant to Texas Penal Code § 12.31 (b) violate the doctrine of Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra?


text:
    No. 79-5364.
    Brown v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 78-5855.
    No. 78-5930.
    Levy v. United States; and La Font v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 580 F. 2d 730.


text:
    No. 79-169.
    No. 79-544.
    Public Service Company of New Hampshire v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al.; and Pennsylvania Electric Co. et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 195 U. S. App. D. C. 130, 600 F. 2d 944.


text:
    No. 79-296.
    Bakrentine et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-327.
    No. 79-354.
    CBS Inc. v. United States et al.; and Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-397.
    Pihakis et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-479.
    Genins v. Geiger et ux.
   Ct. App. Ga. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-481.
    Hancock et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-510.
    American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-511.
    Brewster v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-516.
    Inland Oil & Transport Co. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-523.
    Leesona Corp. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-524.
    Kaye v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-525.
    Moenckmeier v. United States et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-530.
    Texas Oil & Gas Corp. et al. v. Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-553.
    Park West Management Corp. v. Mitchell et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-618.
    Good Hope Refineries, Inc. v. Benavides et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-626.
    Ancarrow et ux. v. City of Richmond.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-630.
    Hunt et al. v. Coastal States Gas Producing Co. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-631.
    Oklahoma v. C. M. G.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-642.
    Dougherty v. Haaland.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-689.
    Gagne v. Meachum.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-740.
    Arthur v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-744.
    Alberico v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5039.
    Joiner v. Youngblood et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5268.
    Gillion v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5308.
    Gaertner v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5336.
    McConkey v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5353.
    Drye v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5368.
    Crowder v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5418.
    Waldrop v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5426.
    Qureshi v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5441.
    Harris v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5444.
    Keefer v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5450.
    Young et al. v. Landrieau, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5460.
    Greer v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5467.
    Marcus v. Internal Revenue Service et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5482.
    Grizzell v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5504.
    Johnstone v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5517.
    Howery v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5524.
    Gerry et al. v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5546.
    Platel v. Clark, Judge, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5565.
    Nickerson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5570.
    Drakeford v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5573.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5610.
    Raia v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5617.
    Belvin et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5618.
    Elsbery v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5620.
    Carra v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5621.
    Bretz v. Montana.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5631.
    Perez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5634.
    Van Dyke v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5635.
    Young v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5644.
    Jankowski v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-6687.
    Ruffin v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certio-rari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    No. 79-461.
    Waterbury Urban Renewal Agency v. Waterbury Action to Conserve Our Heritage, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of Connecticut Community Development Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-475.
    Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 79-478.
    Alma Society, Inc., et al. v. Mellon et al.
   G. A. 2d Cir. Motion of counsel for respondent natural parents who have surrendered their children for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-632.
    Smith, Correctional Superintendent v. Graham.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-640.
    Goldberg, Trustee, et al. v. Kirshner.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-643.
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Quinlivan et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Powell would grant cer-tiorari. Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 79-663.
    Frias v. Board of Trustees of Ector County Independent School District et al.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 8th Sup. Jud. Dist. Motion of respondent Board of Trustees of Ector County Independent School District for damages and certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-6936.
    Scott v. Georgia,
   ante, p. 925. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 78-1692.
    Solomon v. West Virginia,
   ante, p. 831. Motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 78-6677.
    No. 79-5095.
    No. 79-5181.
    Figueroa v. LeFevre, Correctional Superintendent, Davis v. Bryan, U. S. District Judge, Davis v. Russell et al.,
   ante, p. 850 ;

ante, p. 821; and

U. S. Circuit Judges, ante, p. 821. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


author: Mr. Justice Powell, Me. Justice Rehnquist, Mr. Justice Blackmun, Mr. Justice Brennan,

text:
    December 13, 1979
    No. 79-856.
    Goldwater et al. v. Carter, President of the United States, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.

Mr. Justice Marshall concurs in the result. Mr. Justice Powell concurs in the judgment and filed a statement. Mr. Justice Rehnquist concurs in the judgment and filed a statement in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Stevens join. Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Blackmun join in the grant of the petition for writ of certiorari but would set the case for argument and give it plenary consideration. Mr. Justice Blackmun filed a statement in which Mr. Justice White joins. Mr. Justice Brennan would grant the petition for writ of certiorari and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and filed a statement.

Mr. Justice Powell,

concurring in the judgment.

Although I agree with the result reached by the Court, I would dismiss the complaint as not ripe for judicial review.

I

This Court has recognized that an issue should not be decided if it is not ripe for judicial review. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 113-114 (1976) (per curiam). Prudential considerations persuade me that a dispute between Congress and the President is not ready for judicial review unless and until each branch has taken action asserting its constitutional authority. Differences between the President and the Congress are commonplace under our system. The differences should, and almost invariably do, turn on political rather than legal considerations. The Judicial Branch should not decide issues affecting the allocation of power between the President and Congress until the political branches reach a constitutional impasse. Otherwise, we would encourage small groups or even individual Members of Congress to seek judicial resolution of issues before the normal political process has the opportunity to resolve the conflict.

In this case, a few Members of Congress claim that the President’s action in terminating the treaty with Taiwan has deprived them of their constitutional role with respect to a change in the supreme law of the land. Congress has taken no official action. In the present posture of this case, we do not know whether there ever will be an actual confrontation between the Legislative and Executive Branches. Although the Senate has considered a resolution declaring that Senate approval is necessary for the termination of any mutual defense treaty, see 125 Cong. Rec. 13672, 13695-13697 (1979), no final vote has been taken on the resolution. See id., at 32522-32531. Moreover, it is unclear whether the resolution would have retroactive effect. See id., at 13711—13721; id., at 15210. It cannot be said that either the Senate or the House has rejected the President’s claim. If the Congress chooses not to confront the President, it is not our task to do so. I therefore concur in the dismissal of this case.

II

Mr. Justice Rehnquist suggests, however, that the issue presented by this case is a nonjusticiable political question which can never be considered by this Court. I cannot agree. In my view, reliance upon the political-question doctrine is inconsistent with our precedents. As set forth in the seminal case of Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 217 (1962), the doctrine incorporates three inquiries: (i) Does the issue involve resolution of questions committed by the text of the Constitution to a coordinate branch of Government? (ii) Would resolution of the question demand that a court move beyond areas of judicial expertise? (iii) Do prudential considerations counsel against judicial intervention? In my opinion the answer to each of these inquiries would require us to decide this case if it were ready for review.

