Document: 420 U.S. 139 95 S.Ct. 853. 43 L.Ed.2d 85 James P. LEE, Jr., and Ronald Richv.William THORNTON, District Director, United States Customs Service, et al. No. 73—7006. Feb. 18, 1975. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellants brought actions in the Court for of Vermont that challenged constitutionality, facially as applied, various provisions customs laws, 46 Stat. 717 757, amended, 19 U.S.C. §§ 1460 1618, mandate procedures to effect forfeiture remission or mitigation penalties imposed after Border Patrol agents apprehended them seized their vehicles when they crossed border from Canada without passing through a station. The complaints sought (1) declaratory judgments were unconstitutional, (2) injunctions against enforcement, (3) mandamus relief requiring return moneys paid mitigated forfeitures based on violations (4) damages. A three-judge court was convened. held it had jurisdiction under Tucker Act, 28 § 1346(a)(2), rejected appellants' constitutional claims, enjoined appellees applying laws except construed by court, declined remit fines, returned single-judge question 2 did not address other alternative bases asserted complaints. district courts Act over '(a)ny . civil action claim founded either upon Constitution, any Congress .' does include claims enjoin enforcement laws. empowers award damages but grant injunctive relief. Richardson v. Morris, 409 464, 93 629, 34 647 (1973); King, 395 1, 89 1501, 23 52 (1969); Sherwood, 312 584, 589—591, 61 767, 771—772, L.Ed. 1058 (1941). It follows improperly convened, this therefore has no entertain appeal Court's refusal additional claims. Appellants' motion leave proceed forma pauperis is granted, judgment vacated, case remanded consideration jurisdiction. 3 So ordered. 4 Vacated remanded. 5 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS MARSHALL took part decision case.

Category: 8