Criminal Law Commons^™

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.

01-18-1971 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: …

Memorandum To The Conference, Potter Stewart

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

After the Conference last Friday, it occurred to me that I had not made entirely clear my position in this case. It is simply this:

05-15-1970 Justice Harlan, Per Curiam, John Harlan

Wyman v. Rothstein, 398 U.S. 275 (1970)

Per Curiam.

Appellees commenced this action in the federal District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging on equal protection and statutory grounds 131-a of the New York Welfare Law which provides for payments to welfare recipients in Nassau, Suffolk, and other New York State counties in lesser amounts then provided for residents of New York City should the Welfare Administrator determine the adequate cause exists for the differential. A three-judge court was convened and it found that appelllees' likelihood for success on their constitutional claim warranted the issuance of preliminary injunction against what it found to be …

05-12-1970 Correspondence From Brennan To Harlan, William J. Brennan

Wyman v. Rothstein, 398 U.S. 275 (1970)

Dear John,

I agree with your Per Curiam in the above case.

Sincerely,

W.J.B. Jr.

05-12-1970 Correspondence From White To Harlan, Byron R. White

Wyman v. Rothstein, 398 U.S. 275 (1970)

Dear John:

Please join me.

Sincerely,

B.R.W

05-12-1970 Correspondence From Stewart To Harlan, Potter Stewart

Wyman v. Rothstein, 398 U.S. 275 (1970)

Dear John,

I am glad to join your per curiam opinion, with one suggestion: that the phrase "if necessary" in the 3rd line from the bottom on page 2 be changed to "if the question is reached."

Sincerely yours,

P.S.

05-11-1970 Justice Harlan, Per Curiam, John Harlan

Wyman v. Rothstein, 398 U.S. 275 (1970)

Per Curiam.

Appellees commenced this action in the federal District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging on equal protection and statutory grounds 131-a of the New York Welfare Law which provides for payments to welfare recipients in Nassau, Suffolk, and other New York state counties in lesser amounts than provided for residents of New York City should the Welfare Administrator determine that adequate cause exists for the differential. A three-judge court was convened and it found that appellees' likelihood of success on their constitutional claim warranted the issue of a preliminary injunction against what it found to …

11-19-1969 Correspondence From Burger To Stewart, Warren E. Burger

Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41 (1969)

Dear Potter:

I concur in your per curiam.

11-19-1969 Correspondence From Harlan To Stewart, John Harlan

Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41 (1969)

Dear Potter:

This is simply to confirm my earlier verbal comunication to you of my agreement with your opinion as recirculated on November 5, 1969.

11-12-1969 Justice Harlan, Per Curiam, John Harlan

DeBacker v. Brainard, 396 U.S. 28 (1969)

After a hearing before a juvenile court judge, appellant DeBacker was found to be a "delinquent child" and ordered committed to the Boys Training School at Kearney, Nebraska. DeBacker did not seek direct review of his commitment, but instead sought state habeas corpus. The Nebraska District Court dismissed appellant's petition, a divided Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, and last Term we noted probable jurisdiction over the present appeal. 393 U. S. 1076. Because we find that resolution of the constitutional issues presented

11-04-1969 Correspondence From Harlan To Stewart, John Harlan

Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41 (1969)

I agree entirely with the result you reach in this case, and with all of the opinion, except I have trouble with two minor matters.

11-06-1969 Correspondence From White To Stewart, Byron R. White

Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41 (1969)

Dear Potter:

Please join me.

11-05-1969 Justice Black, Dissenting, Hugo L. Black

DeBacker v. Brainard, 396 U.S. 28 (1969)

In February 1968 appellant, who was then 17 years old, was charged under the laws of Nebraska with being a "delinquent child" because he had forged bank check which he intended to use for his own purposes. At the hearing on this charge he asked for a jury trial, arguing this was a right guaranteed him by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and that a statute prohibiting juries in "delinquency" proceedings was therefore unconstitutional.

11-05-1969 Justice Stewart, Per Curiam, Potter Stewart

Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41 (1969)

The appellant sought to run in the November 1968 election as an independent candidate for the United States House of Representatives from the Twenty-First Congressional District of Ohio. His nominating pettition bore the signatures of 899 voters in the congressional district, a little over 1% of those in the district who had voted in the gubernatorial contest at the last election.