First, the existence of “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department,” ibid., turns on an examination of the constitutional provisions governing the exercise of the power in question. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 519 (1969). No constitutional provision explicitly confers upon the President the power to terminate treaties. Further, Art. II, § 2, of the Constitution authorizes the President to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. Article VI provides that treaties shall be a part of the supreme law of the land. These provisions add support to the view that the text of the Constitution does not unquestionably commit the power to terminate treaties to the President alone. Cf. Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U. S. 1, 6 (1973); Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1, 42 (1849).

Second, there is no “lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving” this case; nor is a decision impossible “without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudieial discretion.” Baker v. Carr, supra, at 217. We are asked to decide whether the President may terminate a treaty under the Constitution without congressional approval. Resolution of the question may not be easy, but it only requires us to apply normal principles of interpretation to the constitutional provisions at issue. See Powell v. McCormack, supra, at 548-549. The present case involves neither review of the President’s activities as Commander in Chief nor impermissible interference in the field of foreign affairs. Such a case would arise if we were asked to decide, for example, whether a treaty required the President to order troops into a foreign country. But “it is error to suppose that every case or controversy which touches foreign relations lies beyond judicial cognizance.” Baker v. Carr, supra, at 211. This case “touches” foreign relations, but the question presented to us concerns only the constitutional division of power between Congress and the President.

A simple hypothetical demonstrates the confusion that I find inherent in Mr. Justice Rehnquist’s opinion concurring in the judgment. Assume that the President signed a mutual defense treaty with a foreign country and announced that it would go into effect despite its rejection by the Senate. Under Mr. Justice Rehnquist’s analysis that situation would present a political question even though Art. II, § 2, clearly would resolve the dispute. Although the answer to the hypothetical case seems self-evident because it demands textual rather than interstitial analysis, the nature of the legal issue presented is no different from the issue presented in the case before us. In both cases, the Court would interpret the Constitution to decide whether congressional approval is necessary to give a Presidential decision on the validity of a treaty the force of law. Such an inquiry demands no special competence or information beyond the reach of the Judiciary. Cf. Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103, 111 (1948).

Finally, the political-question doctrine rests in part on prudential concerns calling for mutual respect among the three branches of Government. Thus, the Judicial Branch should avoid “the potentiality of embarrassment [that would result] from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.” Similarly, the doctrine restrains judicial action where there is an “unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made.” Baker v. Carr, supra, at 217.

If this case were ripe for judicial review, see Part I, supra, none of these prudential considerations would be present. Interpretation of the Constitution does not imply lack of respect for a coordinate branch. Powell v. McCormack, supra, at 548. If the President and the Congress had reached irreconcilable positions, final disposition of. the question presented by this case would eliminate, rather than create, multiple constitutional interpretations. The specter of the Federal Government brought to a halt because of the mutual intransigence of the President and the Congress would require this Court to provide a resolution pursuant to our duty “ 'to say what the law is.’ ” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 703 (1974), quoting Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803).

Ill

In my view, the suggestion that this case presents a political question is incompatible with this Court’s willingness on previous occasions to decide whether one branch of our Government has impinged upon the power of another. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S., at 138; United States v. Nixon, supra, at 707; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655, 676-678 (1929); Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52 (1926). Under the criteria enunciated in Baker v. Carr, we have the responsibility to decide whether both the Executive and Legislative Branches have constitutional roles to play in termination of a treaty. If the Congress, by appropriate formal action, had challenged the President's authority to terminate the treaty with Taiwan, the' resulting uncertainty could have serious consequences for our country. In that situation, it would be the duty of this Court to resolve the issue.

Me. Justice Rehnquist,

with whom The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Stevens join, concurring in the judgment.

I am of the view that the basic question presented by the petitioners in this case is “political" and therefore nonjus-ticiable because it involves the authority of the President in the conduct of our country's foreign relations and the extent to which the Senate or the Congress is authorized to negate the action of the President. In Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433 (1939), a case in which members of the Kansas Legislature brought an action attacking a vote of the State Senate in favor of the ratification of the Child Labor Amendment, Mr. Chief Justice Hughes wrote in what is referred to as the “Opinion of the Court'':

“We think that . . . the question of the efficacy of ratifications by state legislatures, in the light of previous rejection or attempted withdrawal, should be regarded as a political question pertaining to the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the Amendment.
“The precise question as now raised is whether, when the legislature of the State, as we have found, has actually ratified the proposed amendment, the Court should restrain the state officers from certifying the ratification to the Secretary of State, because of an earlier rejection, and thus prevent the question from coming before the political departments. We find no basis in either Constitution or statute for such judicial action. Article V, speaking solely of ratification, contains no provision as to rejection. . . .” Id., at 450.

Thus, Mr. Chief Justice Hughes’ opinion concluded that “Congress in controlling the promulgation of the adoption of a constitutional amendment has the final determination of the question whether by lapse of time its proposal of the amendment had lost its vitality prior to the required ratifications.” Id., at 456.

I believe it follows a fortiori from Coleman that the controversy in the instant case is a nonjusticiable political dispute that should be left for resolution by the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Government. Here, while the Constitution is express as to the manner in which the Senate shall participate in the ratification of a treaty, it is silent as to that body’s participation-in the abrogation of a treaty. In this respect the case is directly analogous to Coleman, supra. As stated in Dyer v. Blair, 390 F. Supp. 1291, 1302 (ND Ill. 1975) (three-judge court):

“A question that might be answered in different ways for different amendments must surely be controlled by political standards rather than standards easily characterized as judicially manageable.”

In light of the absence of any constitutional provision governing the termination of a treaty, and the fact that different termination procedures may be appropriate for different treaties (see, e. g., n. 1, infra), the instant case in my view also “must surely be controlled by political standards.”

I think that the justifications for concluding that the question here is political in nature are even more compelling than in Coleman because it involves foreign relations — specifically a treaty commitment to use military force in the defense of a' foreign government if attacked. In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U. S. 304 (1936), this Court said:

“Whether, if the Joint Resolution had related solely to internal affairs it would be open to the challenge that it constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the Executive, we find it unnecessary to determine. The whole aim of the resolution is' to affect a situation entirely external to the United States, and falling within the category of foreign affairs. . . .” Id., at 316.

