Document: 467 U.S. 246 104 S.Ct. 2332 81 L.Ed.2d 201 NEW YORK, Petitioner,v.Robert UPLINGER and Susan Butler. No. 82-1724. Supreme Court of the United States May 30, 1984. PER CURIAM. 1 We granted certiorari, 464 812, 64, 78 80 (1983), to review a decision New York Appeals, 58 N.Y.2d 936, 460 N.Y.S.2d 514, 447 N.E.2d 62, concerning N.Y. Penal Law § 240.35(3) (McKinney 1980), which prohibits loitering "in public place for purpose engaging, or soliciting another person engage, in deviate sexual intercourse other behavior nature." Respondents, charged with violating statute, challenged its constitutionality Appeals sustained their claim. 62 (1983). The court concluded that is "a companion statute consensual sodomy . criminalized acts between consenting adults" noted it had previously held latter unconstitutional People v. Onofre, 51 476, 434 947, 415 936 (1980), we declined review, see 451 987, 101 2323, 68 845 (1981). N.Y.2d, at 937-938, N.E.2d, 62-63. Construing as intended "to punish conduct anticipatory act sodomy," reasoned "[i]nasmuch ultimately contemplated by may not be deemed criminal, perceive no basis upon State continue purpose." Id., 938, 63. 2 Petitioner challenges on ground valid exercise State's power control order.1 hand, defend arguing unconstitutionally vague overbroad face that, applied, violates First Amendment, equal protection, due process rights. decline address these arguments, however, because examination case, after full briefing oral argument, has convinced us writ certiorari was improvidently granted. See Monrosa Carbon Black Export, Inc., 359 180, 184, 79 710, 713, 3 723 (1959). As diverse arguments presented briefs have demonstrated, opinion fairly subject varying interpretations, leaving uncertain precise federal constitutional issue decided.2 Moreover, whatever Appeals' decision, clearly premised court's earlier supra, reason meaningful evaluation below would entail consideration questions decided case. does not, challenge Brief 2. Cf.Pet. Cert. 6, n. 1. 4 Under circumstances, are persuaded this case provides an inappropriate vehicle resolving important issues raised parties. therefore dismiss 5 It so ordered. 6 Justice STEVENS, concurring. 7 Although origins Rule Four somewhat obscure,1 administration during past 60 years undergone number changes.2 Even though our today makes change Rule, I regard sufficiently significant warrant additional comments. 8 first note agree reasons set forth per curiam deciding add (1) major were apparent when petition filed, (2) jurisdiction over problematic best most straightforward interpretation statutory provision severable, matter state law, from invalidated cert. denied, Court, quite correctly my opinion, declines merits. 9 Members believe, merits "should addressed." Post, 252. They do themselves. Cf. Colorado Nunez, 465 324, 1257, 338 (1984) (concurring opinion). Nor they attempt refute sound offered majority dismissing long adhere Four, four Justices require briefed, argued, considered postargument conference. Why, then, should also command Court? 10 difference character hear decide justifies way made. prudently selecting cases review,3 there relatively little lost, great deal gained, permitting who heard placed calendar argument. might suggested must unless been intervening development dismissal. generally Rice Sioux City Cemetery, 349 70, 75 614, 99 L.Ed. 897 (1955). am now persuaded, always decisive. more carefully argument than could time conference, almost 100 petitions each week.4 Nevertheless, once studied chambers, principles judicial economy normally outweigh advanced Indeed, many cases, remain present question general significance warranting Court's but nevertheless proceed strong countervailing large investment resources parties Court. 11 A does, course, serious consequences, particularly raised, especially presents impression. momentous can made Fundamental adjudication counsel against premature demand such context conducive searching analysis possible. Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 341, 56 466, 480, 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). policy restraint salient given role ultimate expositor meaning Constitution, "perhaps effective implement making conferred Congress." Rescue Army Municipal 331 549, 568, 67 1409, 1419, 91 1666 (1947). If studying posture, record, presentation unwise exercising "gravest delicate" function called perform, reach far compel 12 In conclusion, valuable, immutable, device force largely spent heard. At point, fully informed whether some principle outweighs interest 13 WHITE, whom Chief Justice, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR join, dissenting. 14 it, grounds, properly before addressed. Dismissing proper course. Petitioner, York, represented District Attorney Erie County, N.Y., prosecutor brought criminal charges respondents. After granted, General filed brief amicus curiae, urging conclude applied respondents' rights freedom speech privacy suggesting erred striking down face. allocation authority among officers represent is, wholly concern. 36.4 indicates, addressing statewide application consider highly relevant views chief law enforcement official. fundamental conflict positions taken petitioner General, circumstance "not manifest apprehended granted," Ferguson Moore-McCormack Lines, 352 521, 559, 77 457, 478, 511 (1957) (Harlan, concurring dissenting), conclusion grant improvident. one fair reading below, even decision. Dorchy Kansas, 264 286, 290, 44 323, 686 (1924). determined, speech, harassing sodomy. Accordingly, holding based here only provide means enforcing struck Onofre severable statute. 62-63 ("[I]t wording aimed proscribing overtures, necessarily bothersome recipient, leading what was, enacted, illegal act"). Leiman, 57 Colum.L.Rev. 975, 981-982 (1957). Stevens, Life Span Judge-Made N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1, 11-14 approximately 50 fewer thus Term corresponding point October 1981 Term. dramatic example contrast quality decisionmaking compared prior provided virtually unanimous deny stay Palmore Sidoti, 1018, 103 1266, 490 reverse merits, 466 429, 1879, 421 (1984).

Category: 8