Document: 409 U.S. 512 93 S.Ct. 854 35 L.Ed.2d 36 Andrew C. GOOSBY et al., Petitioners,v.Maurice OSSER al. No. 71-6316. Argued Dec. 6 and 7, 1972. Decided Jan. 17, 1973. Syllabus Philadelphia County prisoners unable to make bail or being held on nonbailable offenses brought this class action, asserting the unconstitutionality of Pennsylvania Election Code provisions denying them right vote. When Commonwealth (but not municipal) officials who were named as defendants conceded provisions' unconstitutionality, District Judge (deeming principal defendants) ruled case nonjusticiable involving an Art. III controversy, dismissed complaint. The Court Appeals, though differing justiciability, affirmed ground that petitioners' constitutional claims wholly insubstantial under McDonald v. Board Commissioners Chicago, 394 31, 802, 89 1404, 22 739, a three-judge district court was therefore required 28 U.S.C. § 2281. Held: 1. officials' concession did foreclose existence controversy since municipal continue assert enforce challenged provisions. Pp. 516—517. 2. McDonald, supra, unlike situation alleged here, deal with absolute prohibition against voting by there involved, decision does 'foreclose subject' challenge statutory scheme. may, if appropriate, be heard court. 518—523. 3. Cir., 452 F.2d 39, reversed remanded. Ann S. Torregrossa, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioners, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Peter W. Brown, respondents others. John Mattioni, respondents. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion 1 question is whether 22811 convening in Eastern hear case. It action behalf persons awaiting trial confined prisons because either afford charged offenses. complaint alleges Code, violation Equal Protection Due Process Clauses Fourteenth Amendment, absolutely deny vote they neither permit members prison register vote, nor provide facilities purpose at prisons, expressly prohibit 'confined penal institutions' from absentee ballot.2 names two officials, Attorney General Secretary State Pennsylvania, certain City Philadelphia: constitute Elections Registration Commission Voting Supervisor County, Superintendent Prisons County. 2 On oral argument before single judge motion temporary restraining order, appeared Deputy General, applied class, unconstitutional Amendment. other hand, vigorously defended constitutionality so applied. deemed contrary view irrelevant, he regarded 'principal defendants.' See n. 3, infra. He meant no Constitution, complaint.3 appeal, Appeals Third Circuit affirmed. 39 (1971). We do not, however, read per curiam resting affirmance agreement Rather, we implying disagreement question, least assuming existed, states that, Comm'rs., 1493, 23 (1969), which circumstance, held, Bailey Patterson, 369 82 549, 7 (1962), authority 2281 require assembly dismissal proper, F.2d, 40. A petition rehearing en banc denied, three judges dissenting. granted certiorari, 408 922, 92 2504, 33 332 (1972). reverse judgment remand direction enter appropriate order pursuant 3 * clearly erred holding foreclosed controversy. All parties are accord law oblige defer otherwise give status defendants.'4 Indeed, brief filed forthrightly argues '(t)he made egregious error. Commonwalth only Supervisor, Commission, also parties. These have contested issues raised petitioners both appeal. They provided adversity interest, will sharply define issues, extent already clear.' Brief Respondents 4—5.5 4 Thus, satisfied requisite . presented context specific live grievance.' Golden Zwickler, 103, 110, 956, 960, 113 (1969). As between 'called upon adjudge legal rights litigants actual controversies,' Liverpool, N.Y. & P.S.S. Co. Emigration, 33, 5 352, 355, L.Ed. 899 (1885), 'the interests (petitioners' class) use judicial (petitioners') protection interference.' United Public Workers America Mitchell, 330 75, 90, 67 556, 564, 91 754 (1947). Since persist their asserted 'real substantial controversy' 'touching relations having adverse interests,' Aetna Life Ins. Haworth, 300 227, 240—241, 57 461, 464, 81 617 (1937), circumstance could effect dissipating Cf. In re Metropolitan Railway Receivership, 208 107—108, 219, 223—224, 52 403 (1908). II erred. disagree its Comm'rs, rendered insubstantial. Title when attack state statutes 'Constitutional insubstantiality' has been equated such concepts 'essentially fictitious,' U.S., S.Ct., 551, 'wholly insubstantial,' ibid.; 'obviously frivolous,' Hannis Distilling Baltimore, 216 285, 288, 30 326, 327, 54 482 (1910); without merit,' Ex parte Poresky, 290 30, 32, 4—5, 78 152 (1933). limiting words 'wholly' 'obviously' cogent significance. prior decisions substantiality claims, those import constitutionally inescapably render frivolous; previous merely doubtful questionable merit purposes claim "its unsoundness results subject room inference questions sought can controversy." 