The present case differs in several important respects from Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579 (1952), cited by petitioners as authority both for reaching the merits of this dispute and for reversing the Court of Appeals. In Youngstown, private litigants brought a suit contesting the President’s authority under his war powers to seize the Nation’s steel industry, an action of profound and demonstrable domestic impact. Here, by contrast, we are asked to settle a dispute between coequal branches of our Government, each of which has resources available to protect and assert its interests, resources not available to private litigants outside the judicial forum. Moreover, as in Curtiss-Wright, the effect of this action, as far as we can tell, is “entirely external to the United States, and [falls] within the category of foreign affairs.” Finally, as already noted, the situation presented here is closely akin to that presented in Coleman, where the Constitution spoke only to the procedure for ratification of an amendment, not to its rejection.

Having decided that the question presented in this action is non justiciable, I believe that the appropriate disposition is for this Court to vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand with instructions for the District Court to dismiss the complaint. This procedure derives support from our practice in disposing of moot actions in federal courts. For more than 30 years, we have instructed lower courts to vacate any decision on the merits of an action that has become moot prior to a resolution of the case in this Court. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950). The Court has required such decisions to be vacated in order to “prevent a judgment, unreviewable because of mootness, from spawning any legal consequences.” Id., at 41. It is even more imperative that this Court invoke this procedure to ensure that resolution of a “political question,” which should not have been decided by a lower court, does not “spawn any legal consequences.” An Art. Ill court’s resolution of a question that is “political” in character can create far more disruption among the three coequal branches of Government than the resolution of a question presented in a moot controversy. Since the political nature of the questions presented should have precluded the lower courts from considering or deciding the merits of the controversy, the prior proceedings in the federal courts must be vacated, and the complaint dismissed.

Mr. Justice Blackmun,

with whom Mr. Justice White joins, dissenting in part.

In my view, the time factor and its importance are illusory; if the President does not have the power to terminate the treaty (a substantial issue that we should address only after briefing and oral argument), the notice of intention to terminate surely has no legal effect. It is also indefensible, without further study, to pass on the issue of justiciability or on the issues of standing or ripeness. While I therefore join in the grant of the petition for certiorari, I would set the-case for oral argument and give it the plenary consideration it so obviously deserves.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the order directing the District Court to dismiss this case, and would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it rests upon the President’s well-established authority to recognize, and withdraw recognition from, foreign governments. App. to Pet. for Cert. 27A-29A.

In stating that this case presents a nonjusticiable “political question,” Mr. Justice Rehnquist, in my view, profoundly misapprehends the political-question principle as it applies to matters of foreign relations. Properly understood, the political-question doctrine restrains courts from reviewing an exercise of foreign policy judgment by the coordinate political branch to which authority to make that judgment has been “constitutional[ly] commit[ted].” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 211-213, 217 (1962). But the doctrine does not pertain when a court is faced with the antecedent question whether a particular branch has been constitutionally designated as the repository of political decisionmaking power. Cf. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 519-521 (1969). The issue of decisionmaking authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts.

The constitutional question raised here is prudently answered in narrow terms. Abrogation of the defense treaty with Taiwan was a necessary incident to Executive recognition of the Peking Government, because the defense treaty was predicated upon the now-abandoned view that the Taiwan Government was the only legitimate political authority in China. Our cases firmly establish that the Constitution commits to the President alone the power to recognize, and withdraw recognition from, foreign regimes. See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U. S. 398, 410 (1964); Baker v. Carr, supra, at 212; United States v. Pink, 315 U. S. 203, 228-230 (1942). That mandate being clear, our judicial inquiry into the treaty rupture can go no further. See Baker v. Carr, supra, at 212; United States v. Pink, supra, at 229.

       The Court has recognized that, in the area of foreign policy, Congress may leave the President with wide discretion that otherwise might run afoul of the nondelegation doctrine. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304 (1936). As stated in that case, “the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the Nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates.” Id., at 319 (emphasis in original). Resolution of this case would interfere with neither the President’s ability to negotiate treaties nor his duty to execute their provisions. We are merely being asked to decide whether a treaty, which cannot be ratified without Senate approval, continues in effect until the Senate or perhaps the Congress takes further action.

         Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433 (1939), is not relevant here. In that case, the Court was asked to review the legitimacy of a State’s ratification of a constitutional amendment. Four Members of the Court stated that Congress has exclusive power over the ratification process. Id., at 456-460 (Black, J., concurring, joined by Roberts, Frankfurter, and Douglas, JJ.). Three Members of the Court concluded more narrowly that the Court could not pass upon the efficacy of state ratification. They also found no standards by which the Court could fix a reasonable time for the ratification of a proposed amendment. Id., at 452-454.
      The proposed constitutional amendment at issue in Coleman would have overruled decisions of this Court. Compare id., at 435, n. 1, with Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U. S. 20 (1922); Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251 (1918). Thus, judicial review of the legitimacy of a State’s ratification would have compeEed this Court to oversee the very constitutional process used to reverse Supreme Court decisions. In such circumstances it may be entirely appropriate for the Judicial Branch of Government to step aside. See Seharpf, Judicial Review and The Political Question: A Functional Analysis, 75 Yale L. J. 517, 589 (1966). The present case involves no similar principle of judicial nonintervention.

       As observed by Chief Judge Wright in his concurring opinion below: “Congress has initiated the termination of treaties by directing or requiring the President to give notice of termination, without any prior presidential request. Congress has annulled treaties without any presidential notice. It has conferred on the President the power to terminate a particular treaty, and it has enacted statutes practically nullifying the domestic effects of a treaty and thus caused the President to carry out termination. . . .
      “Moreover, Congress has a variety of powerful tools for influencing foreign policy decisions that bear on treaty matters. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it can regulate commerce with foreign nations, raise and support armies, and declare war. It has power over the appointment of ambassadors and the funding of embassies and consulates. Congress thus retains a strong influence oyer the President’s conduct in treaty matters.
      “As our political history demonstrates, treaty creation and termination are complex phenomena rooted in the dynamic relationship between the two political branches of our government. We thus should decline the invitation to set in concrete a particular constitutionally acceptable arrangement by which the President and Congress are to share treaty termination.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 44A-45A (footnotes omitted).

       This Court, of course, may not prohibit state courts from deciding political questions, any more than it may prohibit them from deciding questions that are moot, Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429, 434 (1952), so long as they do not trench upon exclusively federal questions of foreign policy. Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U. S. 429, 441 (1968).


text:
    January 7, 1980
    No. 79-704.
    Slate v. Noll.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. W. D. Wis.

