text:
    No. 73-5784.
    No. 73-5863.
    No. 73-6008.
    No. 73-6020.
    No. 73-6293.
    No. 73-6295.
    No. 73-6388.
    Green v. United States, Valley v. United States, McGann v. United States Board of Parole et al., McGann et al. v. United States Board of Parole, Easter v. California, Thomas v. Estelle, Corrections Director, McDonald v. Tennessee et al.,
   416 U. S. 941;

416 U. S. 936;

416 U. S. 958;

416 U. S. 958;

416 U. S. 945;

416 U. S. 945; and

416 U. S. 975. Petitions for rehearing denied,


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 73-1282.
    Fountain et al. v. Fountain et al.,
   416 U. S. 939. Motion of Cheryl Y. Conway et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in support of rehearing granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    May 31, 1974
    No. 73-1766.
    United States v. Nixon, President of the United States, et al.
   Petition for certiorari before judgment to C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari and motion for expedited schedule granted. Parties shall exchange and file briefs by 1 p. m. on June 21 and any responsive brief shall be filed by July 1, 1974. Oral argument set for July 8, 1974, at 10 a. m. Each party allowed one hour for argument.

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


text:
    June 3, 1974
    No. 73-1568.
    Orrell’s Mutual Burial Assn., Inc. v. Adair.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. C. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-6272.
    Almeida v. Massachusetts.
   Appeal from Dist. Ct. W. Norfolk County, Mass., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 28 U. S. C. § 1257.


text:
    No. 73-6366.
    Bray, dba Rocky Mountain Mint & Depository v. United States et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Utah dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6565.
    Haas v. Haas et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Mo. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

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


text:
    No. A-1154.
    Campbell et al. v. Beaughler et al.
   Application for stay of judgment of dismissal by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 73-6573.
    No. 73-6580.
    Hunter v. Phillips, Chief Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals, et al.; and Gellis v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 73-1475.
    Harris County Commissioners Court et al. v. Moore et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Tex. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 73-1347.
    Board of School Commissioners of Indianapolis et al. v. Jacobs et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-1148.
    DeCoteau, Natural Mother and Next Friend of Feather et al. v. District County Court for the Tenth Judicial District.
   Sup. Ct. S. D. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument with No. 73-1500 [immediately infra].


text:
    No. 73-1500.
    Erickson, Warden v. United States ex rel. Feather et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motions of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument with No. 73-1148 [immediately supra].


text:
    No. 73-1543.
    Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition which reads as follows: “Whether the timely filing of a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5, tolls the running of the period of limitation applicable to ah action based on the same facts brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U. S. C. § 1981?” The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief as amicus curiae expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 72-1245.
    St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-73.
    AMF Inc. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-307.
    No. 73-381.
    Lupia v. Stella D’Oro Biscuit Co., Inc.; and Winokur et al. v. Bell Federal Savings & Loan Assn. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-891.
    Purin, aka Moreira v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-912.
    Mulligan et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-939.
    Chambers v. Chambers.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1274.
    Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1284.
    Mervin v. Federal Trade Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1333.
    General Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1334.
    Peele v. Jones, Youth Center Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1402.
    Kekoa, a Minor, by Enomoto, et al. v. Richardson, Justice, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Hawaii. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1417.
    Susquehanna Coal Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1422.
    Martino v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1427.
    Doss v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1428.
    Fencil v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1429.
    Lowe et al. v. Union Oil Co. of California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1435.
    Sadler et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1439.
    Greenbank v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1443.
    University of Houston et al. v. Wurzer et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1457.
    Bishop v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1463.
    Konigsberg et al. v. Nixon.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1481.
    Union Camp Corp. v. Gypsum Carrier, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1524.
    Hallmark Industry v. Reynolds Metals Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1528.
    Newman v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1529.
    General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1532.
    Geiler, Judge v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1534.
    Harris v. New York.
   County Ct. Broome County, N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1535.
    Troll, Executor v. Borut.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1537.
    King v. Shelby Rural Electric Cooperative Corp.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1539.
    Art Neon Co. et al. v. City and County of Denver et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1542.
    Vesco & Co., Inc. v. International Controls Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1545.
    State Board of Education of Ohio et al. v. Akron Board of Education et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1546.
    Manzella v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1551.
    Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1567.
    Dart Industries, Inc. v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1637.
    Trico Products Corp. v. Roberk Co.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5569.
    Davis v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5938.
    Harrison v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6239.
    Miller, aka Taylor v. Richert et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6267.
    Smith v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6294.
    Souza v. Mullen, Warden.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6297.
    Tyler v. United States.
   C. A. -3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6307.
    Torske et al. v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6315.
    Carter v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6324.
    Perna v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6344.
    Jones v. Keeman et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6440.
    Cunningham v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6447.
    McKernie v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6449.
    Shackelford v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6452.
    Golder v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6453.
    Simon v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6454.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6456.
    Garner v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6457.
    Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6461.
    Epps v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6469.
    Sapp v. Haskins, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6474.
    Torres v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6479.
    O’Clair v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6481.
    Paige v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6484.
    Cruz et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6485.
    Revira, aka Perez v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6553.
    Pugh v. Paderick, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6558.
    Moore v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6560.
    Sprinkle et al. v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6574.
    Holland v. Maryland et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6575.
    McCracken v. Rose, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-312.
    Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Drew.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1525.
    Rose, Warden v. Ray.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1215.
    No. 73-1364.
    No. 73-6224.
    LaCosa et al. v. United States; Manfredi v. United States; and Mayo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5933.
    Gales v. Vincent, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-6049.
    Marston v. State Farm Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-6305.
    O’Brien v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-6328.
    O’Kelly v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-6333.
    Garrett v. Puckett, Jail Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-6352.
    Galvan et al. v. Levine, Industrial Commissioner of New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-6450.
    No. 73-6480.
    Brown v. United States; and Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1286.
    Wadleigh-Maurice, Ltd., et al. v. Taggart.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motions of Motion Picture Association of America., Inc., and Authors League of America, Inc., for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant cer-tiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5803.
    No. 73-6195.
    No. 73-6233.
    Beasley et al. v. United States, Sayles v. Gesell, U. S. District Judge, Alford v. United States Civil Service Commission et al.,
   416 U. S. 941;

416 U. S. 934; and

416 U. S. 959. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 73-988.
    Carlson v. California,
   415 U. S. 985. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 4, 1974
    No. 73-1464.
    LiRocchi, dba Cable Climbers Sales Co., et al. v. Ohio Hoist Manufacturing Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    June 5, 1974
    No. 73-1745.
    Hume v. Carey.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    June 10, 1974
    No. 73-1437.
    Indiana Real Estate Commission et al. v. Satoskar.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. Ind. In re Griffiths, 413 U. S. 717 (1973).

Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissents.


text:
    No. 73-1322.
    Alonso et al. v. Georgia.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ga. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-1554.
    Ramsay v. Santa Rosa Medical Center et al.
   Appeal from Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 4th Sup. Jud. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1585.
    Waters v. Henderson et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Tenn. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. 73-6271.
    Michaels v. Arizona.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ariz. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

In March 1971, the appellant, a juvenile, was arrested in connection with a series of robberies of other juveniles in the vicinity of a local elementary school. The appellant was subsequently charged in Pima County, Arizona, Juvenile Court with delinquency by reason of law violations including five counts of armed robbery, one count of assault with a deadly weapon, and one count of theft. In April 1971, appellant was declared a delinquent; the court dismissed the theft count, reduced a count of robbery to attempted robbery, reduced the assault count to simple assault, and found the charges, as so modified, to have been established. At a dispositional hearing the appellant was placed on probation for an indefinite period. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down a number of the charges as based upon identification testimony tainted by an illegal arrest of the appellant. But the court found that, after “[s]triking the charges which may have rested on tainted identifications, one count of attempted robbery still remains. Finding no clear error on this charge, we affirm that adjudication and the disposition order entered by the juvenile court.” In re Appeal of Pima County Anonymous, 110 Ariz. 98, 103, 515 P. 2d 600, 605 (1973).

In the juvenile proceedings appellant was denied the right to a jury trial by Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Juvenile Court. His case was heard by a Juvenile Court Judge who, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 8— 202 to 8-205 (1956) and various Juvenile Court Rules, appoints and supervises the Juvenile Courts’ prosecu-torial staff. The appellant challenges the constitutionality of these statutes and rules.

Other aspects of this same juvenile court system were before the Court in In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967). There Gerald Gault had been adjudicated a delinquent and ordered confined until he reached majority, a sentence of more than five years, “in what is in all but name a penitentiary or jail.” Id., at 61 (Black, J., concurring). We held the juvenile process involving such harsh consequences was constitutionally deficient in not providing adequate written notice, advice as to appointed or retained counsel, the right to confrontation, and the privilege against self-incrimination.

Mr. Justice Black noted:

“Where a person, infant or adult, can be seized by the State, charged, and convicted for violating a state criminal law, and then ordered by the State to be confined for six years, I think the Constitution requires that he be tried in accordance with the guarantees of all the provisions of the Bill of Rights made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Undoubtedly this would be true of an adult defendant, and it would be a plain denial of equal protection of the laws — an invidious discrimination— to hold that others subject to heavier punishment could, because they are children, be denied these same constitutional safeguards.” Ibid.

Appellant faced the same possibility of confinement until he reached majority. Though his precise age is not disclosed, he faced at least three years of possible confinement since he was proceeded against as “a person under the age of eighteen years.” Jurisdictional Statement App. xxii. As I stated in McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U. S. 528 (1971):

“No adult could be denied a jury trial in those circumstances. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 162. The Fourteenth Amendment, which makes trial by jury provided in the Sixth Amendment applicable to the States, speaks of denial of rights to 'any person/ not a denial of rights to 'any adult person.'” Id., at 560 (dissenting opinion).

When the appellant here was denied the right to trial by jury, he was not even afforded the alternative available to an adult charged with the same offenses — trial before a judge not involved in the prosecutorial process. Juvenile Court judges, unlike the judges in the State’s adult criminal courts, are responsible for the appointment and supervision of the prosecutorial staff responsible for proceeding against juveniles. The court assigns juvenile officers to receive complaints alleging delinquent conduct, directs what dispositional investigations the officers shall make, appoints the chief officer who then serves at the judge’s pleasure, and controls through power of approval the appointment of all other prosecuting personnel.

The appellant was denied the right to jury trial and forced to trial before a judge with the duty of supervising the prosecutorial staff solely because he is a juvenile and subject to the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Courts. Since I continue to believe that “neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone,” In re Gault, supra, at 13, I can find no justification for this discrimination in the treatment of juveniles charged with criminal conduct.


text:
    No. 73-1396.
    Marcus v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted. Upon representation of the Solicitor General set forth in his memorandum for the United States filed May 31, 1974, judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of position presently asserted by the Government.


text:
    No.-.
    In re Resignation of Dye.
   Request of Stuart F. Dye, of Knoxville, Tennessee, that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice in this Court granted.


text:
    No. A-1053.
    Anderson v. South Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for bail pending appeal presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-1103 (73-1748).
    Bishop et al. v. United States.
   Application for stay of mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and for release pending disposition of petition for writ of certi-orari, presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-1120 (73-1742).
    Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.
   Application for stay of Part III of order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit presented to Mr. Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending final disposition of petition for writ of certiorari.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents from granting stay.


text:
    No. A-1140.
    Hart, a minor, by Hart, et al. v. Community School Board of Brooklyn, New York, School District 21, et al.
   Application to vacate order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to reinstate judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-1157.
    Severson et al. v. Roemer, Commissioner of Taxation of Minnesota, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Application for stay of implementation of Minnesota Tax Credit-Payment Act, Minn. Stat. §§290.086 and 290.087 (Supp. 1974), presented to Mr. Justice Blackmun, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant the stay.


text:
    No. 73-6033.
    Roe et al. v. Norton, Commissioner of Welfare.
   Appeal from D. C. Conn. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 415 U. S. 912.] Motion of children of appellants for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted.


text:
    No. 73-6589.
    Sayles v. Sirica, U. S. District Judge, et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 73-1573.
    Withrow et al. v. Larkin.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Wis. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 73-1016.
    No. 73-1095.
    Lascaris, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of Onondaga County v. Shirley et al.; and Lavine, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York v. Shirley et al.
   Appeals from D. C. N. D. N. Y. Motion of appellee Stuck for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 73-1413.
    Staats, Comptroller General, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union, Inc., et al.
   Appeal from D. C. D. C. Motion of National Association of Broadcasters for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 73-1380.
    No. 73-1666.
    No. 73-1667.
    Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians et al. v. Federal Power Commission et al.; Arizona Public Service Co. et al. v. Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians et al.; and Federal Power Commission v. Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certi-orari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 73-1596.
    Hampton, Chairman, U. S. Civil Service Commission, et al. v. Mow Sun Wong et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-1451.
    No. 73-6361.
    No. 73-6377.
    DiLorenzo v. United States; Salli v. United States; and Rizzo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1170.
    No. 73-6092.
    No. 73-6154.
    No. 73-6197.
    No. 73-6210.
    No. 73-6464.
    No. 73-6498.
    Hamilton et al. v. United States; DeVille v. United States; Perez v. United States; Prudhomme v. United States; Traham v. United States; Loridans v. United States; and Tunis v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1293.
    Goad et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1367.
    Adam v. Elrod, Sheriff.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1405.
    Baker v. Callaway, Secretary of the Army.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1432.
    Georator Corp. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1444.
    Miller Box, Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1456.
    Pride et ux. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1465.
    G. L. Gibbons Trucking Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1474.
    Fermont Division, Dynamics Corporation of America v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1476.
    Stebbins v. Allstate Insurance Companies et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1485.
    Choctaw Nation et al. v. Oklahoma et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1502.
    Colon v. Division of Human Rights of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1518.
    Gordon et ux. v. Du Pont Glore, Forgan, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1556.
    Culinary Alliance & Bartenders Union Local 703, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1564.
    Waters et al. v. Bensinger, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1566.
    Tenneco Inc. et al. v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1569.
    Galey Construction Co. et al. v. Utah Mortgage Loan Corp.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1572.
    Arizona v. Whittingham et vir.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1580.
    Wells v. Hennessey, Judge.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1581.
    Ekberg Shipping Corp. v. Moncada.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1586.
    Illinois Education Assn. et al. v. Walker, Governor of Illinois, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1602.
    Time Oil Co. v. Wolverton et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1610.
    Romano et al. v. Department of Public Works and Buildings of Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1634.
    Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Peterman.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1647.
    Mobil Chemical Corp. v. Devers.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1686.
    Bloomfield-Mespo Local School District et al. v. State Board of Education.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Trumbull County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1711.
    Napoli v. New York et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5650.
    Doe et al. v. Burns, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of Iowa, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6098.
    Lyons v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6109.
    Martin v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6112.
    Fox v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6117.
    McNally v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6127.
    Moulden, aka Nelson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6131.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6137.
    Goodwin v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6192.
    Meriwether v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6209.
    Godfrey v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6211.
    Christman v. Johnson, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6281.
    Farmer v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6323.
    Jaya-Balcazar et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6364.
    Dobbs v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6381.
    Bell v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6385.
    Nasiriddin, aka Gill v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6419.
    Blake v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6434.
    Ballard et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6460.
    Carwell v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6475.
    Harris v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6489.
    Gonzales v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6497.
    Barbarisi v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6499.
    Sears v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6500.
    Brown v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6504.
    Bunner v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6505.
    Kandis v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6506.
    Brody et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6537.
    Stewart v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6562.
    Perkin v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6582.
    Berard v. Vermont.
   Sup. Ct. Vt. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6584.
    Lucien v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6585.
    Nichols v. Clanon, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6590.
    McCoy et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6620.
    King v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6644.
    Johnson v. Cox, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6647.
    Rankin v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6652.
    McCrossen et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6654.
    Sangster v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6688.
    Kaplan v. Associated-East Mortgage Co.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1062.
    Rosner v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied without prejudice for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to consider a motion for a new trial.


