Legal Document

349 U.S. 458 75 Supreme Court Reporter 850 99 L.Ed. 1231 James R. ELLIS, as President of the Yonkers Committee for Peace, an Unincorporated Association, Petitioner,v.William DIXON et al., Members Board Education City Yonkers, etc. Number 20. Reargued April 20, 1955. Decided June 6, Mr. Emanuel Redfield, New York City, petitioner. Judge Raymond Hannon, N.Y., respondent. Daniel T. Scannell, York, amicus curiae. Justice HARLAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Upon reargument has come to conclusion that writ certiorari1 should be dismissed improvidently granted. 2 The Appeals denied petitioner's motion leave appeal without stating any ground its decision. 306 N.Y. 981, 115 North Eastern Reporter, 2nd Series 437. In these circumstances we must ascertain whether court's decision 'might' have rested on a nonfederal ground, if it did decline take jurisdiction. Stembridge versus State Georgia, 1952, 343 541, 547, 72 834, 837, 96 1130; see also Lynch People ex rel. Pierson, 1934, 293 52, 54, 55 16, 17, 79 191. We approach matter first by considering what petitioner alleged basis constitutional issues which he asks us review merits. 3 questions involved are respondents, members Education, in refusing use public school buildings Peace forum 'peace and war,' discriminated against Committee, so deprive Committee's their rights freedom speech, assembly, equal protection laws, under First Fourteenth Amendments. 4 Petitioner concedes may withhold facilities altogether from nonscholastic groups. It is implicit this concession recognizes make reasonable classifications determining extent schools shall available uses, not attacked score made applicable statute respondents' regulations.2 question regulations unconstitutionally vague was raised below, hence open here. Therefore burden grievance would seem respondents applied similar groups differently than they Peace. Any yet failed allege his pleading, upon prior answer, other organizations character been allowed schools. allegations pleading simply unnamed undescribed 'organizations' past 'for purpose assembly discussion.'3 Whether such way comparable nowhere appears pleading.4 And practice permitting shown. 5 What entirely too amorphous permit adjudication asserted. think most inference record Appeals' denial went rather suggested behalf proceeding right had followed wrong appellate route.5 This fortified two additional circumstances. If considered adequately presented, presumably saved putting lay right. See Civil Practice Act, § 592(5)(a).6 Otherwise assume desired thwart questions, assumption wholly unjustified record. Furthermore, York's intermediate court because insufficiency pleading.7 6 insuficiency reason appeal, decisions still room argument dismiss lack jurisdiction state adequate ground. established law finally concluded determination sufficiency pleadings asserting federal Some cases suggest scope our limited by-passed forms local procedure, follow find case want Cf. American Railway Express company Levee, 1923, 263 19, 21, 44 11, 12, 68 140; Davis Wechsler, 22, 24, 13, 14, 143. There can no suggestion by-passing instance. Other cases, however, indicate accept decide de novo ourselves. Boyd Nebraska Thayer, 1892, 143 135, 180, 12 375, 388, 36 103; Carter Texas, 1900, 177 442, 447, 20 687, 689, 839; National Bank Guthrie Center Anderson, 1926, 269 341, 346, 46 137, 70 295. Brown Western Alabama, 1949, 338 294, 296, 105, 106, 94 100. present case, route travel difference result. Even were look at ourselves novo, could empty sought presented. often refused inadequate See, e.g., International Brotherhood Teamsters Denver Milk Producers, Inc., 1948, 334 809, 1015, 92 1741; Rescue Army Municipal Court, 1947, 331 549, 575—585, 67 1409, 1423—1427, 91 1666; Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corporation Hirsch, 752, 762—763, 1493, 1498, 1796; Alabama Federation Labor McAdory, 1945, 325 450, 65 1384, 89 1725. prefer rest For tendered, consider same token justified pass them, therefore regard resting Vandalia Indiana South Bend, 1907, 207 359, 28 130, 52 246; Brinkmeier Missouri P.R. Co., 1912, 224 268, 32 412, 56 758. 7 conclude certiorari 8 Dismissed. 9 CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK, DOUGLAS CLARK dissent, believing petition sufficient discrimination Equal Protection Clause. Certiorari 347 926, 74 530, 98 1079. set both merits 348 881, 122. statute, insofar here, allows each board education adopt property, when purposes, following purposes: 'For holding social, civic recreational meetings entertainments, uses pertaining welfare community * *,' meetings, entertainments occasions where admission fees charged, proceeds thereof expended educational or charitable *' forums centers. Law, McK.Consol.Laws, chapter 414(3), (4), (6). clear last restricted subsequent language section only education. adopted do enlarge statute. After reciting refusal goes allege: '14. That pursuant Section 414 Law and/or predecessors, schoolhouses, grounds property purposes whereby all times herein mentioned permitted use. '15. since adoption aforesaid regulations, buildings, numerous (whose number best known accepted practice) used discussion. '16. time inform application, nor ask organization fulfill further requirements conditions permission them building '17. action failing give whereas freely granted others applying, evident concealing design discriminate said organization, there foundation fact, acts arbitrary unreasonable. '18. violates constituent speech guaranteed Constitution United States denies laws violation States.' noted affidavit support Appeals, attorney remedy vital defect including assertion, 'that obtained use' Education. But does appear ever amend respects. methods appeal. An lies, inter alia, 'directly construction constitution *.' N.Y.Const. Article VI, 7(1); N.Y.Civ.Prac.Act, 588(1)(a). lie right, Appellate Division Appeals. 7(6); 589. Had procedure depriving Parker Illinois, 333 571, 708, 886; Central Union Telephone Edwardsville, 1925, 190, 90, 229. provides 'upon right', appellant automatically entitled 30 days after file thus stated many instances re Arbitration between E. Milius Regal Shirt Corp., 1953, 305 562, 111 438; Brinn, 626, 738; Wuttke O'Connor, 694, 112 777; Hecht Monaghan, 800, 113 553; Auten Auten, 1954, 118 110. affirming judgment instance, Second Department, stated: 'The properly before court. However, facts establish legal relief establishes perform duty enjoined law.' 281 App.Div. 987, 120 N.Y.S.2d 854, 855.

Classification Label: 8