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


text:
    No. 79-409.
    Cahill v. Governmental Ethics Commission.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Kan. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-270.
    Heads v. Louisiana.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. La. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certio-rari, certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (1979).


text:
    No. 79-665.
    Pickering v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   Appeal from C. A. 2d Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-699.
    Heyne v. Heyne et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ohio, Summit County, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-413.
    Crawford v. New York.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.


text:
    No. 79-5411.
    Sammons v. Ohio.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. A-154.
    Steppe v. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation of Florida.
   D. C. N. D. Fla. Application for bail, addressed to Mr. Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-465 (79-5777).
    Hayes v. Board of Trustees of Clark County School District.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Application for an extension of time to docket appeal, addressed to Mr. Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-507.
    Sayles v. Hart, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Application for injunction, addressed to Mr. Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-177.
    In re Disbarment of Panek.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 912.]


text:
    No. 8,
    Orig.
    Arizona v. California et al.
    [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 440 U. S. 942.]
   Memorandum and Report of the Special Master on preliminary issues received and ordered filed. Motion of Arizona et al. for leave to file exceptions to the Memorandum and Report of the Special Master denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these matters.


text:
    No. 78-1557.
    Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 442 U. S. 940.] Motion of respondent union for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 78-1577.
    Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. County of Los Angeles et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 823.] Motion of petitioner for divided argument granted.

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


text:
    No. 78-1870.
    Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 823.] Motions of Philadelphia Area Project on Occupational Safety & Health, American Public Health Association, and American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 78-1595.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 442 U. S. 939.] Motion of the Solicitor General to permit Andrew J. Levander, Esquire, to present oral argument pro hac vice granted.


text:
    No. 79-97.
    California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 824.] Motion of Consumers Union of the United States, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.

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


text:
    No. 79-584.
    Research Equity Fund, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America.
   C. A. 9th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.

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


text:
    No. 79-621.
    No. 79-664.
    Arizona v. Manypenny. Ventura County v. Gulf Oil Corp.
   C. A. 9th Cir.; and

C. A. 9th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 79-5114.
    Warren v. Mississippi,
   ante, p. 956. Respondent requested to file a response to petition for rehearing within 30 days.


text:
    No. 79-5604.
    Lockett v. Blackburn, Warden.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-676.
    No. 79-5547.
    No. 79-5554.
    No. 79-5598.
    Childs v. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department, et al.; Watkins v. Martin, Warden, et al.; Williams v. United States; and Ferrante v. Branwell, U. S. District Judge.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 79-5686.
    Barr v. Phelps, Corrections Secretary.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 79-681.
    Shuffman, Executrix v. Hartford Textile Corp. et al.
   Motion of petitioner to strike memorandum for federal respondents in opposition denied. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 79-5667.
    Paul v. Stafford, U. S. District Judge, et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 79-5609.
    Bottos v. Pivarnick et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 79-343.
    Sun Ship, Inc. v. Pennsylvania et al.
   Appeal from Pa. Commw. Ct. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 79-602.
    Agins et ux. v. City of Tiburon.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Cal. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 79-703.
    Carey, State's Attorney of Cook County v. Brown et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 7th Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 79-383.
    Standefer v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 79-672.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001, Retail Clerks International Assn., AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certio-rari granted.


text:
    No. 79-701.
    Roadway Express, Inc. v. Monk et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 79-669.
    Dawson Chemical Co. et al. v. Rohm & Haas Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motions of American Rice Growers Exchange and Pesticide Producers Association for leave to file briefs as amici curiae and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 79-5499.
    Skipper v. Brummer et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 79-73.
    Adelaide Shipping Lines, Ltd., et al. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-142.
    Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., et al. v. Garfinkle et vir.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-320.
    Hall v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-338.
    Caskey v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-341.
    Firstenberg v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-352.
    Delay v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-391.
    Lukefahr et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-396.
    Rose et al. v. Bradley, Mayor of Los Angeles, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-400.
    Georgia et al. v. Freeman.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-429.
    Lucky Stores, Inc. v. Village of Lombard.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-432.
    El Camino Community College District et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-449.
    Turcio v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-464.
    Ostrow v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-477.
    First State Bank of Hudson County v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-508.
    Amoco Production Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-515.
    American Security Council Education Foundation v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-518.
    Terkel v. Webster, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-535.
    Lampkin-Asam v. Supreme Court of Florida.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-560.
    Vislisel v. United States Department of Labor et al.
   C. A. 8th. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-563.
    Liosi v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-564.
    Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-575.
    Richardson et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-577.
    Dameron v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-582.
    Colorado et al. v. Veterans’ Administration et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-586.
    Kraynak et al. v. Marshall, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-589.
    Lull et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-592.
    Larimer County Department of Social Services et al. v. Kane, U. S. District Judge, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-599.
    Rizzo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-600.
    Sarmiento et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-604.
    Mountain Fuel Supply Co. et al. v. Utah Committee of Consumer Services et al.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-612.
    Runck v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-614.
    Stoudt’s Ferry Preparation Co. v. Marshall, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-615.
    Board of Education of the City School District of Cincinnati et al. v. Walter, Superintendent of Public Instruction, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-635.
    Deutsch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-638.
    Poe v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-644.
    No. 79-658.
    No. 79-659.
    No. 79-660.
    Ateliers Roannais de Constructions Textiles et al. v. Duplan Corp. et al.; Deering Milliken Research Corp. et al. v. Duplan Corp. et al.; Deering Milliken, Inc. v. Duplan Corp. et al.; and Duplan Corp. et al. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 594 F. 2d 979.


text:
    No. 79-648.
    No. 79-712.
    Woolsey v. Trustees for Westgate-California Corp.; and Ash et ux. v. Trustees for Westgate-California Corp.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 F. 2d 1274.


text:
    No. 79-649.
    Avcollie v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-651.
    Ames et ux. v. McCarty et al.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-652.
    No. 79-653.
    National Bancshares Corporation of Texas et al. v. Bullock, Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas, et al.; and Reidy International, Inc. v. Bullock, Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 584 S. W. 2d 268.


