Document: 434 U.S. 59 98 S.Ct. 280 54 L.Ed.2d 238 John W. KEY et al., Appellants,v.Michael M. DOYLE al. No. 76-1057. Argued Oct. 5, 1977. Decided Nov. 14, Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1978. See 1025, 753. Syllabus A law applicable only in the District of Columbia is not a "statute United States" for purposes 28 U.S.C. § 1257(1) which provides this Court's appellate review final judgments rendered by State's highest court decision could be had where validity statute States at issue and against its validity. Consequently, Court Appeals holding unconstitutional provision Code reviewable direct appeal to but writ certiorari pursuant 1257(3). Pp. 61-68. Appeal dismissed; see D.C.App., 365 A.2d 621. Floyd Willis, III, Rockville, Md., appellants. Carl F. Bauersfeld, Washington, D. C., appellees. With him on brief was Charles H. Burton, appellee Calvary Baptist Church. William A. Glasgow, Stephen Trimble Nicholas Ward, St. Matthews Cathedral. Leo Pfeffer, New York City, Paul S. Berger, American Jewish Congress as amicus curiae urging affirmance. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 Sallye Lipscomb French died 20 days after executing will leaving most her estate certain churches Columbia. Section 18-302 D.C.Code voids religious devises bequests made within 30 death.1 Prevented statutory from carrying out terms will, executor sought instructions Probate Division Superior Both that held unconstitutional.2 The decedent's heirs next-of-kin brought an under 1257(1), cases "where drawn question . validity."3 We postponed consideration our jurisdiction hearing case merits. 430 929, 97 1547, 51 772. Because we conclude dismiss lack jurisdiction. 2 Before 1970 trial courts were appealable Appeals.4 Ultimate available 1254, all 11 Federal Courts Appeals.5 right Circuit thus existed invalidated state statute. All other cases, including those challenging local statutes here certiorari.6 3 Reform Criminal Procedure Act 19707 substantially modified structure District, there no indication intended these changes enlarge system. aim establish "a Federal-State system analogous systems several States." H.R.Rep. 91-907, p. 35 (1970). provided would longer have proceed Appeals, then 1254. Instead, newly created directly here, like courts.8 Accordingly, 1257, jurisdictional concerning Supreme state-court decisions, amended include "the State."9 4 In Palmore v. States, 411 389, 93 1670, 36 342 (1973), recognized analogy between perfect. Although expressly classified court, it indicated provisions should treated statutes. Thus, upheld constitutional attack, concluded lie 1257(2), applies decisions rejecting challenges Underlying long-established principle counsels narrow construction authorizing appeals Court, absence clear congressional intent mandatory U.S., 396, S.Ct., 1675. 5 legislative history unenlightening about applicability 1257(2). Senate Committee hearings early version Act, one reference 1257: 6 "The Chairman [Senator Tydings]. On page 3, section 11-102 relating appeal: 7 " 'The Appeals. For law, shall deemed state.' [Emphasis added.] 8 "Now, my you raised language. Is sufficiently broad allow certiorari? 9 "Mr. Kleindienst. believe so. 10 Chairman. As well 12750 [sic.]? language, know, leaves certiorari. Certiorari important vehicle reach language covers easy clarify."10 12 Senator Tydings seems assumed both 1257 apply whether he thought or 1257(2) govern. And if mind possible distinctions federal solely concern broader scope. Nowhere do find further discussion point. 13 omission understandable. arisen before reorganization because applied courts, seldom ever confronted wholly application. accustomed seeing such statutes, them did mention "statutes Rather, 1254 divides into two categories—those invalidating others. 14 precise escaped attention Congress, general questions exist time reorganization.11 express so ordaining, cannot simply shifting 1257.12 15 Indeed, strongly imply contrary. noted Palmore, "to entirely new with functions essentially similar found 50 Union responsibility trying deciding distinctively controversies arise criminal laws having little, any, impact beyond jurisdiction." 409, 1682. 