text:
    No. 73-1315.
    Morningside Renewal Council, Inc., et al. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

The Atomic Energy Commission’s Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, reversing the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, granted respondent Columbia University authorization to operate a Triga Mark II nuclear reactor on the university campus in Manhattan. Petitioners, who had intervened in the proceedings before the Commission, then brought a petition for review in the Court of Appeals. That court denied the petition and sustained the granting of the license in a split decision. 482 F. 2d 234. Petitioners claim that the Commission’s failure to establish safety standards through rulemaking procedures requires reversal. They also contend that the agency’s determination that no environmental impact statement was necessary should be reversed under the proper standard of appellate review.

The Safety and Licensing Board had denied the license because it would not answer the questions raised about the reactor’s possible effect on public health and safety without the benefit of general accident safety standards applicable to Triga reactors, but the Commission has never promulgated any such standards. Rather than proceeding through this rulemaking route the Commission has adjudicated safety questions on an individual, ad hoc basis, and the Commission’s own licensing board found this procedure unsatisfactory:

“The absence of applicable substantive criteria of the Commission and of convincing objective standards of the regulatory staff... prompts the Licensing Board to decline answering the question of whether the health and safety of the public would be endangered upon the occurrence of a postulated accident to the applicant's reactor. The Licensing Board considers it inappropriate to enforce an answer derived from the narrow confines of a single proceeding and its own personal views about the degree to which the health and safety of the public ought to be protected against accident consequences.”

The seeds of the present controversy were laid in Power Reactor v. Electricians, 367 U. S. 396, where we reversed a Court of Appeals holding that the Commission may not authorize the construction of a reactor near a large population center without “compelling reasons” for doing so, id., at 414. There the Commission, “despite a report of its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, which was at best noncommittal about the probable safety of the proposed reactor in operation, issued a provisional construction permit without having held public hearings . . . ,” id., at 400, but our holding allowed the construction of the reactor to go forward. After the reactor was constructed and went into operation, an accident occurred on October 5, 1966. The reactor was shut down and has never been in regular operation since; it is currently being decommissioned. In re Power Reactor Development Co., No. 50-16, Jan. 16, 1973 (Atomic Safety and Licensing Board); letter from Harold L. Price, Director of Regulation, to Sen. Philip A. Hart, Aug. 13, 1970.

Our decision in Power Reactor allowed construction to go forward with the principal inquiry into safety deferred until a subsequent application for a license to operate. “But when that point is reached, when millions have been invested, the momentum is on the side of the applicant, not on the side of the public. The momentum is not only generated by the desire to salvage an investment. No agency wants to be the architect of a 'white elephant.’ ” Power Reactor, supra, at 417 (Douglas, J., dissenting).

In regard to nuclear power generating plants, in fact, “conversion from construction permit to operating license has been automatic,” Bronstein, The AEC Decision-Making Process and the Environment: a Case Study of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, 1 Ecology L. Q. 689, 702 (1971). This may well be the problem lurking in the background here, as these petitioners were not on the scene to contest the issuance of the original construction permit for this reactor in 1963, and no judicial review was sought at that time. And in any event intervenors seeking to represent the public interest in an AEC construction permit contest have found themselves confronted with a “no-win” situation, in part because of “the fear or reluctance of qualified scientists and technicians to testify against a project recommended by the AEC.” Like, Multi-Media Confrontation — The Environmentalists’ Strategy for a “No-Win” Agency Proceeding, 1 Ecology L. Q. 495, 502 (1971).

This only goes to highlight the need here for the Commission to develop the relevant safety standards before passing on this application to authorize operation of a reactor in the midst of the Nation’s largest metropolis.

The benefits of a rulemaking proceeding are clear; they give notice to affected persons and allow them to be heard, and the result is that “[a]gencies discover that they are not always repositories of ultimate wisdom; they learn from the suggestions of outsiders and often benefit from that advice.” NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U. S. 759, 777-778 (Douglas, J., dissenting). The need would seem particularly great here because of the Commission’s dual role as regulator and promoter of atomic energy. As Judge Oakes, dissenting below, pointed out: “The AEC . . . has an interest in seeing this reactor licensed to promote its Nuclear Education Training Program; to this end it has entered into an agreement with Columbia to provide post-license funds for the operation of the reactor and to waive charges for Commission-owned special nuclear material involved in its operation. My concern is so much the greater where, as here, the independent Safety and Licensing Board has denied the license, but was overruled by the three-member Appeal Board, consisting of two AEC staff members. Moreover, the safety tests relied upon by the Appeal Board here were conducted by the most interested party, the manufacturer of the reactor, following an exchange of correspondence between 'Ralph’ (Mr. Peters of Gulf Oil) and 'Pete’ (Dr. Peter A. Morris, Director of the AEC Division of Reactor Licensing) in which Gulf advised the Commission that 'We hope to have you or members of your staff participate fully in these experiments so that they will be deemed to have been done “under the auspices of the Regulatory Staff.” ’ ” 482 F. 2d, at 241.

For the same reasons it seems necessary to look more closely at the Commission’s determination that no environmental impact statement need be prepared than did the court below, which was content to conclude that the agency’s determination was not “arbitrary or capricious.” Indeed there appears to be a conflict between the standard employed here by the Second Circuit and that employed by the Fifth Circuit in such cases as Save Our Ten Acres v. Kreger, 472 F. 2d 463, and Hiram, Clarke Civic Club, Inc. v. Lynn, 476 F. 2d 421; the Fifth Circuit applies a more stringent standard of “reasonableness.”