text:
    No. 79-655.
    J. B. K., Inc., et al. v. Caron et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-657.
    Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate the Federal Grand Jury v. Koch, Assistant United States Attorney.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-670.
    Crane v. Illinois Industrial Commission et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-671.
    Turner et al. v. Marion County, Texas.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 6th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-680.
    Olsen v. Guam.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-682.
    Konczak et ux. v. Tyrrell, Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-684.
    Vision Center v. Opticks, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-690.
    Magby v. Moran, Corrections Director, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-694.
    Guntharp v. Planters Oil Mill.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-696.
    Coughlin v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-702.
    Ekas et al. v. Carling National Breweries, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-709.
    Local 520, International Union of Operating Engineers, et al. v. Jones et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-714.
    Marty’s Floor Covering Co., Inc. v. GAF Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-715.
    National Student Film Corp. v. Fenster School.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-716.
    Abbey v. Control Data Corp. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-717.
    Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-719.
    Thompson et ux. v. Peoples Liberty Bank et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-722.
    Jackson v. Arkansas.
   Ct. App. Ark. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-727.
    Rentschler v. Freeman et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-728.
    Star Shipping A/S et al. v. Pacific Lumber & Shipping Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-733.
    Highway & City Transportation, Inc. v. Balestri.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-734.
    McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Hycom, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-737.
    Blue Bell, Inc. v. Fowler.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-746.
    Buchholtz et al. v. Swift & Co. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-756.
    No. 79-5668.
    Abujasen v. United States; and Sorzano v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 F. 2d 1201.


text:
    No. 79-762.
    DiFonzo v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-763.
    Chavez et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-780.
    Continental Plastics of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Plastic Container Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-786.
    Marks v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-803.
    Larke v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-810.
    Knapp v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-817.
    MacKenzie v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-852.
    Lieberman v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-859.
    Cortina et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-864.
    Perry v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5191.
    LaGrone v. Alford, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5246.
    Marques v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5291.
    Matthews v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5305.
    Neumann v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5311.
    Robinson v. Wolff, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5330.
    Billingsley v. Gunn, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5335.
    Wilson v. Warden, Illinois State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5370.
    Stout v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5373.
    Jonas v. Robinson, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5392.
    Dominguez-Laura v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5396.
    Bullock v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5404.
    Baca v. Malley, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5414.
    Berry v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5436.
    Crawford v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5439.
    Irving v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5442.
    Gulley v. Harris, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5446.
    Vander Pauwert v. United States Department of Justice.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5448.
    Olivero v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5471.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5475.
    No. 79-5541.
    England v. United States; and Solano v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 F. 2d 1141.


text:
    No. 79-5480.
    Thornton v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5503.
    Miller v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5513.
    Ortiz v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5523.
    Umbower v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5526.
    Lenza v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5534.
    Hibbard-Hughes v. O’Neil et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5536.
    Propotnick v. Hennepin County Sheriff et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5544.
    Wagner v. Mabry, Correction Commissioner.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5548.
    Francois v. Francois.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5556.
    Holden v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5559.
    Ferrell v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5562.
    Chodos v. Federal Bureau of Investigation.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5568.
    Johnson v. Howerton et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5581.
    Brewster v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5582.
    Sellers v. Riddle, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5586.
    Robeson v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5588.
    D. C. C. v. Colorado.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5591.
    Marsh v. Morgan, Marion County Clerk.
   Sup. Ct. .Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5592.
    Wood v. Jeffes, Correctional Superintendent, et al.; and Wood v. Davis et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No 79-5593.
    Kimble v. Pleasant Hills Children’s Home of the Assemblies of God, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5595.
    Tennart v. Aucoin et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5596.
    Smith v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5597.
    Hampton v. Wyrick, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5606.
    Lumas v. Commercial Cartage Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5608.
    Busacca v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5611.
    Morrow v. Dayton Newspapers, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5615.
    Tolbert v. Jago, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5616.
    Johns v. Woodbridge Township et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5622.
    Carter v. Lynn et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5627.
    Sanders et al. v. Tarbutton et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5628.
    Teplitsky v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5630.
    Chiarello v. Chairman of the New York State Parole Board et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5633.
    Tami et ux. v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5636.
    Gaines v. Merchants National Bank & Trust Company of Indianapolis.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5637.
    Fales v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5638.
    Sinclair v. Blackburn, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5640.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5646.
    Esham v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5651.
    Yopp v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5654.
    Cervantes v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5656.
    Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5658.
    Scruggs v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5664.
    Phillips v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5666.
    Evanko v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5671.
    Newtop v. James et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5673.
    Cooper v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5675.
    Chestnut v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5690.
    Franklin v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5692.
    Alexander et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5706.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5713.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5716.
    Veytia-Bravo v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5718.
    Tensley v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5723.
    Scalf v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5729.
    Palacios v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5735.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5768.
    Long v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-101.
    Blum, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York, et al. v. Swift et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-836.
    Mitchell, Warden v. Harris.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-377.
    No. 79-378.
    No. 79-379.
    Dow Jones & Co., Inc., et al. v. United States Postal Service; Magazine Publishers Assn., Inc., et al. v. United States Postal Service; and American Business Press, Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.

Reported below: 197 U. S. App. D. C. 78, 607 F. 2d 392.


text:
    No. 79-519.
    No. 79-674.
    Handgards, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc.; and Ethicon, Inc. v. Handgards, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.-

Reported below: 601 F. 2d 986.


text:
    No. 79-667.
    Michigan v. Rosales.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 79-726.
    Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District et al. v. City of Evansville, Indiana, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 79-738.
    Palmer v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 79-739.
    Thornburgh, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Philadelphia Welfare Rights Organization et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondent Louise Brookins for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5552.
    No. 79-5632.
    Thigpen v. Alabama. Roach v. South Carolina.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala.; and

Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 79-5552, 372 So. 2d 385; No. 79-5632, 273 S. C. 194, 255 S. E. 2d 799.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 79-5575.
    Jagnandan et al. v. Mississippi State University et al.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant cer-tiorari.