16 This over reserved threatening supremacy law. When invalidate grounds, uniformity national threatened automatic From D.C. follows when invalidates exclusively application.13 judgments, according 1257(3).14 17 neither enlarges nor reduces result Act. It gives litigants same enjoyed States. 18 reasons expressed opinion, dismissed jurisdiction.15 19 ordered. WHITE, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACKMUN, POWELL join, dissenting. 21 enacted "state laws" meaning upholding Today, holds also 1257(1). even strikes down enactment being limited discretionary acceptance I inconsistent prior contrary scheme determining jurisdiction, dissent majority opinion. 22 * years judicial system, federally involving more than specified amount Court.1 1885, $5,000, special without regard sum dispute 23 "any treaty authority exercised Ch. 355, Stat. 443. 24 Since statute, has consistently attack upon draws "statute" "law" relevant 25 view underlies Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. Hopkins, 130 210, 503, 32 L.Ed. 908 (1889), another reason.2 explicit Parsons Columbia, 170 45, 521, 42 943 (1898), challenge water main assessments "[W]e think plainly appears," stated, "that below ." Id., 50. Accord, Smoot Heyl, 227 518, 33 336, 57 621 (1913) (upholding party-wall regulation). 26 1911 abolished predicated amount, added any defendant." 1159. Security Trust Comm'rs, 224 491, 553, 56 856 (1912), construed pertaining alternative defeated purpose effect substantial relief indiscriminate above $5,000 involved." 495, 554. Nevertheless, "there doubt act sense distinguished "Cases constitutionality 27 Heald 254 20, 41 42, 65 106 (1920), squarely once again drew "law explicitly rejected suggestion controlling, since itself "difference subjects." 22, 43. current been "re-enact conveying power enact statutes." 22-23, 43, citing supra, supra. decision, commented therein,3 commentators "federal means enactments are operation Stern E. Gressman, Practice 82 (4th ed. 1969). Boskey, State Judicial Code, Va.L.Rev. 57, (1943).4 II background 1970. 84 473. established separate headed regulated provide: 29 "For section, term 'highest State' includes Appeals." included specifying original district "references Acts Columbia." 1363, 172(c)(1) Reorganization 590. No proviso indicate 31 implication Congress' action respect continue viewed, they past, characterizing court," insert restrictive limiting provisions. disagreed viewed circumstances, can receive scrutiny laws.5 supports—if indeed does require—that conclusion. state" reasoned: "We entitled assume amending legislated care, equate said left matter mere implication." 395, 34 suggested 'would easy,' id., 395 n. quoting Farnsworth Montana, 129 104, 113, 253, 255, 616 pointed exceptions excluding courts. reasoning obviously greater force Had wished exclude used almost precisely device "Jurisdictional 'with precision fidelity wishes.' 1675, Cheng Fan Kwok INS, 392 206, 212, 88 1970, 1974, 1037 (1968). Read together put unique class: They Whether upholds down, If mongrel distinct classifications surely so.6 III 37 Appellee Matthew's Cathedral recognizes designed assure legislation erroneously set aside argues necessity "it Article plenary power." Brief 11. some manner appears contemplate. event, regarded "highest State." Appellee's argument, notion type must therefore rejected. 38 Nor agree significance merit review. free disregard Moreover, clause giving legislate stands beside enumerated powers Art. I, 8, Constitution. object grant exclusive sense, city organized became city, state, district, nation.' O'Donoghue 289 516, 539-540, 53 740, 746, 77 1356 (1933), Grether Wright, 75 742, 756-757 (C.A. 1896) (Taft, J.). Though today measure home rule, retains interests ranging extensive property welfare hundreds thousands employees. That involved scope permitted camouflage Nation's vital interest governing Capital.7 39 reason denying need lessen number heard While may worthy objective, effectuated amendment, strained construction. Jurisdiction handy tool carving workload acceptable size shape, solemn obligation imposed enforceable every deserving litigant. shirks duty, states: "A devise bequest real personal minister, priest, rabbi, public teacher, preacher gospel, such, sect, order, denomination, support, use, benefit thereof, trust therefor, valid unless least death testator." originated Organic 1801, 103, ch. 15, 1. recently 1965. 