11-04-1969 Correspondence From Brennan To Stewart, William J. Brennan

Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41 (1969)

Dear Potter:

I voted the other way at the conference but you've convinced me.

10-31-1969 Correspondence From Stewart To Harlan, Potter Stewart

DeBacker v. Brainard, 396 U.S. 28 (1969)

Dear John,

I am glad to join the Per Curiam you have written in this case.

10-31-1969 Justice Stewart, Per Curiam, Potter Stewart

Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41 (1969)

The appellant sought to run in the November 1968 election as an independent candidate for the United States House of Representatives from the Twenty-First Congressional District of Ohio. His nominating pettition bore the signatures of 899 voters in the congressional district, a little over 1% of those in the district who had voted in the gubernatorial contest at the last election.

10-30-1969 Justice Harlan, Per Curiam, John Harlan

DeBacker v. Brainard, 396 U.S. 28 (1969)

After a hearing before a juvenile court judge, appellant DeBacker was found to be a "delinquent child" and ordered committed to the Boys Training School at Kearney, Nebraska. DeBacker did not seek direct review of his commitment, but instead sought state habeas corpus. The Nebraska District Court dismissed appellant's petition, a divided Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, and last Term we noted probable jurisdiction over the present appeal. 393 U.S. 1076. Because we find that resolution of the constitutional issues presented by appellant would not be appropriate in the circumstances of this case, the appeal was dismissed. See Rescue Army v. …

10-30-1969 Correspondence From Burger To Harlan, Warren E. Burger

DeBacker v. Brainard, 396 U.S. 28 (1969)

Dear John:

I concur in your excellent per curiam opinion.

10-30-1969 Correspondence From White To Harlan, Byron R. White

DeBacker v. Brainard, 396 U.S. 28 (1969)

Dear John:

Please join me.

10-28-1969 Correspondence From Brennan To Burger, William J. Brennan

Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 (1969)

For me, the prime objective of what we me tn these cases is to remove the impression of HEW and the Justice Department that the standard of "all deliberate speed'' retains some vitality. I fear that that message is obscured by your proposed opinion. MY view is that we should state the message in the briefest and plainest possible words. The proposal you circulated at Conference yesterday based on Hugo's suggestions strikes me as a model upon which to build.

10-28-1969 Correspondence From Black To Burger, Hugo L. Black

Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 (1969)

I regret that I again find myself unable to agree with the opinion and order circulated yesterday afternoon in the above case.

10-28-1969 Correspondence From Marshall To Burger, Thurgood Marshall

Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 (1969)

Dear Chief:

I now assume that it is impossible to get unanimity on cut-off dates. On that assumption I could agree to the draft of WJB even though I would otherwise prefer the Harlan draft.

10-28-1969 Correspondence From Harlan To Burger, John M. Harlan

Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 (1969)

I spent last evening reviewing the various circulations that have been made respecting the disposition of this ease. In light of the variety of views that have been expressed at our recent Conferences, and looking at the matter from an institutional standpoint, I have come to the view that the most satisfactory disposition of the case would be that suggested In the proposed order embodied in Mr. Justice Marshall's circulation of October 27, preceded by the preamble of your circulations of October 25 and 27, but unaccompanied by an opinion as suggested in your second circulation of yesterday. I think, …

10-28-1969 Correspondence From Harlan To Burger, John M. Harlan

Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 (1969)

Supplementing my earlier letter of today, I thought it might be convenient for you and the Brethren to have in "unitary" form the per curiam -order that would result from the proposals made in that letter. The following would eventuate.

10-28-1969 Memorandum To The Conference, Warren E. Burger

Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 (1969)

Enclosed "another try" in light of various proposals received. It returns to what I proposed to the Conference except (a) the preamble is altered and (b) the dates are omitted. Indeed, it contains most elements of what all of us agree to. If all agree, I suggest that we consider a "Cooper and Allen", reciting of all members of the Court rather than a per curiam because because of the importance of the problem.

10-28-1969 Correspondence From Harlan To Burger, John Harlan

Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 (1969)

Dear Chief:

I am prepared to concur in your circulation of this afternoon, with the two minor modifications suggested below. My readiness to do this reflects what I hope was implicit in my two earlier letters of today, namely, that we have reached the point in our deliberations where the differences amongst us hang not on any matters of substance but on pure semantics. Frankly, I think the important thing now is to reach an agreement on some disposition which can be announced at the earliest possible moment, preferably not later than tomorrow afternoon.