text:
    No. 78-1848.
    No. 78-6529.
    No. 78-6683.
    No. 78-6785.
    United States ex rel. Petrofsky v. Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy et al., Turner v. Massey, Correctional Superintendent, Stoddard v. Weaver et al., Silo v. Warden, Holmesburg Prison, et al.,
   ante, p. 839;

ante, p. 914;

ante, p. 850; and

ante, p. 855. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 78-6928.
    No. 79-197.
    No. 79-570.
    No. 79-5052.
    No. 79-5162.
    Pope v. United States, Skoko et al., Board of County Commissioners of Clackamas County, Oregon v. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Stoner v. Hutson et al., Gilbert v. Yalanzon et al., Leuschner v. Maryland,
   ante, p. 925;

ante, p. 927;

ante, p. 967;

ante, p. 873; and

ante, p. 933. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 78-6903.
    No. 79-454.
    No. 79-532.
    No. 79-5247.
    No. 79-5376.
    No. 79-5388.
    No. 79-5398.
    No. 79-5399.
    No. 79-5407.
    No. 79-5424.
    Dykes v. Illinois, Shure Brothers, Inc. v. Korvettes, Inc., dba E. J. Korvette, Harte v. County of Los Angeles, Shaw v. South Carolina, Jones v. Georgia, Wojloh v. Addison et al., George v. Louisiana, Torgerson v. McClay, Stevens v. Harris, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Jafree v. Scott, Attorney General of Illinois,
   ante, p. 940;

ante, p. 942;

ante, p. 952;

ante, p. 957;

ante, p. 957;

ante, p. 945;

ante, p. 953;

ante, p. 953;

ante, p. 945; and

ante, p. 945. Petitions for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 78-6762.
    Rogers v. Ling et al.,
   ante, p. 854. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 79-203.
    No. 79-5125.
    Ochs v. United States, Ruiz v. California,
   ante, p. 955; and

ante, p. 943. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    January 11, 1980
    No. A-600 (79-5919).
    Trimble v. Conley, Judge, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    January 14, 1980
    No. 78-1422.
    Retirement Fund Trust of the Plumbing, Heating & Piping Industry of Southern California v. Johns.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-1881.
    Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California v. Campa et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 79-136.
    Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Chakrabarty.
   C. C. P. A. [Certiorari granted sub nom. Parker v. Bergy and Parker v. Chakrabarty, ante, p. 924.] Judgment as to In re Bergy et al. vacated and case remanded with directions to dismiss the appeal as moot. Motion of Cornell D. Cornish for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 79-759.
    Perini North River Associates et al. v. Fusco et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of P. C. Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford, ante, p. 69.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Blackmun dissent.


text:
    No. A-538.
    Gusikoff et al. v. United States.
   D. C. S. D. Fla. Application for stay pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, addressed to Mr. Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-592.
    Burlington Northern, Inc. v. United States et al.
   Application for stay of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, presented to Mr. Justice Stewart, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-170.
    In re Disbarment of Cohen.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 894.]


text:
    No. D-172.
    In re Disbarment of Bendes.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 894.]


text:
    No. D-174.
    In re Disbarment of Spooner.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 894.]


text:
    No. D-183.
    In re Disbarment of Barnes.
   It is ordered that Harry Davis Barnes, of Elkton, Md., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 9,
    Orig.
    United States v. Louisiana et al.
   Exceptions to Report of the Special Master set for oral argument in due course.

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

[For earlier order herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 816.]


text:
    No. 78-6029.
    LaRocca v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 442 U. S. 916.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Gerald Goldman, Esquire, of Washington, D. C., be appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 79-4.
    No. 79-5.
    No. 79-491.
    Williams et al. v. Zbaraz et al.; Miller, Acting Director, Department of Public Aid of Illinois, et al. v. Zbaraz et al.; and United States v. Zbaraz et al.
   D. C. N. D. Ill. [Probable jurisdiction postponed, ante, p. 962.] Motion of Alan Ernest to be appointed counsel for children unborn and born alive denied. Motion of Legal Defense Fund for Unborn Children for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 79-48.
    Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Glover Construction Co.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 962.] Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing appendix granted.


text:
    No. 79-134.
    Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 822.] Motions of New England Legal Foundation, Long Island Lighting Co., and New York State Consumer Protection Board et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 79-192.
    New York Gaslight Club, Inc., et al. v. Carey.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 897.] Motion of New York State Division of Human Rights et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 79-5863.
    Godwin v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner to seal petition denied.


text:
    No. 79-492.
    Fungaroli v. Fungaroli.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. C. Motion of appellee for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 79-677.
    Reeves, Inc. v. Kelley et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 79-5601.
    Gomez v. Toledo.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and cer-tiorari granted.


text:
    No. 79-107.
    Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities et al. v. Pervel Industries, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-218.
    Ziperstein et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-258.
    Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations of Wisconsin et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-505.
    Unihealth Services Corp. v. Harris, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-554.
    Alpine Investments, Inc. v. Barton et al.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-595.
    No. 79-629.
    Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. v. Long Island Lighting Co.; and Long Island Lighting Co. v. New York State Public Service Commission et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 79-598.
    Michael v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-603.
    No. 79-742.
    Hotel Conquistador, Inc. v. United States; and United States v. Hotel Conquistador, Inc.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-661.
    LaGorga v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-662.
    Birdman v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-679.
    Continental Group, Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-758.
    Gasorama, Inc. v. Imperial Gas Company of Puerto Rico, Inc.
   Super. Ct. P. R. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-760.
    Flores v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-767.
    State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Hime.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-768.
    DeJohn v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-769.
    Trustees of the Colorado Cement Masons Apprentice Trust Fund et al. v. Levy et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-773.
    Vagle v. Pickands Mather & Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-781.
    Hamlin v. F. Gregorie & Son et al.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-785.
    Peaches v. City of Evansville, Indiana, et al.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-806.
    Dungan v. Kentucky Bar Assn.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-857.
    Raimondi v. Court of Appeals of Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-865.
    Schifalacqua v. Continental Casualty Co., aka CNA Insurance, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-871.
    Mayo v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-874.
    Treasure Isle, Inc. v. Carr, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5139.
    Sinclair v. Blackburn, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5520.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5527.
    Toney et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5529.
    Cook v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5535.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5574.
    De Vito v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5589.
    Rivera v. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5645.
    Kyles v. Klein, Director, Department of Health and Welfare of Idaho, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5648.
    Wilson v. American Can Co. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5660.
    Moldovan v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co. et al.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5678.
    Curry v. Bureau of Corrections of Kentucky et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5687.
    Ramsey v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5743.
    Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5749.
    Burnet v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5750.
    Luck v. Strickland, Corrections Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5756.
    Mann v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5758.
    Hodges v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5759.
    McGill v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5770.
    Del Prete v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5772.
    Corral v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5781.
    Wooding v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 78-1445.
    Southern California IBEW-NECA Pension Plan et al. v. Johnston et vir.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Motion of respondent Frances E. Johnston for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-583.
    Minnesota v. Helenbolt.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-666.
    Bishop et al. v. Furtado et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Mr. Justice Rehnquist,

text:
    No. 79-486.
    United States Steel Corp. et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,

with whom Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Powell join,

dissenting.

