Document: 413 U.S. 1 93 S.Ct. 2440 37 L.Ed.2d 407 John J. GILLIGAN, Governor of Ohio, et al., Petitioners,v.Craig MORGAN al. No. 71—1553. Argued March 19, 1973. Decided June 21, Syllabus Respondents filed this action on behalf themselves and all other students at a state university, claiming that during period civil disorder the campus in May 1970, National Guard Called by to preserve order, violated students' rights speech assembly caused injury death some students. They sought injunctive relief restrain future from prematurely ordering troops duty disorders an injunction leaders violation rights. also declaratory judgment § 2923.55 Ohio Revised Code is unconstitutional. The District Court dismissed suit ground complaint failed claim upon which could be granted. Appeals affirmed dismissal with respect both against Governor's 'premature' employment validity statute, but held stated cause one issue, was remanded directions resolve question whether there 'a pattern training, weaponry orders . require use fatal force suppressing civilian when total circumstances are such nonlethal would suffice restore order. .' Since filed, named respondents have left university; officials originally as defendants no longer hold offices they can exercise authority over Guard; has adopted new substantially different 'use force' rules; training recruits been revised. Held: 1. case resolved basis claims alleged complaint, narrowed Appeals' remand, justiciable, rather than possible mootness. Pp. 4 5. 2. No justiciable controversy presented case, respondents, requiring initial judicial review continuing surveillance weaponry, standing Guard, embraces critical areas responsibility vested Constitution, see Art. I, 8, cl. 16, Legislative Executive Branches Government. 5—12. 456 F.2d 608, reversed. Thomas V. Martin, Columbus, for petitioners. Solicitor Gen. Erwin N. Griswold United States, amicus curiae, special leave Court. Michael E. Geltner, New York City, respondents. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Respondents, alleging were full-time officers student government Kent State University action1 October 15, 1970. essence that, around called order protect public property, number several, actions without legal justification. him constitutional Code2 granted suit. Appeals3 unanimously Court's occasions statute.4 At same time, however, Appeals, judge dissenting, issue following question: 2 'Was singly or together make inevitable time lethal not reasonably necessary?'5 3 We certiorari Appeals.6 * note outset since changes factual situation. oral argument, we informed none still enrolled University.7 Likewise, party any State's Guard,8 although parties their successors office. In addition, petitioners, General appearing us 1970 rules differing those effect filed; relating control9 5 assert, nevertheless, these situation do affect right hearing entitlement supervisory relief. Some basis, therefore, exists conclusion now moot; record before prepared therefore turn important justiciable. II 6 treat justiciability assumption respondents' claims, within framework remand true established evidence. On assumption, address appropriately fashion. 7 It damages injuries sustained tragic occurrence State. Nor it seeking restraining specified imminently threatened unlawful action. Rather, broad call power assume regulatory jurisdiction activities Guard. This far-reaching demand presents questions justiciability. 8 continue seek benefit evaluation appropriateness 'training, orders' further demand, require, establish standards kind weapons scope control contend thereafter must assure compliance whatever operations procedures may approved court. press remedial decree scope, even assuming recently deemed acceptable after evidentiary Continued changed what demand. 9 relying Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment, seem overlook explicit command vests Congress power: 10 'To provide organizing, arming, disciplining, Militia, governing Part them employed Service reserving States respectively, Appointment Officers, Authority Militia according discipline prescribed Congress.' (Emphasis added.) 11 majority does mention very relevant provision Constitution. Yet shall disciplining (now Guard), certain responsibilities being reserved respective States. enacted appropriate legislation pursuant 16,10 authorized President—as Commander Armed Forces—to prescribe regulations organization Guard.11 essential reserve component Forces available regular forces war. federalized addition its role under governments, assist controlling disorders.12 federal court embrace Constitution Government.13 12 invited survey materials then case: 13 '(F)or example: Prevention Control Mobs Riots, Federal Bureau Investigation, Dept. Justice, Edgar Hoover (1967) .; 32 C.F.R. 501 (1971), 'Employment Troops Aid Civil Authorities'; Instructions Members Force Mass Demonstrations, Police Department, City (no date); Report Advisory Commission Disorders (1968).' F.2d, 614. 