I would grant the petition for certiorari, both to resolve this conflict and to consider the propriety of the agency’s practice of licensing Triga reactors in the absence of rules establishing safety standards.

      An impact statement is required whenever there is a “major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U. S. C. § 4332 (2) (C).


text:
    No. 73-1320.
    Bowman v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Stay of mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida and continuance of bond heretofore granted by Mr. Justice Powell on January 17, 1974, vacated. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1369.
    Coca Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc. v. Palmarozzo.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 73-1410.
    Thomas, Sheriff v. Beasley.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1571.
    New Jersey Department of Institutions and Agencies, Division of Public Welfare, et al. v. Hausman.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1590.
    Dynex Industrial Plastics Corp. v. Anchor Plastics Co., Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1600.
    Baker et al., Trustees v. Gotz et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-6130.
    Caughman v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-6173.
    Plazola et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Me. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-6487.
    Martinez-Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


author: Mr. Justice Brennan,

text:
    No. 73-6340.
    Tijerina v. New Mexico.
   Sup. Ct. N, M. . Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall join,

dissenting.

Petitioner’s participation in a serious disturbance at the courthouse in Tierra Amarilla, New Mexico, on June 5, 1967, resulted in his being charged with having both kidnaped and falsely imprisoned a deputy sheriff, as well as having assaulted the courthouse and jail. After a jury trial, he was acquitted of all charges. Subsequently, over petitioner’s objection that his double jeopardy protections were being violated, he was tried on charges of having assaulted three persons with intent to commit violent felonies, as well as having falsely imprisoned another deputy sheriff, all of which arose out of the same incident on June 5, 1967. Petitioner was convicted on one of the assault charges and on the false imprisonment charge. The Court of Appeals of New Mexico certified petitioner’s appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court, 84 N. M. 432, 504 P. 2d 642 (1972), and the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. 86 N. M. 31, 519 P. 2d 127 (1973).

Although all of the charges leveled against petitioner at the two trials arose out of the same transaction or episode, they were prosecuted by the State in separate proceedings. That, in my opinion, requires that we grant the petition for certiorari and reverse, for I adhere to the view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969), requires the prosecution, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, “to join at one trial all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 453-454 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring); see Smith v. Missouri, 414 U. S. 1031 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Miller v. Oregon, 405 U. S. 1047 (1972) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Harris v. Washington, 404 U. S. 55, 57 (1971) (statement of Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall, JJ.); Waller v. Florida, 397 U. S. 387, 395 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). See also People v. White, 390 Mich. 245, 212 N. W. 2d 222 (1973); State v. Brown, 262 Ore. 442, 497 P. 2d 1191 (1972); Commonwealth v. Campana, 452 Pa. 233, 304 A. 2d 432, vacated and remanded, 414 U. S. 808 (1973), adhered to on remand, 455 Pa. 622, 314 A. 2d 854 (1974).


text:
    No. 73-6350.
    Moton v. Swenson, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall join,

dissenting.

Petitioner and a companion entered a gas station in St. Louis, Missouri. While his companion held two station attendants at gunpoint, petitioner demanded and obtained money from one attendant; his companion demanded and obtained money from the second. Petitioner was charged in an information with aiding and abetting his companion in the robbery of the second attendant, tried and'convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of the city of St. Louis of robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon, and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. Subsequently, petitioner was charged in a separate information with the robbery of the other attendant. He was again tried in the Circuit Court of the city of St. Louis, found guilty of robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon, and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. In a consolidated appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed both convictions. 476 S. W. 2d 785 (1972). Petitioner then sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The District Court, in an unreported decision, dismissed the petition, rejecting the claim that the second prosecution violated petitioner’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. 488 F. 2d 1060 (1973).

Although both robbery charges clearly arose out of the same transaction or episode, they were prosecuted by the State in separate proceedings. That, in my opinion, requires that we grant the petition for certiorari and reverse, for I adhere to the view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969), requires the prosecution, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, “to join at one trial all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 453-454 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring); see Smith v. Missouri, 414 U. S. 1031 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Miller v. Oregon, 405 U. S. 1047 (1972) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Harris v. Washington, 404 U. S. 55, 57 (1971) (statement of Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall, JJ.); Waller v. Florida, 397 U. S. 387, 395 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). See also People v. White, 390 Mich. 245, 212 N. W. 2d 222 (1973); State v. Brown, 262 Ore. 442, 497 P. 2d 1191 (1972); Commonwealth v. Campana, 452 Pa. 233, 304 A. 2d 432, vacated and remanded, 414 U. S. 808 (1973), adhered to on remand, 455 Pa. 622, 314 A. 2d 854 (1974).


text:
    No. 73-716.
    No. 73-853.
    No. 73-1104.
    No. 73-1382.
    No. 73-1421.
    No. 73-5876.
    No. 73-6054.
    No. 73-6055.
    No. 73-6145.
    No. 73-6250.
    No. 73-6404.
    No. 73-6448.
    Garner v. United States, Forbicetta v. United States, Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Short et al., Klemmer v. Alabama, Smith v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. et al., Lufkins v. United States, Cole et al. v. California, Cole et al. v. California, Morgan v. California State Personnel Board et al., Smith v. Twomey, Warden, Smith v. Askins, Starkey v. Wyrick, Warden,
   416 U. S. 935;

416 U. S. 993;

416 U.S.961;

416 U. S. 957;

416 U. S. 985;

416 U. S. 971;

416 U. S. 964;

416 U. S. 972;

416 U. S. 972;

416 U. S. 994;

416 U. S. 964; and

416 U. S. 992. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 13, 1974
    No. 32,
    Orig.
    Missouri v. Nebraska.
   Bill of complaint dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court. [For earlier orders herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 904.]


text:
    June 15, 1974
    No. 73-1834.
    Nixon, President of the United States v. United States.
   Petition for certiorari before judgment to C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted and case consolidated with No. 73-1766 [ United States v. Nixon, President of the United States, certiorari granted, ante, p. 927]. Parties shall exchange and file briefs by 1 p. m. on June 21, 1974, and any responsive briefs shall be filed by July 1, 1974. Oral argument set for July 8, 1974, at 10 a.m.

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


text:
    No. 73-1766.
    No. 73-1834.
    United States v. Nixon, President of the United States, et al.; and Nixon, President of the United States v. United States.
   Petitions for certiorari before judgment to C. A. D. C. Cir.

1. Joint motion of the Special Prosecutor and counsel for the President to unseal those portions of the record ordered sealed by the District Court on May 13, 1974, denied except for the following extract from the sealed record:

“On February 25, 1974, in the course of its consideration of the indictment in the instant case, the June 5, 1972, Grand Jury, by a vote of 19-0, determined that there is probable cause to believe that Richard M. Nixon (among others) was a member of the conspiracy to defraud the United States and to obstruct justice charged in Count I of the instant indictment, and the Grand Jury authorized the Special Prosecutor to identify Richard M. Nixon (among others)' as an unindicted coconspirator in connection with subsequent legal proceedings in this case.”

