Document: 404 U.S. 403 92 S.Ct. 577 30 L.Ed.2d 560 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.MEDICAL COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. No. 70—61. Argued Nov. 10, 1971. Decided Jan. 1972. Syllabus The Court of Appeals, overruling the contentions Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), held that it had jurisdiction to review SEC's 'extremely dubious' determination not oppose Dow Chemical Co.'s refusal respondent shareholder's request include its proposal for a corporate charter amendment in Dow's proxy statement. Thereafter acquiesced request, at annual meeting less than 3% voting stockholders supported respondent's proposal, as result which company under an SEC rule may exclude from material three-year period. Held: Since is extremely doubtful end period will resubmit refuse it, case now moot. P. 405—407. 139 U.S.App.D.C. 226, 432 F.2d 659, vacated remanded. Sol. Gen. Erwin N. Griswold petitioner. Roberts B. Owen, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 Medical Committee Human Rights acquired by gift five shares stock Co. In March 1968, Committee's national chairman wrote letter expressing concern over policy with respect production sale napalm. also requested there be included company's statement 1968 amend Certificate Incorporation prohibit napalm unless purchaser gives reasonable assurance used against human beings. replied was too late inclusion discussion year's meeting, but would reconsidered following year. 2 exchange letters 1969, indicated belief right Rule 14a—8 Commission, 17 CFR § 240.14a—8 (1970) (promulgated pursuant 14(a) Act 1934, 48 Stat. 895, amended, 15 U.S.C. 78n(a)), have consideration all shareholders. On February 7, responded intended omit (somewhat modified) 1969 authority subsections relied on permitted omission shareholder proposals two sets circumstances: 3 240.14a—8(c)(2)—'If clearly appears submitted security holder primarily purpose enforcing personal claim or redressing grievance issuer management, promoting general economic, political, racial, religious, social similar causes'; 240.14a—8(c)(5)—'if consists recommendation management take action matter relating conduct ordinary business operations issuer.' 4 decision reviewed staff SEC. 18, Chief Counsel Division Corporation Finance both inform them 'this recommend any if this omitted management's material.' App. 21. Commissioners granted they Division's affirmed it. 43. then sought obtained Commission's United States Appeals District Columbia Circuit. 5 July 8, 1970, reviewable 25(a) 78y(a); while available district court, could court appeals; validity dubious, especially light failure state reasons supporting conclusion; should remanded reconsideration reasons. 659. petitioned here, we certiorari 22, 401 973, 91 1191, 28 322. 6 Events taken place, subsequent below, some our grant certiorari, require dismiss ground has become January 1971, again resolution 1971 This time proposal. At stockholder's May shareholders voted Less 14a 8(c)(4)(i), 240.14a—8(c)(4)(i), same substantially materials next three years. We find series events mooted controversy. 7 Respondent argues continue urge adoption statements, likely reject future past. It true permitting stated adhered might properly without prejudice exclusion. However, does create controversy necessary us retain decide merits. Whether actually one 1974 purely conjecture point, whether accept If were repeat allegedly illegal conduct, See Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, 323 37, 43, 65 11, 14, 89 L.Ed. 29 (1944); W. T. Grant Co., 345 629, 632 633, 73 894, 897—898, 97 1303 (1953). meager support attracted, can only speculate when becomes eligible inclusion, rather litigation. Thus, 'the wrongful behavior reasonably expected recur.' Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., 393 199, 203, 361, 364, 21 344 (1968). therefore 8 '(I)t well settled federal courts act context justiciable controversy.' Benton Maryland, 395 784, 788, 2056, 2059, 23 707 (1969). 'Our lack moot cases derives requirement Article III Constitution exercise judicial power depends upon existence Liner Jafco, Inc., 375 301, 306 n. 3, 84 391, 394, 11 347 (1964); cf. Doremus Board Education, 342 429, 434, 72 397, 96 475 (1952). 9 Accordingly, judgment dismissal. 10 POWELL REHNQUIST took no part case. DOUGLAS, dissenting. 12 With respect, I must dissent because below. underlying dispute essentially private one, between Rights, though large public overtones. refused submit forbid manufacture 1970. Only after review, did permit such vote. doing so, however, resolutely time. 13 gratuitous not, my view, 'Mere voluntary cessation case.' 344. could, defendant always 'free return his old ways.' 632, 897, 1303.1 14 But said poor showing made finally submitted, years rules issue Ante, 406. suggests 'purely conjecture' expiration period, attempt seems think best strategy, given proposal's showing, let go vote, undertake protracted Ibid. assumption, baseless, irrelevant. Grant, supra, antitrust violation charged interlocking directorate. response suits, directors resigned, companies represented their intention revive interlock. disposed argument summary fashion. 'Such profession suffice make moot.' Id., S.Ct., 897. Here, even minimal representation rejected nor do so. 16 arise decades, Golden Zwickler, 394 103, 956, 22 113, whose possible effect parties, Atherton Mills Johnston, 259 13, 42 422, 66 814. past four fought tooth nail obligation While '(a) absolutely clear recur,' U.S., hardly situation here. litigation formally Committee, involve whole panoply substantive2 procedural3 rights connection corporation's materials. modern super-corporations, wield immense, virtually unchecked, power. Some say4 are 'private governments,' decisions affect lives all.5 philosophy times, think, requires enterprises higher standard 'morals market-place' exalts single-minded, myopic maximize profits traditional be-all end-all concern. 'public interest having legality practices settled, militates mootness conclusion.' 18 There reason assume antipathy today. Perhaps adopt advice just superior financial position makes continued preferable alternative, conducted more favorable management6 present rules. 19 joins growing list monuments Court's abdication constitutional responsibility within jurisdiction. See, e.g., Picard Connor, 270, 278, 509, 513, 438 (Douglas, J., dissenting); North Carolina Rice, 244, 248, 402, 405, 413 dissenting statement); McClanahan Morauer Hartzell, 16, 17, 170, 171, 136 dissenting). Once again, dissent. 29, where involving 'split-day contracts' Fair Labor Standards rendered abandonment contracts during 'Despite challenged parties split-day plan still remains. . consistently urged presumably free resume use effective restraint made.' 14. vitality recognized Solicitor General, himself, moment oral argument. he abruptly reversed position, force prior remains undiminished. Citing above quotation Walling, said: 'The reasoning (as Court) applies latter required distribute continues insist so year (1971) defeated, years.' First Reply Brief Petitioner 5. generally Note, Harv.L.Rev. 700 (1971). 835 Miller, Toward 'Techno-Corporate' State?—An Essay American Constitutionalism, Vill.L.Rev. (1968); J. Galbraith, New Industrial State (1967); A. Berle, Economic Power Free Society (1957). Berle suggested, example, recession 1956 due fact principal automobile manufacturers, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, sold million cars previous National City Bank Review estimated 'normal' market million. motorcar cars, and, naturally, purchased far suppliers raw materials, glass, et cetera. employment severe.' Three Faces 31 (1967). regard, noted recently proposed amendments strengthen hand. new vote which, inter alia, '(ii) recommendation, mandate matter, including cause, significantly related control Proposed 14a—8(c)(2), Release 9432, Dec. substantial sentiment, liberal approach evidenced current, much proposed, Senator Muskie, introduced bill last Congress, entitled 'Corporate Participation Act,' have, barred exclusion 'on issues, S. 4003, 2, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. For view corporation 'proper subject' applicable law, see Chisum, Napalm, Proxy Proposals SEC, Ariz.L.Rev. 463 (1970).

Category: 8