Document: 398 U.S. 427 90 S.Ct. 1763 26 L.Ed.2d 378 Charlene MITCHELL et al., Appellants,v.Joseph L. DONOVAN, etc., al. No. 726. Argued April 21, 1970. Decided June 15, Lynn S. Castner, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellants. Richard H. Kyle, St. Paul, appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The appellants are the 1968 Communist Party candidates President and Vice of United States, various Minnesota voters who alleged a desire to vote these candidates, Parties States Minnesota. appellant obtained petitions containing requisite number names asked Secretary State place them on ballot election. denied request, relying upon an opinion by Attorney General effect that placing would violate Federal Control Act 1954, 68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. §§ 841, 842, which declares 'should be outlawed,' purports strip it all 'rights, privileges, immunities attendant legal bodies created under jurisdiction laws or any political subdivision thereof, * *' 2 brought action in District Court seeking declaration was constitutionally invalid praying temporary restraining order permanent injunction requiring include November ballot. Because appellants' request injunctive relief based claim federal statute unconstitutional, three-judge impaneled pursuant 28 § 2282. court noted time short before election; equities favored appellants; had taken position amicus brief did not bar placement ballot; if apply manner asserted State, there 'grave doubts' as its constitutionality. Accordingly, without deciding merits claims, ordered placed 290 F.Supp. 642. received votes 415 Minnesotans 3 After election, moved amend complaint, alleging intended run future elections and, information belief, adhere barred allowed amendment complaint. It held prayer relief, referred only election requested no conduct, been rendered moot passing As declaratory judgment striking down Act, found present case controversy. In court's view sufficiently certain construction statute, take out realm hypothetical. therefore dismissed 300 1145. 4 direct appeal this 1253, provides: 5 'Except otherwise provided law, party may Supreme from granting denying, after notice hearing, interlocutory civil action, suit proceeding required Congress heard determined district three judges.' 6 appellees dismiss ground complained one 'granting denying injunction.' We probable jurisdiction, 396 1000, 566, 24 422. have persisted their lacks consider appeal, hearing oral argument we concluded they right. 7 appealed does more than deny Act. ever ordering That granted, state officials. is plain opening words proceeding, recognized it: 'We concern ourselves here with propriety entertaining portion plaintiffs' complaint *.' F.Supp., at 1146. 8 leaves us question whether 1253. recent case, Rockefeller v. Catholic Medical Center, 397 820, 1517, 25 806, gave negative answer question, decision. Section 1253 terms grants appeals orders injunctions. While similarities between injunctions judgments, also important differences. Kennedy Mendoza-Martinez, 372 144, 154—155, 83 554, 9 644; cf. Zwickler Koota, 389 241, 254, 88 391, 19 444. provisions concerning courts, including Court, antedate Declaratory Judgment 1934,1 but substantially amended 1937 1948 providing such judgments.2 stressed three-judge-court legislation 'a measure broad social policy construed great liberality,' rather 'an enactment technical strict sense term applied such.' Phillips 312 246, 251, 61 480, 483, 85 L.Ed. 800. Thus Court's literally construed. hardly faithful read statutory 'injunction' meaning 'declaratory judgment.'3 10 conclude, therefore, appeal. A simple dismissal want however, leave recourse appellate review, because Appeals appealing has long since passed. other cases where improperly Appeals,4 vacate below remand so enter fresh dismissing thus affording opportunity timely Eighth Circuit. 11 ordered. 12 vacated remanded. 13 Mr. Justice BLACK concurs result. 14 BLACKMUN took part consideration decision case. 15 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 16 I agree too hypothetical qualify 'case' 'controversy' within Article III affirm. do not, share aversion reflects. hospitable aim purpose my dissent Swift & Co. Wickham, 382 111, 129, 86 258, 194, indicates. is, think, injunction' 17 644, contrary. merely some circumstances solely relief' could tried single judge 'relief sought entered affected totally noncoercive fashion.' Id., 154, 155, 560. indicated, different result follow 'whenever operation scheme immediately disrupted final judicial determination validity trial can obtained.' 18 words, involved need always summoned contemplated. analysis 2281 now concerned s well contain 'thou shalt not' commanding injunction. Or refusal definitive adjudication Ordinarily will precisely same interference disruption proceedings long-standing limiting designed avoid. Where, here, properly convened, think took, equivalent, 48 955, 2201, 2202. early history then 266 Judicial Code, summarized Goldstein Cox, 471, 476—477, 671, 663. amendments, both made substantial changes appear 752 62 968, respectively. One commentator argued broader grounds logical symmetry, see Currie, Three-Judge Constitutional Litigation, 32 U.Chi.L.Rev. 1, 13—20, those arguments should directed courts. supra; Stamler Willis, 393 407, 89 677, 21 627; Moody Flowers, 387 97, 87 1544, 643; supra.

Category: 8