Other than this disclosure, the sealed record! shall remain sealed.

2. In addition to questions designated by the parties in the petition for certiorari, the cross-petition for certi-orari, and the petition for writ of mandamus filed in the Court of Appeals (CA No. 74-1532), the parties are requested to brief and argue the following questions:

(a) Is the District Court order of May 20, 1974, an appealable order?

(b) Does this Court have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition for mandamus transmitted by the Court of Appeals to this Court?

3. Printing of any portions of the record that have been filed in this Court under seal shall be dispensed with. Any portions of the briefs that counsel deem necessary to keep confidential in order to conform with the provisions of paragraph 1 above shall be submitted under seal to this Court, and counsel in oral argument shall refrain from disclosing any portions of the record that are under seal.

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


text:
    June 17, 1974
    No. 73-120.
    No. 73-121.
    Marburger, Commissioner of Education of New Jersey, et al. v. Public Funds for Public Schools of New Jersey et al.; and Griggs et al. v. Public Funds for Public Schools of New Jersey et al.
   Appeals from D. C. N. J. Motion of EDL-New Jersey, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 73-120 granted. Judgment affirmed.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist would note probable jurisdiction and set cases for oral argument.


text:
    No. 73-1321.
    Ohley v. Illinois.
   Appeal from App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1440.
    McBryde Sugar Co., Ltd., et al. v. Hawaii et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Hawaii dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1570.
    Dowell et ux. v. Utah.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Utah dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1386.
    Chicago Welfare Rights Organization et al. v. Edelman, Director, Department of Public Aid of Illinois, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 73-1606.
    Murphy Nursing Home, Inc., et al. v. Rate Setting Commission et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-1623.
    Malito et al. v. Marcin et al.
   Appeal from App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-6621.
    Schoos v. Illinois.
   Appeal from App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-1609.
    Rubenstein et al. v. Township of Cherry Hill et al.
    Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. J. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-1436.
    Daniel et al. v. Waters et al.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. Tenn. Judgment vacated and case remanded to the District Court so that it may enter a fresh judgment from which a timely appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals.


text:
    No. 73-6353.
    Webster, a minor, by Webster, et al. v. Perry, Chairman, Board of Education of Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School System, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. N. C. Judgment vacated and case remanded to the District Court so that it may enter a fresh judgment from which a timely appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals.


text:
    No. 73-1516.
    Glover et al. v. McMurray, Commissioner, Agency for Child Development of the City of New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528 (1974).


text:
    No. 73-966.
    No. 73-967.
    No. 73-968.
    No. 73-969.
    Shell Oil Co. v. Public Service Commission of New York et al.; Mobil Oil Corp. v. Federal Power Commission; Federal Power Commission v. Public Service Commission of New York; and United Distribution Companies v. Public Service Commission of New York.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of Mobil Oil Corp. v. Federal Power Commission, ante, p. 283.

Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decisions of these cases.


text:
    No. 73-1399.
    Pennsylvania v. Romberger.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Michigan v. Tucker, ante, p. 433.


text:
    No. A-1175.
    Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency v. Texas et al.
   Application for stay of orders of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas pending appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit presented to Mr. Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, granted.


text:
    No. A-1179.
    Cown et al. v. Vanderhoof, Governor of Colorado.
   Application for writ of habeas corpus or in the alternative to transfer the cause to the appropriate United States District Court for a hearing (28 U. S. C. § 2241 (b)) presented to Me. Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-1185 (73-1838).
    Crisler, Commissioner of Public Safety of Mississippi, et al. v. Morrow et al.
   Application for recall and stay of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit presented to Mr. Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-23.
    In re Disbarment of Lee.
   It having been reported to the Court that Clifford Taylor Lee, of Washington, D. C., has been disbarred from the practice of law by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and this Court by order of March 18, 1974 [415 U. S. 972], having suspended the said Clifford Taylor Lee from the practice of law in this Court and directed that a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred;

And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued and served upon the respondent, and that the time within which to file a return has expired ;

It is ordered that the said Clifford Taylor Lee be, and he is hereby, disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.


text:
    No. 73-1626.
    Weaver, Director, Department of Public Aid of Illinois, et al. v. Randle et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 73-6618.
    No. 73-6708.
    No. 73-6767.
    Sellers v. Estelle, Corrections Director; Povey v. Warden, Nevada State Prison; and Doggett v. Nevada et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 73-6566.
    No. 73-6597.
    Proffitt v. Tucker, Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals, et al.; and Carter v. Estelle, Corrections Director, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 73-6524.
    No. 73-6608.
    No. 73-6619.
    Carter v. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; Reierson v. Procunier, Corrections Director, et al.; and Hunter v. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 73-6277.
    Castle v. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant the motion.


text:
    No. 73-6613.
    Parker v. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 73-717.
    Antoine et ux. v. Washington.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Wash. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 73-1595.
    Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Agerton, Collector of Revenue of Louisiana.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. La. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 73-1697.
    Standard Pressed Steel Co. v. Department of Revenue of Washington.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Wash. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 73-820.
    United States v. Guana-Sanchez.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-1627.
    Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York v. Newsome.
   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, which reads as follows: “Does a state defendant's plea of guilty waive federal habeas corpus review of his conviction, even though under state law he has been permitted review in the state appellate courts of the denial of his motion, on constitutional grounds/ to suppress the evidence that would have been offered against him had there been a trial?”


text:
    No. 73-5993.
    Test v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition, which reads as follows: “Does the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, 28 U. S. C. § 1861 et seg., require that a defendant be provided access to jury lists and other jury records upon the filing of a sworn statement in compliance with 28 U. S. C. § 1867 (d) in support of a motion to quash the jury and upon the presentation of a prima facie claim of constitutional dimension, i. e., the systematic exclusion of Mexican-Americans from the jury array?”


text:
    No. 73-1351.
    Angel et al. v. Butz, Secretary of Agriculture.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1360.
    Bramson et al. v. Butz, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1375.
    California Highway Commission et al. v. La Raza Unida of Southern Alameda County et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1466.
    Hopkinson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1478.
    Santelises v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1487.
    DeMichele et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1492.
    Gill et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1515.
    Schaef et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1563.
    Grant v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1587.
    Swafford v. Zinnamon Associates et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1591.
    Rodway v. Amoco Shipping Co. et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1592.
    Nickells et al. v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1598.
    Pennsylvania v. Campana et al.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1601.
    Christensen v. Board of Education of Township High School District No. 203 et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1608.
    Thibadeau v. Henley.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1618.
    Davenport v. Altman et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1620.
    Brown v. Houston Independent School District et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1622.
    St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Armco Steel Corp. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1628.
    Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. American Maize-Products Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1629.
    Scheelhaase v. Woodbury Central Community School District et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1630.
    Tralick v. Park Chemical Co. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1640.
    Worley v. Columbia Gas of Kentucky, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5642.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6165.
    Houle v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6175.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6201.
    Pederson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6397.
    Sims v. Utah.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6399.
    Maselli v. Mancusi, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6427.
    Cooksey, aka Montague v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6432.
    DeHerrera v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6451.
    Teplitsky v. Bureau of Employees’ Compensation, U. S. Department of Labor.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6508.
    Barriga-Covarrubias v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6509.
    Suarez v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6511.
    Tasby v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6512.
    McGhee v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6514.
    Tranquilli v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6516.
    Featherston v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6520.
    Owens v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6523.
    Bagley v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6530.
    Myers v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6531.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6532.
    Adams v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6533.
    Frazier v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6538.
    Kendricks v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6540.
    Beckwith v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6543.
    Jaime-Barrios v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6602.
    Sanders v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6603.
    Agee v. Hickman et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6615.
    Lane v. Kern, Sheriff.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6626.
    Navarro v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6627.
    McPherson v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6630.
    Green v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6637.
    Herron v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6641.
    Alves et ux. v. Queen’s Medical Center et al.
   Sup. Ct. Hawaii. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6645.
    Walker v. Henderson, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6646.
    Byrd v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6649.
    Carroll v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6653.
    Bartos v. Brigham Young University et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-438.
    Mobil Oil Corp. v. Federal Power Commission.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