On August 7, 1977, Congress enacted the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. 95-95, 91 Stat. 685. These Amendments required compliance by 1982 with various ambient air quality standards promulgated earlier by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under the Amendments, the States were to submit to EPA a list of “nonattainment areas,” i. e., those regions measured as not complying with EPA’s standards. The deadline for this submission was December 5, 1977. EPA was then to promulgate a composite list of nonattainment areas by February 3, 1978. Finally, the States were to rely upon EPA’s list in formulating “State Implementation Plans” by January 1,1979. According to the Amendments, these plans were to impose certain stringent restrictions upon industries located in regions designated as nonattainment areas.

Both petitioners have facilities located in Lake County, Ind., which was included in the list of nonattainment areas submitted by the State of Indiana to EPA on December 5, 1977. EPA promulgated its list, which included Lake County, on March 3, 1978. At the same time, EPA announced that the designations were immediately applicable and effective. In explaining its failure to promulgate the list as a proposed rule and to comply with the notice-and-comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 553, EPA asserted that it had “good cause” to dispense with the requirements as provided in 5 U. S. C. §§ 553 (b) (B) and 553 (d) (3). In particular it cited the need to give the States immediate guidance on the location of nonattainment areas so that those States could meet the deadline of January 1, 1979, for their implementation plans. EPA did solicit after-the-fact comments, due by May 2, 1978, and subsequently amended its list in certain respects not relevant here.

Petitioners brought the present action for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, claiming, inter alia, that EPA’s designation of Lake County as a nonattainment area was “not in accordance with law” under the APA because of EPA’s failure to follow the notice-and-comment procedure. The Court of Appeals rejected this claim on- two grounds. First, it held that the tight statutory-schedule under which EPA was operating provided that agency with “good cause” to dispense with the usual procedures. 605 F. 2d 283, 286 (1979). Second, it held that, under 42 U. S. C. § 7607 (d)(9) (1976 ed., Supp. I), even if EPA had failed to abide by the procedural requirements of the APA its action would not be reversed unless petitioners demonstrated that they had objected to the procedure during the grace period provided by EPA for after-the-fact comments and that the error was “ 'so serious and related to matters of such central relevance to the rule that there is a substantial likelihood that the rule would have been significantly changed if such errors had not been made.’ ” 605 F. 2d, at 290, quoting 42 U. S. C. § 7607 (d)(8) (1976 ed., Supp. I) as incorporated by § 7607 (d)(9)(D) (1976 ed., Supp. I). According to the Court of Appeals, petitioners had failed to carry their burden as to either of these factors.

The first holding of the court below is in square conflict with the decisions of two other Courts of Appeals. In Sharon Steel Corp. v. EPA, 597 F. 2d 377 (CA3 1979), and United States Steel Corp. v. EPA, 595 F. 2d 207 (CA5 1979), the Courts of Appeals for the Third and Fifth Circuits held that EPA did not have good cause to dispense with notice-and-comment rulemaking in promulgating the very list at issue here.

While conceding that a conflict exists, EPA argues that “the unique statutory circumstances that created the practical need to promulgate the original designations without prior notice and comment no longer exist, and the issue presented . . . will not recur.” Brief in Opposition 7. In the area of environmental regulation, however, tight statutory schedules are both quite common and frequently unmet. If EPA’s actions in the present case pass without review by this Court, persons subject to EPA’s jurisdiction in different parts of the country will be entitled to different procedural protections when either they or EPA find themselves up against a deadline. Moreover, these recurring deadlines will almost invariably have passed by the time this Court receives a petition, allowing EPA to argue in each case that, because the deadline has passed, the issue is no longer ripe for review. While no party claims this case is moot, the fact that the issue is “capable of repetition, yet evad[es] review,” Southern Pacific Terminal Co. y. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911), makes this a classic case for a grant of certiorari.

As for the alternative holding of the court below, it appears that the unusually strong showing demanded by § 7607 (d)(9)(D), but not by the APA, is required only in certain types of actions listed in § 7607 (d)(1). See 42 U. S. C. §7607 (d)(9) (1976 ed., Supp. I). Although the Court of Appeals suggested that promulgation of the list “arguably” could be characterized as one of those enumerated actions, it went well beyond the statutory language to hold that “Congress meant this limitation on review of procedural errors to extend to all rulemaking by the EPA whether or not it is in the explicit categories covered by all the provisions of section 7607 (d).” 605 F. 2d, at 291. As petitioners point out, this ruling has the effect of establishing two Administrative Procedure Acts, one for the EPA and one for all other agencies.

Apparently uncomfortable with this holding, EPA attempts to dismiss it as dicta. Brief in Opposition 9. It clearly is not. It was an independent, alternative basis for the decision of the court below, no more dicta than its companion holding that EPA demonstrated good cause. In fact, the Court of Appeals relied on its interpretation of § 7607 (d)(9) as a reason for rejecting the conclusions of the Third Circuit and the Fifth Circuit as to the legality of EPA’s action. See 605 F. 2d, at 291, n. 14.

Either of these issues might merit certiorari in its own right; in tandem they present a formidable candidate for review. The fact that the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments virtually swim before one’s eyes is not a rational basis, under these circumstances, for refusing to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction. Admittedly, it would be easier to decide a ease turning on common-law principles of property or contract, and more interesting to decide a case involving competing fundamental principles of constitutional law. But here, in grappling with the problem of air pollution on a nationwide basis, Congress has quite understandably enacted a very complex statute that seeks to accomplish regulatory goals while at the same time providing procedural protection for the regulated. It might have avoided some of the complexity by making the EPA administrator a virtual czar to the extent allowed by the Constitution, but it chose a more balanced approach. Congress has made this choice and has designated the courts of appeals to construe the innumerable provisions of the Act. We can avoid invocation of our jurisdiction to resolve conflicts among the decisions of the courts of appeals construing important sections of the statute only by breaking faith with the spirit, if not the letter, of those Acts of Congress making our jurisdiction in virtually all cases discretionary rather than obligatory. I therefore would grant the writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. 79-765.
    Webster v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-766.
    McGhee v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 79-5383.
    G. G. v. Illinois.
   App, Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 79-5401.
    T.A.S. v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 79-5462.
    Kaufman v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Term. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant cer-tiorari and reverse the conviction.


text:
    No. 79-585.
    Doubleday & Co., Inc. v. Bindrim,
   ante, p. 984. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    January 17, 1980
    No. 79-438.
    Gallagher et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 60.


