Document: 397 U.S. 238 90 S.Ct. 1099 25 L.Ed.2d 275 Jonathan O. COLE, Superintendent, Boston State Hospital, et al.v.Lucretia Peteros RICHARDSON. No. 679. Lucretia RICHARDSON v. al. 774. Supreme Court of the United States March 16, 1970 Robert H. Quinn, Atty. Gen. Mass., Mark L. Cohen, Asst. Gen., and Gregor I. McGregor, Deputy for appellants Cole others. Ernest Winsor John F. Cogan, Jr., appellee Richardson. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is vacated cases are remanded to District Massachusetts determine whether these have become moot. 2 Mr. Justice HARLAN, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring in result. 3 present appeals from a single action commenced Federal Massachusetts, by Mrs. Richardson, challenging validity Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., c. 264, § 14 (1959). That law requires all public employees subscribe loyalty oath which reads as follows: 4 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will uphold defend Constitution America Commonwealth oppose overthrow government or this force, violence any illegal unconstitutional method.' 5 Richardson sought declaratory injunctive relief against enforcement bar her resuming employment also damages pay withheld reason having refused oath. 6 granted requested relief, but stated its opinion, 'We cannot grant [Mrs. Richardson's] request back pay.'* Accordingly, formal contained no allusion back-pay request. 7 Dr. Cole, hospital superintendent, another official 679 appeal award relief. has cross-appealed denial way response moved summary affirmance suggested, alternative, moot since particular job she held been 'discontinued.' In reply, submitted an affidavit asserting '[e]mployment consonant abilities qualifications periodically available should wish apply such employment.' 8 fail understand today's wholly unexplained extraordinary disposition remanding lower court if Since not disputed Richardson's specific statement longer existence, there may be some question controversy continues exist case, although would thought one resolved Court, without necessity remand. Certainly, however, can live exists over question. 9 am, content acquiesce Court's because manifest triviality impact under challenge, factor may, suspect, underlie unusual disposition. 10 Whether considers erred what perforce amounts exercise semantics, suppose vagueness contentions instance can, depending on how defines his terms, characterized at least colorable for, opinion below aptly points out, almost word phrase rendered vague ambiguous dissection semantic scalpel. not, consider it provident use time coach little more than verbal calisthenics. Cf. S. Chase, Tyranny Words (1959); W. Empson, Seven Types Ambiguity (1955). This kind inquiry, however interesting, occupy federal courts unless fundamental rights turn outcome. 11 think fairly said subscribing instant subjected amenity. No First Amendment considerations, my view, involved cases. does impinge conscience belief, except extent taking offend individuals. safe say signing triggered serious possibility prosecution either perjury failure perform obligations Indeed, most unfortunate our past decisions field construed even require solemn convocation three judges deal matter practical inconsequence. 12 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 13 plaintiff brought before three-judge declare statute, enjoin superiors Hospital prohibiting discharging duties hospital, recover pay. entered granting denying claim pay, June 26, 1969. 300 F.Supp. 1321. Appellants filed notice July 30, 1969, docketed timely September 29, Notice was 774 August 25, October 24, On motion affirm dismiss grounds mootness: 'At case heard argued district appellee's still their had discontinued.' 15 deny support thereof submit Superintendent states: 16 '1. At times subsequent decision above-entitled 1969 been, is, open enjoy full consideration pursuant terms Court; 17 '2. Employment employment; 18 '3. project hired on-going Hospital.' 19 see arguably maintain 20 tendered important one. state struck down 21 said: 22 'A 'violation' section 14, presumably means 'live up' oath, phraseology future tense, felony.' F.Supp., 1322. 23 unanimous holding earnestly challenged 679, who invalidation unwarranted invasion State's domain. 24 note probable jurisdiction both put oral argument. * It appears jurisdictional stipulated after termination November 1968, refusing take 'volunteered work full-time continue research project.'

Category: 2