author: Mr. Justice White,

text:
    No. 73-1174.
    North Carolina v. Wrenn.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White,

with whom The Chief Justice joins,

dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

Respondent was convicted in a North Carolina state court of a narcotics violation. Evidence used against him at trial was seized under a search warrant issued by a magistrate on an affidavit which was sustained at trial after an evidentiary hearing out of the presence of a jury. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, and this Court denied certiorari, 405 U. S. 1064 (1972), but the conviction was invalidated by the United States District Court when it granted respondent’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The District Court took no further evidence and was “in complete agreement with the conclusion reached [by the state court] that on the face of it the affidavit supporting the issuance of the search warrant satisfied the provisions of the [applicable North Carolina] statute and was constitutionally adequate.” But after examining the state court record of the suppression hearing, the District Court issued the writ. Saying that the “majority rule in the state courts seems to preclude impeachment of the factual aver-ments in the affidavit”; that North Carolina appeared to follow that rule; and that the question had not been finally settled by this Court, see Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U. S. 528, 531-532 (1964), the District Court nevertheless was of the view that it should not hesitate “to rule out the erroneous averments in the affidavit and proceed to test the validity of the warrant in the light of the remaining uncontested averments.” When so tested, the affidavit was found insufficient. The court also ruled that the officer who made the affidavit could not rehabilitate the warrant by sworn testimony at the suppression hearing as to facts which were known when the warrant issued and which would have been sufficient cause for issuance of the warrant had they been included in the affidavit. This was true even though these additional facts had actually been presented to the magistrate, for the supplemental information had not been sworn.

The Court of Appeals affirmed per curiam, approving the District Court’s review of the search warrant affidavit in light of the affiant’s testimony in the state court hearing. This ruling is consistent with prior law of the Circuit permitting subsequent impeachment of a warrant affidavit. King v. United States, 282 F. 2d 398 (CA4 1960). Other federal courts are in apparent agreement, e. g., United States v. Dunnings, 425 F. 2d 836 (CA2 1969), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 1002 (1970); United States v. Upshaw, 448 F. 2d 1218, 1220-1222 (CA5 1971), cert. denied, 405 U. S. 934 (1972); United States v. Roth, 391 F. 2d 507 (CA7 1967). Still other cases in other circuits, mostly older ones, but apparently still of precedential importance, have announced a different rule. E. g., Kenney v. United States, 81 U. S. App. D. C. 259, 157 F. 2d 442 (1946); Gracie v. United States, 15 F. 2d 644 (CA1 1926), cert. denied, 273 U. S. 748 (1927); Schiller v. United States, 35 F. 2d 865 (CA9 1929). But see United States v. Thornton, 147 U. S. App. D. C. 114, 454 F. 2d 957, 966-967 (1971); United States v. Wong, 470 F. 2d 129, 132 (CA9 1972). The issue is current and is obviously not simple. See United States v. Upshaw, supra, at 1221 n. 3.

Of equal or perhaps even greater importance in the context of this grant of federal habeas relief to a state prisoner is the conflict between the decision of the Court of Appeals and the rule followed in a majority of state court decisions considering the issue precluding challenges to the truthfulness of the factual statements contained in a warrant affidavit at a hearing subsequent to the issuance of the warrant. Indeed, the District Court speculated in this case that the North Carolina courts may have followed the majority rule in the other States on respondent’s direct appeal, and there is some indication that North Carolina is in accord with the majority rule, see State v. McKoy, 16 N. C. App. 349, 191 S. E. 2d 897 (1972).

Whether a search warrant and its supporting affidavit, adequate on their face, may later be impeached, is squarely presented here. “The time is ripe for a decision on this question, for the courts are in conflict and the question is important to the proper administration of criminal justice.” Kipperman, Inaccurate Search Warrant Affidavits as a Ground for Suppressing Evidence, 84 Harv. L. Rev. 825 (1971). (Footnotes omitted.)

      At least 15 States appear to prohibit subsequent impeachment of the affidavit supporting a warrant. Liberto v. State, 248 Ark. 350, 451 S. W. 2d 464 (1970) (alternative holding); State v. Anonymous, 30 Conn. Supp. 211, 309 A. 2d 135 (1973); People v. Stans-berry, 47 Ill. 2d 541, 268 N. E. 2d 431, cert. denied, 404 U. S. 873 (1971); Seager v. State, 200 Ind. 579, 164 N. E. 274 (1928); State v. Lamb, 209 Kan. 453, 497 P. 2d 275 (1972); Bowen v. Commonwealth, 199 Ky. 400, 251 S. W. 625 (1923); State v. Anselmo, 260 La. 306, 256 So. 2d 98 (1971), cert. denied, 407 U. S. 911 (1972); Tucker v. State, 244 Md. 488, 224 A. 2d 111 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U. S. 1024 (1967); State v. Brugioni, 320 Mo. 202, 7 S. W. 2d 262 (1928); State v. English, 71 Mont. 343, 229 P. 727 (1924); State v. Petillo, 61 N. J. 165, 293 A. 2d 649 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U. S. 945 (1973); Doyle v. State, 317 P. 2d 289 (Okla. Crim. App. 1957); State v. Seymour, 46 R. I. 257, 126 A. 755 (1924), partially overruled on other grounds, State v. LeBlanc, 100 R. I. 523, 217 A.2d 471 (1966); Owens v. State, 217 Tenn. 544, 399 S. W. 2d 507 (1965); Griffey v. State, 168 Tex. Cr. R. 338, 327 S. W. 2d 585 (1959).
      A few state courts do permit impeachment. McConnell v. State, 48 Ala. App. 523, 266 So. 2d 328, cert. denied, 289 Ala. 746, 266 So. 2d 334 (1972); Theodor v. Superior Court of Orange County, 8 Cal. 3d 77, 501 P. 2d 234 (1972); People v. Alfinito, 16 N. Y. 2d 181, 211 N. E. 2d 644 (1965); Commonwealth v. Hall, 451 Pa. 201, 302 A. 2d 342 (1973).


text:
    No. 73-1353.
    Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of American Waterways Operators, Inc., for leave to file brief as ami-cus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1425.
    Pennsylvania v. Platou.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied, it appearing that judgment below rests upon an adequate state ground.


