Law Commons^™

12-05-1971 Correspondence From Burger To White, Warren E. Burger

Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669 (1972)

Dear Byron:

Please join me.

12-09-1971 Correspondence From Marshall To White, Thurgood Marshall

Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669 (1972)

Dear Byron:

Please join me in your per curiam.

12-09-1971 Correspondence From Blackmun To White, Harry A. Blackmun

Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669 (1972)

Dear Byron:

I, too, agree with the Per Curiam you have prepared for this case.

12-07-1971 Correspondence From Stewart To White, Potter Stewart

Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669 (1972)

Dear Byron,

I am glad to join your Per Curiam in this case.

12-07-1971 Correspondence From Brennan To White, William J. Brennan

Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669 (1972)

Dear Byron:

I agree.

11-01-1971 Memorandum To The Conference, Harry A. Blackmun

Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669 (1972)

John has had an extraordinary amount of difficulty with this case. Perhaps it is small wonder. It is an example of the problems attendant upon three-judge court jurisdiction and the theories this Court has spun about that jurisdiction.

11-06-1971 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun

Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669 (1972)

Harry A. Blackmun's handwritten notes from oral argument.

06-28-1971 Per Curiam, Potter Stewart

Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971)

The petitioner was convicted for willful refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces. 50 U.S.C. App. § 462 a). The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We granted certiorari, 400 U.S. 990, to consider whether the induction notice was invalid because grounded upon an erroneous denial of the petitioner's claim to be classified as a conscientious objector.

06-22-1971 Correspondence From Burger To Stewart, Warren E. Burger

Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971)

Dear Potter:

Please join me.

06-21-1971 Correspondence From Harlan To Stewart, John Harlan

Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971)

I must confess to finding myself a little uncomfortable with your proposed per curiam. I am not convinced that the passages from the Department of Justice advice letter have the same import in context as they do in the order in which they appear on page four of your opinion. In addition, I am inclined to think that the opinion pushes the Government's concession, before us further than they were intended to reach.

06-21-1971 Justice Stewart, Per Curiam, Potter Stewart

Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971)

The petitioner was convicted for willfull refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces. 50 U.S.C. 462 (a). The judgement of conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We granted certiorari, 400 U.S. 990, to consider whether the induction notice was invalid because grounded upon an erroneous denial of the petitioners' claim to be classified as a conscientious objector.

06-10-1971 Correspondence From Brennan To Harlan, William J. Brennan

Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971)

Dear John:

While I still think that the so-called Stromberg ground of Sicurella would be enough to reverse this conviction, I am persuaded by your opinion that the other
aspect of Sicurella also requires reversal. I, therefore, would be happy to have
you join me.

06-10-1971 Correspondence From Stewart To Harlan, Potter Stewart

Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971)

Dear John,

I agree with your memo and would gladly join it if it should become an opinion of the Court. I also think, however, that there is another reason why this conviction cannot stand -- what Bill Brennan calls the "Stromberg ground of Sicurella." over the week-end I may try my hand at writing a few words on that subject.

06-09-1971 Correspondence From Harlan To Burger, John Harlan

Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971)

My original Conference vote was to affirm, and it was of course on that basis that you assigned the opinion to me. As I tentatively indicated to the Conference a week or so ago and in later conversation with you, subsequent work on such an opinion brought me serious misgivings, and I am now convinced that the conviction should be reversed. I attach a memorandum setting forth the reasons that have brought me to this conclusion.

05-17-1971 Preliminary Memorandum, Michel A. Lafond

Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669 (1972)

Section 406 (a) of the Social Security Act, 42 u.s.c. 606 (a) provides in part:

[T]he term 'dependent child means a needy child...who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death continued absence from the horne, or physical incapacity of a parent...

04-22-1971 Memorandum To The Conference, William O. Douglas

Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971)

I am sending each or you a memo in the Clay case, No. 783, because it was poorly briefed and argued, and the record is not too revealing. My travels in Islam, however, got me interested in the Koran; and as a result of this hobby I send this memo, which may or may not be helpful to you but which explains my position.

04-22-1971 Justice Douglas, Opinion, William O. Douglas

Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971)

This case is very close in its essentials to Negre v. Larson, 400 U.S. -, decided March 8, 1971. The Church to which that registrant belonged favored "just" wars and provided guidelines to define them. The Church did not oppose the war in Vietnam but the registrant refused to comply with an order to go to Vietnam because participating in that conflict would violate his conscience. The Court refused to grant him relief as a conscientious objector, overruling his constitutional claim.