14 plainly explicitly wide range possibly dissimilar policies law enforcement agencies authorities; examples cited represent only fragment accumulated data experience various Services, concerned Trained professionals, subject day-to-day responsible authorities, necessarily comparitive judgments merits evolving methods equipping, military duties inappropriate district undertake unlikely event he posssessed requisite technical competence so. 15 Judge Celebrezze, dissent, correctly read Baker v. Carr, 369 186, 82 691, 663 (1962), said: 16 'I believe congressional executive regulate set forth above, clearly precludes form regulation matters. I envision which, if directed involve serious conflict 17 "coordinate political department; lack judicially discoverable manageable resolving (the question); impossibility deciding policy determination nonjudicial discretion; court's undertaking independent resolution expressing due coordinate branches government; unusual need unquestioning adherence decision already made; (and) potentiality embarrassment multifarious pronouncements departments question.' supra, 217, 710, 633 .. 18 'Any relief, simply ordered and/or Executive, draw courts into nonjusticiable question, jurisdiction.' 619 (emphasis added). 19 Flast Cohen, 392 83, 88 1942, 20 947 (1968), noted that: 'Justiciability itself concept uncertain meaning scope. Its reach illustrated grounds adjudicated Thus, adjudication asking advisory opinion, mooted subsequent developments, maintain remains '(j)usticiability fixed content susceptible scientific verification. utilization resultant many subtle pressures ..' Poe Ullman, 367 497, 508, 81 1752, 1759, 989 (1961)."14 21 determining justiciability, analysis thus suggests (a) 'when opinion,' (b) developments,' (c) action.' As (1961), repeated Flast, U.S., S.Ct., 1759. 22 testing drawn specifically deficiencies each. nature declaration clear argument and, indeed, language remand. Added subjects committed expressly government. These factors, coupled uncertainties live infirmity posture standing, render proposed issues nonjusticiable. 23 difficult think clearer example type governmental intended directly responsible—as Judicial Branch not—to electoral process. Moreover, conceive area activity less competence. complex subtle, professional decisions composition, essentially judgments, always Branches. ultimate periodically accountability. oversight elected representatives underlies our entire system; give weight separation powers.15 24 Voting cases Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 84 1362, 506 (1964), prisoner Haines Kerner, 404 519, 92 594, 30 652 (1972), supporting 'diminish(ing) vitality doctrine.' 613. Yet, because doctrine inapplicable carefully delineated situations reason demise. voting cases, represented efforts strengthen system assuring higher level fairness responsiveness processes, substantive entrusted 25 concluding presented, should neither nor imply conduct beyond accountability forum violations specific personnel,16 way case. decline so intimately task assigned Appeals. Orloff Willoughby, 345 93—94, 73 534, 539—540, 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953). 26 Reversed. 27 DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL dissent. For reasons convinced moot. Accordingly, vacate dismiss See Munsingwear, Inc., 340 36, 39, 71 104, 106, 95 36. 28 justice BLACKMUN, whom POWELL joins, concurring. 29 brought broad-ranging But presently relates portion Under limited existence inevitable' unjustifiable disorders. 612. use-offorce changed, identical Army use-of-force rules. Counsel satisfactory safeguards unwarranted Tr. Oral Arg. 31. And, 1971, civil-disturbance-control had provided units. narrowly confined setting asked decide change current regulations; rather, wish continuance through constant orders, 31 Were seek, little difficulty Except aspect requested obtained. While might argue likelihood attenuated moot, reached, grant sought. DP Respondents' rests single, isolated, incident University. conditions existed prevail. And contains nothing suggesting likely suffer result practices challenge. Laird Tatum, 408 1, 14, 2318, 2326, 33 154 (1972). A based single past incident, containing allegations unspecified, speculative threats harm occur indefinite future, cannot support Complaint, par. 11, App. 5—6; Roe Wade, 410 113, 128, 705, 715, 35 147 (1973). moreover, province judiciary. Court, surveillance, evaluate pass Guard's programs, weapons, force, orders. prospective only; matters context particular predicate present wholly issues. highly subjective involving command. such, '(inappropriate) matter consideration,' fashioning 'to enter determinations lacking.' 198, 226, 699, 714, (1962). understanding holds, join opinion. 42 U.S.C. 1983 asserted 1343(3). section provides circumstances, personnel who engaged riot 'guiltless' consequences necessary proper force. Rev.Code Ann. (Supp.1972). reported sub nom. Morgan Rhodes, 608 (CA6 1972). claims. Id. 409 947, 287, 34 217 25, 33. Memorandum Petitioners Suggesting Question Mootness began hours additional recognizing peculiar area. E.g., §§ 105, 501—507, 701—714 (1970 ed. Supp. I). 110. 331 seq. basic is, Regulation Department Army, statutory authority, jurisdiction. Commencing units received, part recognition primary source situations. Reserve Enlistment Program 1963, CON AR350—1, XXV, Anx. F, Par. 3c (Aug. 31, 95, 1950 (footnotes omitted). colloquy asked: 'Would fair characterization your position goes back court, you quarrel (National Guard) want made permanent carried out; statement case?' counsel answered: 'Yes, Your Honor, point, more existed.' 56. Duncan Kahanamoku, 327 304, 66 606, 90 688 (1946); Sterling Constantin, 287 378, 53 190, 77 375 (1932). 15—16, 2327, '(W)hen cognizable resulting military, intrusion sector, fully empowered consider asserting injury; Nation's history decided including holding today, properly seen giving indication actual go unnoticed unremedied.'

Category: 8