text:
    No. 73-1441.
    No. 73-1442.
    Robinson et al. v. Hawaii et al.; and Albarado et al. v. Hawaii et al.
   Sup. Ct. Hawaii. Motion of Hawaiian Sugar Planters Assn, for leave to file brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1635.
    Heyne, Commissioner of Correction of Indiana, et al. v. Nelson, a minor, by Nelson, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1650.
    No. 73-1651.
    Kerner v. United States; and Isaacs v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 73-1673.
    Cox v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 73-6332.
    Reese et al. v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-6341.
    Haines v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-6403.
    Coles v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-6426.
    Herrell v. California.
    Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1118.
    No. 73-157.
    No. 73-817.
    No. 73-1050.
    No. 73-1163.
    No. 73-1216.
    No. 73-1218.
    Arnett, Director, Office of Economic Opportunity, et al. v. Kennedy et al., Calero-Toledo et al. v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., Gambino v. United States, Bigheart v. Pappan, Walls v. United States, Walden et vir v. United States, Pfeifer et al. v. Board of Education of the Upper Sandusky Exempted Village School District,
   416 U. S. 134;

416 U. S. 663;

416 U. S. 982;

416 U. S. 937;

416 U. S. 983;

416 U. S. 983; and

416 U. S. 901. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 73-1303.
    No. 73-5842.
    No. 73-6296.
    No. 73-6416.
    No. 73-6417.
    No. 73-6442.
    No. 73-6494.
    No. 73-6633.
    Rosenthal et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Ciuzio v. United States, Theriault v. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit et al., Brady v. Nielsen, U. S. District Judge, Burns v. Decker et al., Daniels v. McCarthy, Warden, Jackson v. Norton-Children’s Hospitals, Inc., et al., Schwartz v. Nevada et al.,
   416 U. S. 984;

416 U. S. 995;

416 U. S. 980;

416 U. S. 980;

416 U. S. 991;

416 U. S. 992;

416 U. S. 1000; and

ante, p. 906. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 73-671.
    Mayer Paving & Asphalt Co. et al. v. General Dynamics Corp. et al.,
   414 U. S. 1146. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 73-872.
    Louisiana et al. v. Federal Power Commission,
   416 U. S. 974. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


author: Mr. Justice Douglas, Circuit Justice.

text:
    WARM SPRINGS DAM TASK FORCE et al. v. GRIBBLE
    No. A-1146.
    Decided June 17, 1974
   Mr. Justice Douglas, Circuit Justice.

Applicants brought an action on March 22, 1974, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and sought a preliminary injunction to halt further construction in connection with the Warm Springs Dam-Lake Sonoma Project on Dry and Warm Springs Creeks in the Russian River Basin, Sonoma County, California. The applicants alleged, inter alia, that the Environmental Impact Statement filed by the Army Corps of Engineers concerning the project did not comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,42 U. S. C. § 4321 et seg,

A hearing was held in the District Court on the motion for a preliminary injunction. On May 23, 1974, the District Court rendered an oral ruling denying applicants’ motion for the injunction. A written opinion was filed thereafter. Applicants filed an application in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an injunction pending appeal, which was denied on May 24, 1974.

Application was then made to me as Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit seeking a stay of the order of the District Court as well as a stay restraining further construction work on the Warm Springs Dam Project. Because of the seriousness of the claims made by the applicants, I issued an order, on May 30, 1974, staying further disturbance of the soil in connection with the dam (other than research, investigation, planning and design activity) “pending reconsideration of the application when the memoranda of the Solicitor General and the Environmental Protection Agency are received.”

A response has been filed, along with further materials submitted by the applicants supporting their request for a stay. After consideration of these submissions, I have entered an order continuing my earlier stay order pending disposition of the appeal in this case by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Warm Springs Dam will be an earth-fill dam, holding back a reservoir of water, across Dry Creek, a major tributary of the Russian River in Sonoma County. The dam was first authorized, in smaller form than is now contemplated, in the Flood Control Act of 1962, Pub. L. 87-874, 76 Stat. 1173, 1192. On January 1, 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the filing of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, 42 U. S. C. §4332 (2)(C), became law. A draft EIS was not distributed until June 1973, and the final EIS was not filed with the Council on Environmental Quality until December 4, 1973. I am informed that approximately $35 million has been expended on the project already, and that another $7 million will be expended before this case will be heard and determined by the Court of Appeals.

The applicants for this stay focus on two extremely serious challenges to the adequacy of the EIS.

First, they note that the dam will sit atop a geologic fault running along Dry Creek. There are other faults nearby. A town of 5,000 people is nestled below the dam and the wall of water it will restrain. At the District Court hearing on applicants’ motion for a preliminary injunction, substantial questions were raised about the integrity of the dam should an earthquake occur. There seems to be a recognized “credibility gap” as to the safety of the project; recommendations were received by the Corps from its own staff for further study; and reservations about the safety factor were expressed by the State of California. A contract has been made for further dynamic analysis of the safety of the dam. Should that analysis indicate that the dam is potentially risky, the Corps would have “no choice” but to consider abandoning the entire project. Tr. 1828-1829,1832.

Second, challenges were made at the hearing to the adequacy of the EIS regarding expected poisoning of water in the reservoir behind the dam. The water will be used by consumers in the surrounding county. There were allegations at the hearing that the waters will be poisoned by mercury carried from an abandoned mercury mine which will be inundated when the dam is built, and that asbestos, fluoride, and boron particles will also leach into the waters. It is contended that the EIS is deficient in its treatment of these significant environmental effects.

The District Court rejected these contentions, finding that the Corps adequately dealt with the seismic problem and the water-poisoning problem. It found the EIS adequate. The Solicitor General argues that the District Court’s findings are not “clearly erroneous” and will be upheld by the Court of Appeals, and that therefore I should deny the requested stay.

Here, however, the views of the two federal agencies most intimately familiar with environmental issues and the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act have been filed with the Court. They undermine the determination of the District Court.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has written to the Solicitor General expressing some doubt about the treatment of the water-poisoning issues in the final EIS. The EPA goes on to say, however, that:

“We wish to emphasize that the CEQ [Council on Environmental Quality] is the Executive Office charged with NEPA administration and ultimately with evaluating the performance of Federal agencies in complying with the Act. We understand that the Council has expressed concern over the adequacy of the final environmental statement on the Warm Springs project and the issues raised by the Council clearly fall under its administrative responsibilities relative to NEPA.” Letter of June 4, 1974, from Alan G. Kirk II, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, to Robert H. Bork, Solicitor General.