03-05-1971 Justice Burger, Per Curiam, Warren E. Burger

Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)

This is an appeal from an action commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida challenging the constitutionality of 876.05-876.10 pf Fla. Stat. Ann., and the various loyalty oaths upon which appellant's employment as a school teacher was conditioned. The three-judge U.S. District Court declared three of the five clauses contained in the oaths to be unconstitutional, and enjoined the State from conditioning employment on the taking of an oath including the language declared unconstitutional. The appeal is from that portion of the District Court decision which upheld the remaining two clauses in the oath: …

01-20-1971 Justice Marshall, Concurring, Thurgood Marshall

Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, concurring.

02-05-1971 Memorandum To The Conference, Warren E. Burger

Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)

I have Judge Blackmun's memo of February 2 proposing an alternative treatment.

02-03-1971 Correspondence From Stewart To Blackmun, Harry A. Blackmun

Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)

Dear Harry:

I am not at all averse to the suggestion contained in your memorandum of February 2.

02-03-1971 Correspondence From Black To Blackmun, Hugo L. Black

Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)

Dear Harry,

I have your memorandum suggesting we certify a question to the Supreme Court of Florida as the the interpretation of one part of the Florida Loyalty Oath. I have carefully considered your suggestion but regret to tell you that I am opposed to it.

02-03-1971 Correspondence From Brennan To Blackmun, William J. Brennan

Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)

Dear Harry:

My vote would be not to resort to the certification procedure to ask the proposed question. For me, the portion of the oath referred to is unconstitutional even if interpreted as suggested by the question.

02-02-1971 Memorandum To The Conference, Harry A. Blackmun

Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)

Mr. Justice Harlan and I have not as yet indicated our votes in this case. Each of us is somewhat troubled and wonder whether the Florida certification procedure under Florida Appellate Rule 4.61, which the Court employed in Aldrich v. Aldrich, 375 U.S. 75 and 249 (1963) and 378 U.S. 540 (1964) and in Dresner v. City of Tallahassee, 375 U.S. 136 (1963) and 378 U.S. 539 (1964). would be of any assistance to us in this somewhat troublesome little case. Certification perhaps would accomplish directly what Mr. Justice Stewart has in mind and, in addition, might have the advantage …

01-20-1971 Justice Marshall, Concurring, Thurgood Marshall

Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)

I agree that Florida may require state employees to affirm that they "will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida." Such a forward- looking, promissory oath of constitutional support does not in my view offend the First Amendment's command that the grant or denial of governmental benefits cannot be made to turn on the political viewpoint. or affiliation of a would-be beneficiary. I also agree that Florida may not base its employment decisions, as to state teacher or any other hiring category, on an applicants willingness to affirm "that I do not believe in …

01-19-1971 Justice Stewart, Concurring And Dissenting, Potter Stewart

Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)

The Court upholds as clearly constitutional the first clause of the oath as it comes from the three-judge District Court: "I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida...." With this ruling I fully agree.

01-19-1971 Correspondence From Harlan To Burger, John Harlan

Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)

Dear Chief:

I am glad to join your per curiam as is, but I am afraid I would have difficulty in joining if the emendation suggested by my Brother Black is made.

01-18-1971 Correspondence From Black To Burger, Hugo L. Black

Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)

Dear Chief,

I like most of your proposed per curiam in the above case and would be delighted to join it if you would take out the clause on page 3 saying: "Although beliefs are by no means irrelevant to action or prediction of the future acts." With this deletion I shall join the opinion enthusiastically. Otherwise I regret I shall have to concur in the judgement, noting my disagreement as above.

01-15-1971 Memorandum To The Conference, Warren E. Burger

Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)

.After reviewing the files in this case and preparing a full-scale opinion, I concluded we will have said enough on the subject of "oaths" this Term. Therefore, I have reduced the disposition to a Per Curiam and it is enclosed. I believe it fully reflects the Conference vote to reverse in part and affirm in part.

01-15-1971 Justice Burger, Per Curiam, Warren E. Burger

Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971)

This is an appeal from an action commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida challenging the constitutionality of sections 876.05-876.10 of Fla. Stat. Ann., and the various loyalty oaths upon which appellant's employment as a school teacher was conditioned. The three-judge U.S. District Court declared three of five clauses contained in the oaths to be unconstitutional, and enjoined the state from conditioning employment on the taking of an oath including the language declared unconstitutional. The appeal is from that portion of the District Court decision which upheld the remaining two clauses in the oath: …