text:
    January 21, 1980
    No. 79-606.
    Lumber, Production & Industrial Workers Local 2362 v. Wondzell et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Alaska dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

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


text:
    No. 79-776.
    Koker et ux. v. Sage et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Wash, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-834.
    Automobile Drivers & Demonstrators Union Local No. 882 et al. v. Department of Retirement Systems of Washington.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Wash, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5694.
    Parish v. Parish.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ala. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of cer-tiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-820.
    Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Minnesota, by Wilson, Commissioner, Department of Human Rights.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

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


text:
    No. 79-5465.
    Markoff v. American Heritage Life Insurance Corp. et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Nev. dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.


text:
    No. 79-787.
    Kavanagh et al. v. London Grove Township et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. A-435 (79-851).
    Clauser v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist. Application for bail, addressed to Mr. Justice Powell and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-576.
    Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church and State v. City and County of Denver.
   Application to vacate stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, presented to Mr. Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Marshall would grant the application.


text:
    No. A-596.
    In re Oberkoetter.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Mr. Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-181.
    In re Disbarment of Freedson.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 922.]


text:
    No. D-184.
    In re Disbarment of Cain.
   It is ordered that Carl L. Cain, of Los Angeles, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 5,
    Orig.
    United States v. California.
   Exception to Report of the Special Master set for oral argument in due

course.

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

[For earlier order herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 816.]


text:
    No. 79-66.
    Aaron v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 914.] Motion of Securities Industry Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 79-192.
    New York Gaslight Club, Inc., et al. v. Carey.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 897.] Motion of the Attorney General of New York et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae denied.


text:
    No. 79-813.
    American Commercial Lines, Inc. v. Griffith et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 79-1082.
    National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen’s Assn., AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 79-838.
    Maine et al. v. Thiboutot et vir.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 78-1737.
    No. 78-1838.
    No. 79-93.
    No. 79-186.
    Foley et al. v. United States; Robert L. Gruen, Inc. v. United States; Shannon & Luchs Co. v. United States; and Bogley, Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 F. 2d 1323.


text:
    No. 79-248.
    Cerilli et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-355.
    Sanchez v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-373.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-385.
    McCarthy v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-471.
    Stringer v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-496.
    Moore v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-529.
    Church of Scientology of California v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-531.
    Newell et al. v. Orleans Parish School Board.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-542.
    Hay v. Texas Board of Pardons and Parole.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-568.
    No. 79-573.
    Occidental Life Insurance Company of California v. Saffo et al.; and Kavner v. Occidental Life Insurance Company of California et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 F. 2d 1265.


text:
    No. 79-569.
    Weathersby v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-647.
    Copeland v. Martinez, Director, Community Services Administration.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-685.
    Dresser Industries, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-686.
    Power v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-687.
    Kyzar v. Harris, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-691.
    Indianapolis Power & Light Co. et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-695.
    Bosch v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-705.
    Household Finance Corp. et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-707.
    Uptegrove et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-708.
    Philadelphia Food Store Employers’ Labor Council v. Retail Clerks International Association, Local 1349, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-723.
    Shelby County Government v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-730.
    Puerto Rico et al. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-732.
    Phelps v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-778.
    Board of Trustees of Keene State College et al. v. Sweeney.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-794.
    DeVito, Director, Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities v. Lang.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-798.
    Dean et al. v. Austin, Secretary of State of Michigan, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-818.
    Karijolic v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-821.
    Morgan & Co., Inc. v. Olin Corp., Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-828.
    Edwards & Hanley v. Wells Fargo Securities Clearance Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-845.
    Alameda County Water District v. Sethy.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-891.
    Saxon v. Johnston et al.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-892.
    Dorminey v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-941.
    Edgewood Health Care Center, Inc. v. United States
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5447.
    In re Application for Admission to the Bar of Massachusetts.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass: Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5452.
    Felts et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5511.
    Williams v. Anderson et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5558.
    Eaton v. New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5572.
    Lillibridge et ux. v. Morton, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5600.
    Hines v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5603.
    Colon v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5607.
    Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5643.
    Ford v. Cimino et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5661.
    Thomas v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5669.
    Pfister v. Anderson Clinic, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5676.
    Gattermann et al. v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5682.
    Jasper v. Blackburn, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5684.
    Brinlee v. Crisp, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5689.
    Willis v. Cuyler, Correctional Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5691.
    McCloud v. Fogg, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5695.
    Sanders v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5696.
    Kennedy v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5698.
    Francisse v. Hollywood Cherokee Apartments et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5701.
    Tiao-Ming Wu v. Board of Higher Education, CUNY, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5708.
    Phillips v. Smith, Correctional Superintendent.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5711.
    Saylor v. Overberg, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5715.
    Gerson v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5717.
    Taylor v. Dalsheim, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5720.
    Stonecipher v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5730.
    Crane v. Younger, Attorney General of California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5748.
    Wray v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5766.
    Doby v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5771.
    Grindstaff v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5786.
    Lancelin v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5787.
    Montoya v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5796.
    Hill et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-5810.
    Shanks v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-777.
    Vermont v. Williams.
   Sup. Ct. Vt. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 79-772.
    California Fair Political Practices Commission v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Institute of Governmental Advocates, Real Party in Interest).
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 79-5704.
    No. 79-5722.
    Clark v. Virginia. Carriger v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Va.; and

Sup. Ct. Ariz. Cer-tiorari denied. Reported below: No. 79-5704, 219 Va. 237, 257 S. E. 2d 784; No. 79-5722, 123 Ariz. 335, 599 P. 2d 788.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 78-5937.
    No. 79-534.
    No. 79-611.
    No. 79-5255.
    No. 79-5418.
    Ybarra v. Illinois, Parrish v. Kentucky, Vasilios v. United States, Amadeo v. Georgia, Waldrop v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
   ante, p. 85;

ante, p, 966;

ante, p. 967;

ante, p. 974; and

ante, p. 993. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 79-245.
    United Methodist Church et al. v. Barr et al.,
   ante, p. 973. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 79-5355.
    Mahler v. Weiss,
   ante, p. 944. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    February 4, 1980
    No. 79-847.
    Sandini v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 60.


text:
    February 12, 1980
    No. 79-713.
    Morrilton School District No. 32 et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari dismissed as to petitioner Plumerville School District No. 39 under this Court’s Rule 60. [See also post, p. 1071.]