The applicants have filed with this Court a letter from the General Counsel of the CEQ to the Solicitor General expressing the views of the Council on the adequacy of the Warm Springs Dam final EIS. Letter of June 11, 1974, from Gary Widman, General Counsel, Council on Environmental Quality, to Robert H. Bork, Solicitor General. In that letter, the Council expresses the view that the plaintiffs and the public are likely to be irreparably harmed if an injunction pending appeal is denied. The Council continues:

“It is the Council’s position that the best interests of the Government would be served by halting construction work (excluding environment study and testing) until the appeal is decided on the merits.
“In its letter of February 14, 1974, the Council advised the Corps that its Environmental Impact Statement (‘EIS’) was not adequate in several respects. The Council asked for further study and consideration of the earthquake hazard, the problems of stimulating population growth in the area, the calculation of benefits and costs, and further asked consideration of an alternative project (enlargement of the existing Coyote Dam) that would not raise similar environmental problems. The letter asked the Corps to delay action on the project until such further study and consideration was completed.
“Information revealed at trial strongly reinforced our original reservations about the seismic and other problems, and raised new concerns over potential hazards created by chemicals in the water, and in the fish. In its letter to you, the EPA now agrees that the project’s adverse environmental effects were not adequately raised or discussed in the EIS. The alternative projects (one of which was mentioned in our letter of February 14) have apparently not received the further study which we suggested. Therefore, if asked, CEQ would reaffirm its original advice to the Corps, that sound policy would require construction work on this project to be halted, pending further analysis of the problems and consideration of available alternatives.”

The Council goes on to express in more detail its reasons for concluding that the EIS is deficient:

“At the hearing in the District Court, plaintiffs questioned highly responsible experts, including one originally retained by the Corps, and others who were associated with State and Federal Government agencies who testified to professional reservations about the hazards that could be created by the dam. ...
“Upholding the District Court’s finding of adequacy of the statement, and the Court’s approval of the Corps decision to proceed, will permit construction of a dam in the face of statements by responsible experts that the EIS information is insufficient to answer problems of earthquake hazards created by a fault underlying the dam, and water quality hazards raised by the presence of mercury, boron, fluoride and asbestos in the site area (all of which may be carried into reservoir water by underlying hot springs). Whatever disagreement there may have been on this issue of adequacy of information, the Corps nevertheless stated during and after the hearing that there would be additional studies on the issues of seismicity, water quality and archae-ology, and it recognized that the results of those studies may lead to a conclusion that the dam should not be built.”

The Council cites numerous ways in which the Warm Springs EIS may flout Council guidelines, including lack of research and analysis supporting its conclusions and lack of presentation of responsible opposing scientific opinion and of critical comments by responsible governmental agencies. It is the view of the CEQ that denial of an injunction could further jeopardize the possibility of obtaining objective agency choice between alternative projects should an appellate court overturn the decision of the District Court, that further construction could impair the freedom of choice of local voters who will be considering the project, and that “it is both contrary to law and an irreparable detriment to plaintiffs and the public to permit the construction to proceed in such circumstances.”

The mandate of the National Environmental Policy Act regarding Environmental Impact Statements is stated in the Senate Report:

“(c) Each agency which proposes any major actions, such as project proposals, proposals for new legislation, regulations, policy statements, or expansion or revision of ongoing programs, shall make a determination as to whether the proposal would have a significant effect upon the quality of the human environment. If the proposal is considered to have such an effect, then the recommendation or report supporting the proposal must include statements by the responsible official of certain findings as follows:
“(i) A finding shall be made that the environmental impact of the proposed action has been studied and that the results of the studies have been given consideration in the decisions leading to the proposal.
“(ii) Wherever adverse environmental effects are found to be involved, a finding must be made that those effects cannot be avoided by following reasonable alternatives which will achieve the intended purposes of the proposal. Furthermore, a finding must be made that the action leading to the adverse environmental effects is justified by other considerations of national policy and those other considerations must be stated in the finding.
“(iii) Wherever local, short-term uses of the resources of man’s environment are being proposed, a finding must be made that such uses are consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the environment.
“(iv) Wherever proposals involve significant commitments of resources and those commitments are irreversible and irretrievable under conditions of known technology and reasonable economics, a finding must be made that such commitments are warranted.” S. Rep. No. 91-296, pp. 20-21 (1969).

The tendency has been to downgrade this mandate of Congress, to use shortcuts to the desired end, and to present impact statements after a project has been started, when there is already such momentum that it is difficult to stop. There are even cases where the statement is not prepared by a Government agency but by a contractor who expects to profit from a project. One hesitates to interfere once a project is started, but if the congressional mandate is to be meaningful it must be done here.

As the EPA observed, the CEQ is the Executive Office charged with administration of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Environmental Impact Statements. The NEPA requires all federal agencies both to consult with the CEQ to insure that environmental factors are adequately considered and to assist the CEQ. 42 U. S. C. §§4332 (2) (B) and (H). The CEQ is given the authority under NEPA to

“review and appraise the various programs and activities of the Federal Government in the light of the policy set forth in subchapter I of this chapter [which includes the EIS requirement] for the purpose of determining the extent to which such programs and activities are contributing to the achievement of such policy, and to make recommendations to the President with respect thereto.” 42 U. S. C. §4344 (3).

The Council’s members must be qualified “to appraise programs and activities of the Federal Government in the light of the policy” set forth in subchapter I of the Act. 42 U. S. C. § 4342.

The Council, ultimately responsible for administration of the NEPA and most familiar with its requirements for Environmental Impact Statements, has taken the unequivocal position that the statement in this case is deficient, despite the contrary conclusions of the District Court. That agency determination is entitled to great weight, see, e. g., Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins., 409 U. S. 205, 210; Griggs v. Luke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 433-434; Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16, and it leads me to grant the requested stay pending appeal in the Court of Appeals to maintain the status quo in the construction of the Warm Springs Dam.

       The order did prohibit respondents from disturbing certain archaeological sites pending compliance with Executive Order 11593, 36 Fed. Reg. 8921, 3 CPR 154 (1971 Comp.).

       “[C]ertain water quality related issues, which potentially impact the environment and which were not analyzed in the final environmental impact statement, came to light during the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. These issues include potential contamination of the reservoir water by boron and fluoride concentrations in the streams which would feed the reservoir and by asbestos concentrations in the serpentine rock underlying the reservoir site. Moreover, with respect to mercury contamination, we understand from a hasty and admittedly incomplete reading of the transcripts of the hearing and the affidavits submitted, that the Corps has agreed to perform pre-inundation studies to predict the biomagnification effect of mercury concentrations in sediments and algae in the reservoir site.
      “We believe that the foregoing issues should have been raised and should have been discussed in the final impact statement. We cannot say, however, because we were not present during the proceedings and have not had sufficient opportunity to review the evidence, that these issues would, at the same time, have caused EPA to express environmental reservations as to the construction of the project, within the context of our own NEPA review procedures.” Letter of June 4, 1974, from Alan G. Kirk II, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, to Robert H. Bork, Solicitor General.

       See Power Reactor Co. v. Electricians, 367 U. S. 396, 417 (Douglas, J., dissenting):
      “But when that point is reached, when millions have been invested, the momentum is on the side of the applicant, not on the side of the public. The momentum is not only generated by the desire to salvage an investment. No agency wants to be the architect of a 'white elephant.’ ”

      See also Arlington Coalition on Transportation v. Volpe, 458 F. 2d 1323, 1333 (CA4 1972):
      “Further investment of time, effort, or money in the proposed route would make alteration or abandonment of the route increasingly less wise and, therefore, increasingly unlikely. If investment in the proposed route were to continue prior to and during the Secretary’s consideration of the environmental report, the options open to the Secretary would diminish, and at some point his consideration would become a meaningless formality.”

         See Life of the Land v. Brinegar, 414 U. S. 1052; Power Reactor Co. v. Electricians, 367 U. S. 396.