Legal Document

338 U.S. 189 69 Supreme Court Reporter 1453 93 L.Ed. 1897 EISLERv.UNITED STATES. Number 255. Argued March 28, 1949. Decided June 27, Mr. David Rein, Washington, D.C., Abraham Judge Isserman, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Philip baron Perlman, Solicitor General, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner's flight from the country after grant of his petition writ certiorari, 335 857, 130, and submission cause on merits necessitates a decision as to disposition now be made this case. Since petitioner by own volition may have rendered moot any judgment merits, we must, matter our practice, decide whether should set aside certiorari dismissed or postpone review indefinitely ordering case removed docket, pending return fugitive. 2 Our however, has been order such cases docket. Smith versus United States, 94 97, 24 32; Bonahan State Nebraska, 125 692, 8 1390, 31 854. We adhere those precedents. Accordingly term will left off docket until direction contrary shall issue. 3 While Justice BURTON not participated in consideration case, he procedural action based upon memorandum filed States America calling attention petitioner's justice. 4 FRANKFURTER, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. 5 The Government brought Court's circumstances which, its view, deprived jurisdiction adjudicate Government, way suggestion, moved dismissal. motion granted following reasons: 1. Eisler was convicted contempt Congress District Columbia invoked August 31, 1948, seeking determination questions some which at least regarded important enough warrant review. accordingly petition. 130. argued 1949, awaited only final when, May 6, fled States. On 13, Attorney General requested Secretary make application through usual diplomatic channels That made, it resisted Eisler, 27 English court authority matters ground that crime Eisler's extradition sought—the making false statements an exit permit—was extraditable. then formally repudiated elected political office foreign country. abandoned all attempts secure return. upshot is abstract before are no longer attached litigant. No remains us could issue process. 6 2. Very early Republic founded confronted emergency very existence threatened. Serious touching legal power President deal crisis arose, Washington sought answers these Court. Even under so compelling first Chief Associates had deny Washington's request aid because Constitution gave give but merely them when litigant See Johnston, Correspondence Public Papers John Jay 486 (1891); 10 Sparks, Writings George 542 (1840). recognition limited unquestioned ever since 1793. It principle again beyond jurisdiction. called forth varied greatly, instances illustrate confirm basic limitation functions, namely, can entertain if there against enforce decision. 7 3. If remain here, must stay them. When withdraws himself judgment, also submitted adjudication. evaporated far concerned rights obligations depend their answer. therefore lacks lacked answer questions. Not dismiss want mean retain And this, turn, eventual await pleasure every future who, having jurisdiction, means asserting it. affiliation, course, does distinguish him other litigants. irrelevant took time over him; equally fact put definitively process were him. without effectively him, all. In short, would Bourbon pretender. 4. This nothing common cited precedent leaving convicts broken jail while remained large. As practical good sense, apparently informal suspended receive word sheriff who reported escape recapture accomplished. Such jailbreaks, indeed, often imply temporary separation confinement. But whatever thought light-reined dealing jailbreak local jails, situation presented totally different. Here most formal kind resistance adjudicated successful, yield. reassert incontestably denied, granted. 9 MURPHY, alien, Communist, fugitive He willful default Committee Congress. decided hear determining issues importance. heard argument, read briefs, announcement 11 Then Efforts Great Britain unsuccessful. territorial 12 controversies. A 'ca e' within meaning Article III. Evans, 213 297, 29 507, 53 803. one particular controversy confronting ended. true prisoner simply escaped. liberty assume escaped defendants never importance criminal imprisonment defendant. Thus alien excluded admission Code KF62 § 136(e), Annotated KF65 U5 136(e). 13 question unlikelihood prejudice irrelevant. Equally mootness advisory opinion. become defendant decide. For subsequent events render nugatory. subjected filing review, cannot revoke nullify thus prevent adjudication repudiating authority. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions entirely agree my brethren believe 14 adopts another alternative. exercises discretion refuses clear, JACKSON points out, issues, parties, bring Those did leave did. They here decision; they utmost profession public. 15 Law loftiest examines claimed injustice even instance public bitterly hostile. loath shirk obligations, creed takes pride requiring institutions examination correction alleged whenever occurs. permit affront sort distract performance constitutional duties. 16 dissent. 17 JACKSON, 18 deferred, awaiting what do know. fully members hand down opinions presence neither necessary nor usual. reached stage considerable detriment country, delayed commencement sentence afforded opportunity escape. reasons deciding issues. 19 Rules provide where 'special therefor.' limit present 'a general * been, be, settled court.' Rule 38, 28 (Emphasis supplied.) 20 Under meant four Justices ths Court, least, agreement raised description. then, still. His challenged investigating committees hold, control procedures of, investigations nature. These recurring ones, certain repeated, cast doubt validity conviction congressional well. know law someone carry like two lower courts get here. 21 Decision urged favor Eisler. interests involved, might well forfeited flight. t due witnesses dissent expedient lends added credence petition, think merit. run away just has. 22 understood approving use Un-American Activities frequently power. unwarranted act judicial usurpation strip investigatory power, function supervising committees. affirm below responsibility behavior squarely shoulders Congress.1 What safety do, Christoffel 84, 1447, seems question.

Classification Label: 8