79 688. unpublished. Estate French, (1976). Stressing "is directed groups practitioners," "an invalid infringement exercise religion First Amendment" "invalid denial due process guaranteed Fifth Amendment." Due Process Clause Amendment. classification [religious legatees versus others] rational relationship hence denies equal protection law." 624. Six somewhat although none restricted devises. Fla.Stat. 732.803 (1976); Ga.Code 113-107 (1975); Idaho 15-2-615 (Supp.1977); Miss.Code Ann. 91-5-31 (1973); Mont.Rev.Codes 91-142 (1964); Ohio Rev.Code 2107.06 stated above, statute's singular focus beneficiaries apparently what prompted declare unconstitutional. Thus necessarily raise doubts six jurisdictions. Title "Final decrees had, reviewed follows: "(1) By appeal, "(2) ground repugnant Constitution, treaties favor "(3) certiorari, title, right, privilege immunity specially up claimed of, commission under, overlapped n.2, 1673, 342. channeled through 1934. 426, 48 926. following methods: granted petition party civil case, rendition judgment decree; relying preclude instance appellant, presented; certification desired, give binding require entire record sent controversy." largely derived §§ 239 240 Judiciary 1925, 43 938. (predecessor Appeals) rule arose given 1911, 1159, 250. Paragraph three District's "cases words—"any differently paragraphs. paragraph six. Holmes' reasoned "all acts probably little ingenuity them." restricting scope, "confined naturally properly belongs it." 494-495, re-enacted "provisions meant interpreting identical words different ways, "in plain contrary." 23, Or certification. 1254(3), n.5, Some arising reached routes Shapiro Thompson, 394 618, 89 1322, 600 (1969), three-judge After noting 2282 (which repealed) required hear Congress," saw "no make exception 625 n.4, 1326. Vuitch, 402 62, 91 1294, 601 (1971), taken 3731 (1964 ed.), amended, still case. allowed dismissing indictment based invalidity founded." margin 5-4, word encompassed nationwide confusion surrounding question, underlying "would served refusing decide now orally argued." 66, 1296. Writing four dissenters, Harlan attributed expansive reading fact subsequent cases. 93, 1310. However, each interpreted light own antecedents, purposes, context. circumstances render aid task construing 475, 111. 590, 172. n.3, Hearings 1066, 1067, 1214, 1215, 1711, 2601 (Reorganization Courts) Subcommittee Improvements Machinery Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 1159 (1969). draft bill offered administration "appeal" later revised reflect intention: accordance title 28, Code." 475. Cf. n.6, part provides: chapter, references Chapter 85 1363 refers, governs hardly implies "laws chapters sections (including 1257) D.C.Code. rested (§§ 11-521, 11-522, 11-523 (1967) ) various 85, many referred "Acts Congress." repealed conforming amendment removal focus, rationally support inference examined decided, them, Such especially tenuous previously govern questioning 66. clearer sort negative extend nature geographical distinguishes Unlike enactments, comprehensive equivalent governments their citizens. Of course, Treating papers whereon certiorari," 2103, deny petition. (judgments excess $100 error); 39, 261 (raising $1,000); 764 (decisions replaced basis). question. Between 1925 Circuit. ante, 61 n.4. clearly composed judges tenured Hence basis appeals. recognizes, 63-64, ruled contexts States," (1971) (criminal statute), (1969) (three-judge appeals). confirm traditional understanding that—in command—congressional dealing laws. that, 1257." Ante, argument flawed reasons. First, concedes, shift 68 n.14. Second, importantly, "simple" technical change, rather basic whole concept reorganization. independent, point unmistakably clear. virtue inclusion filtered appeals, effected change majority's disturbing ultimately undermine explain rationale assuming Presumably views "right" "specially Constitution" approach available. 1257(3) invocation interpret practice evidently disapproves. See, 62-63, n.5. whatsoever construes highly improbable rein saying needed "uniformity threatened" "of application." 67, 68. But great which, though area, deal interest. g., Point Reyes National Seashore 1976, 90 2515 (designating wilderness 33,000 acres land California). Just protect Capital.

Category: 8