Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1949-06-21
Justice for u. G. Citizens
What the Supreme Court Said in Epocha Decision Opening
Federal Courts to Washinstonans

.ng permissible ends by a ehoaos @: usean.
which certainly are moi expressly .ageacesn
By the Constitution No gco1 reason 10
advanced foE TIRE court 10 oecy them ey
implication In no matter Aae4l6 wr pay
more Difference 10 iae opinions Of CcaSyess
than II Its choice O. INSTRUMENTATION 10
perform function that Is within It's power.
To put federails administered justice
within the reach Of DiSsYles eit3Ecns IN
claims against citizens Of another STATE n
an object which Congress has o rsEcs to
accomplish. lts own carefully considered
view thai II has the pcser and that II IA
necessary and proper 10 utilize United
States District Courts as means 10 this end.
Is entitled to great respect Our own IDEAS
as 10 the wisdom or cessraellity Of saea q
statute or the constitutional provision aa-
thorixing II are totally irrelevant Such O
l&w Of Congress should be stricken down
only On q clear showing that IL trxnsgTesssx
constitutional limitations. We think no
such showing has been MADE. The ACT u
valid
The Judgment Is reversed
Justice Ratledss and Justice MarpAs tot~e6
N the courts Judgment but 6issemted frosa
the reasoning o. Jastsce Jaeksoa's ops#soa.
Excerpts from Justice ExfleGces opam.on
follose
II Marshall correctly read Article III rs
preventing Congress from unlocking the
courthouse door to citizens Of the District.
it seems past belief that Article I Was de-
signed TO enable Congress 10 pick the lock
For the diversity Jurisdiction here thus sas-
tanned is Identical in all respects with the
diversity jurisdiction thought 10 be closed
TO District citizens by Article III. II Is
justice administered In the same courtroom
and under the supervision OF the same judge,
In view OF the rationale adopted by Mr..
Justice JacksonS opinion. I do not under
stand the necessity for its examination Of
the limits OF the diversity clause Of Article
III. That opinion has, however made clear
the view that the diversity clause excludes
citizens Of the District Of Columbia. although
where that view may now be applied 1t does
not point out II ! concurred In that con-
ception OF the diversity clause would vote
to afiirm the judgment OF the Court OF
Appeals.
However nothing but naked precedent.
the great age of the Hepburn ruling. and
the prestige OF Marshalls name. supports
such a result. 1t is doubtful whether anyone
could be found who now would write into
the Constitution such an unjust and dis
criminstory exclusion OF District citizens
from the Federal courts. All OF the reasons
winch have been set forth for allowing
District citizens a furtive access TO Federal
courts point to the conclusion that they
should enter freely and fully as other
citizens ana even aliens do.
Precedent of course Is not lightly 10 be
disregarded. even in the greater fluid.tY Of
decision which the process of constitutional
adjudication concededly affords, Ard
Marshalis sponsorship in such matters al
ways is weighty. But when long experience
has disclosed the fallacy Of q ruling. time
has shown its injustice. and nothing re-
mains but q techniea Atty the only effect OF
which is TO perpetuate ineouity, hardship
and wrong, those are the circumstances
which this court repeatedly has said call for
re-examination OF prior decisions. II those
conditions are fulfilled in any case. they
are In this one.
II Is perhaps unnecessary TO 80 20 far
In criticixing the decision rs was done by \
Judge who long afterwards bowed TO 1t
But the time has come when the hope he
expressed for removing this highly unjust
discrimination from group OF our citiaenx
larger than the population OF several States
Of the Union should be realized.
cannot believe that the trainers intended
to impose so purposcless and indefens!ble
a discrimination. although they may nave
been guilty Of understandable oversight In
not providing explicitly against H. Despite
its great age and subsequent acceptance.
think the Hepburn decision was ill"consid-
cred and wrongly decided. Nothing hangs
on II now except the continuance or e
moval OF a gross and wholly anomalous in
equality applied against q substantial gr.up
OF American citizens. not in relation 10 their
substantive rights. but In respect TO the
forums available for their determination.
This court has not hesitated TO override
even long standing decisions when. much
more by way OF substantial change was In
volved.
Excerpts from dissenting opinion bp
Chief Justice Vtnson. ~ nhich Justice
Douglas coacured. folloic,
The question is, then. whether this is one
of those sections OF the Constitution 10 which
time and experience were intended TO give
content or provision concerned solely with
the mechanics OF government. think there
can be little doubt but that 1t Was the latter.
That we would nov write the section differ
entity seems hardly q sufhcient justification
for an Interpretation admittedly inconsonant
with the intent Of the trainers. Ours In not
an amendstory function.
hardly need add that ! consider q ind
ing Of unconstitutionaiity OF q statute q mat
ter Of grave concern. Nevertheless. Congress
cannot do that which the CONSTITUTION spe-
cifically forbids. / think that II has at
tempted to do so here.
Justice FrankfurfeT dissentsd in an opinion
in ,olrich he iDas Joined BY Justice Reed. Err
ccrpts follow.
No provisions Of the Constitution. barrins
only those that draw on arithmetic. Is In
prescribing the qualifying age for . Prssi
dent and members Of = Congress or .ths
length Of their tenure OF once. are more en-
piicit and specific than those pertaining 10
courts established under Article III The
judicial power" which Is vested" IN thsss
tribunals and the safeguards under which
their judges functions are enumerated with
particularly.
The precision which characisrixes these
-