4, quoting 327; see Levering Garrigues Morrin, 289 105—106, 53 550, 77 1062 (1933); McGilvra Ross, 215 70, 80, 27, 95 (1909). Under test, it clear 'foreclose(s) scheme; demonstrably 'leave(s) (by petitioners) controversy.' appellants pretrial detainees Cook Illinois, registered ballot. Their timely applications ballots denied included among specifically permitted Illinois Appellants suit alleging equal laws, particularly 'medically incapacitated,' residents but incarcerated outside County.6 8 threshold 'how stringent standard evaluating classifications ballot provisions) distinctions must justified compelling interest ..' 806, 1407. resolving analyzed scheme light our application more test fundamental right, allegedly infringed, Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 84 1362, 12 506 (1964); Harper Virginia Elections, 383 663, 86 1079, 16 169 (1966); Carrington Rash, 380 89, 85 775, 13 675 (1965), drawn basis suspect criteria, wealth race, supra; McLaughlin Florida, 379 184, 192, 283, 288—289, 222 Douglas California, 372 353, 83 814, 9 811 (1963). 807, 1407—1408. Our analysis led us conclude Illinois' race,' ibid., and, respect infringement appellants' that: '(T)here nothing record indicate impact ability exercise thus stake here claimed receive ballots. Despite contrary, statutes, designed available some groups cannot easily get polls, themselves franchise; nor, indeed, operate whole, State's disenfranchise convicted sentenced, similarly situated appellants. (Citation omitted.) Faced lightly assume, support assumption, fact precluded voting.' Id., 807—808, 1408. (Emphasis supplied.) 10 For all appeared, might franchise means: 11 'Appellants agree barren any indication instance, possibly furnish jails polling booths election day, guarded transportation polls inmates, entertain motions reductions allow inmates own.' 808 6, '(s)ince show prohibited .' 1408, concluded tested 'more traditional standards claims,' id., 808, 1408 said arbitrary unreasonable, 'there judicially incapacitated, detainee exercising franchise.' 809, 1409. Petitioners' challenges sharp contrast. Petitioners allege7 prohibits voting, provision affirmatively excludes 'persons institution' ballot, Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 25, 2602(w) (12) (Supp.1972—1973), requests personal proxy appearance places prison, registration set up generally means satisfactory had denied. Thus itself suggested different 14 This say, course, matter entitled relief sought. decide intimate merits.8 suffices hold significant differences ample 'room 518, 519. 15 'heard determined remanded section determine merits Kennedy Mendoza-Martinez, 144, 153, 554, 559, 644 (1963); Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. Epstein, 370 713, 1294, 794 (1962); Borden Liddy, 309 871, 876 (CA8 1962), cert. 953, 951, 977 Riss Hoch, 99 553, 555 (CA 1938); Wright, Law Federal Courts 190—191 (2d ed. 1970), or, abstain determination pending proceedings. Lake Carriers' Assn. MacMullan, 406 498, 509—513, 1749, 1756—1759, 32 257 Reversed directions. provides: 'An interlocutory permanent injunction enforcement, operation execution statute officer enforcement administrative board commission acting shall thereof unless therefor 2284 title.' 623—1 seq. (1963 Supp.1972 1973); 2602(w)(12) (Supp.1972—1973). Several elections, including 1972 presidential election, filed, moot. Moore Ogilvie, Similarly, moot lost released bail, discharged, acquitted, convicted. 803 1, 1405, 739 (1969); Lee Washington, 390 333, 88 994, 19 1212 (1968), aff'g 263 F.Supp. 327 (MD Ala. 1966). unpublished transcript reads pertinent part follows: 'It stated jurisdiction pronounce statute, States void irreconcilable Constitution except called controversies. 'Now, instant chief Commonwealth, obviously represents, Counsel arguments morning, 'principal' Defendant Defendants. position taken remaining Defendants seems result accordance his past practice, together procedures, plans, etc., covering opinion. is, therefore, conclusion posture presently exists sense term used Courts, find ourselves compelled to, dismiss ordered.' App. 85. confesses error represents corrected need further action. See, e.g., Titmus Tinsley, 964, 1590, 830 McKissick Durham Education, 176 (MDNC 1959); Jeffers Whitley, 197 1961); Kelley 139 578 Tenn.1956). respondents' rejecting commonwealth issuance formal statutes. Insofar may rested finding absence difficulty formulating remedy, Louisiana States, 145, 154, 817, 822, 709 (1965); Brown 349 294, 300, 75 753, 756, 1083 (1955). Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 46, §§ 19—1 19—3 (1971), four classes persons: (1) absent county residence reason; (2) 'physically incapacitated'; (3) whose observance religious holiday prevented attendance polls; (4) served poll watchers precincts than own day. 804, 1405—1406. 'The allegations bill complaint.' present procedural case, true. Boddie Connecticut, 401 371, 373, 780, 783—784, (1971); Gomillion Lightfoot, 364 339, 341, 125, 127, 110 (1960). addition allege creates based denial impermissible consequence detention due process law, statute's exclusion definition 'qualified voter' even less rational relationship McDonald. states: 'We carefully considered each contentions (petitioners) merit.' 41. reach, insofar implies adjudication contentions. Stratton St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 282 10, 51 8, 135 (1930). 193 1970).

Category: 1