Legal Document

399 U.S. 383 90 Supreme Court Reporter 2013 26 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 684 Lester GUNN et al., Appellants,v.UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE TO END the WAR IN VIET NAM al. Number 7. Reargued April 29, 30, 1970. Decided June David W. Louisell, Berkeley, Cal., for appellants. Sam Houston Clinton, Jr., Austin, Tex., appellees. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion of Court. 1 On December 12, 1967, President Lyndon Johnson made a speech in Bell County, Texas, to crowd some 25,000 people, including many servicemen from nearby Fort Hood. The individual appellees1 arrived at edge with placards signifying their strong opposition our country's military presence Vietnam. Almost immediately after arrival, they were set upon by members crowd, subjected physical abuse, promptly removed scene police, turned over County officers, and taken jail. Soon afterwards, brought before justice peace on complaint signed deputy sheriff, charging them 'Dist Peace.' They pleaded not guilty, returned briefly jail, soon released $500 bond. 2 Nine days later this action federal district court against officials, asking that three-judge be convened, enforcement state disturbing-the-peace statute temporarily permanently enjoined, declared unconstitutional its face, 'and/or as applied conduct Plaintiffs herein.' question is Article 474 Vernon's Ann. Texas Penal Code, which then provided follows: 3 'Whoever shall go into or near any public place, private house, use loud vociferous, obscene, vulgar indecent language swear curse, yell shriek expose his her person another age sixteen (16) years over, rudely display pistol deadly weapon, manner calculated disturb persons present such place punished fine exceeding Two Hundred Dollars ($200).' 4 A few institution proceedings charges dismissed motion county attorney, because appellees' had within enclave did have jurisdiction. After dismissal defendants filed dismiss ground 'no useful purpose could now served granting an injunction prevent prosecution these suits same no longer exists.' appellees memorandum motion, conceding there was remaining controversy respect charges, but nonetheless retain jurisdiction grant injunctive declaratory relief unconstitutionality. stipulation facts submitted parties, along memoranda, affidavits, other documentary material. 5 With case posture, District weeks rendered per curiam opinion, expressing view constitutionally invalid, 289 F.Supp. 469. ended following final paragraph: 6 'We reach conclusion impermissibly unconstitutionally broad. herein are entitled judgment effect, worded, insofar it may affect rights guaranteed under First Amendment. However, Order mandate stayed cause pending next session, special general, legislature, time State may, if so desires, enact will meet constitutional requirements.' F.Supp., 475. 7 took direct appeal Court, relying 28 Code KF62 § 1253, we noted probable 393 819, 89 119, 21 90. originally argued last Term, was, 16, 1969, reargument 1969 Term. 395 956, 2096, 23 744. Reargument held 29 We want 8 jurisdictional parties rely, provides 9 'Except otherwise law, party order denying, notice hearing, interlocutory permanent civil action, suit proceeding required Act Congress heard determined three judges.' 10 thus explicit authorizing only judge 'granting denying * injunction.' Earlier Term occasion review history construe meaning Goldstein versus Cox, 396 471, 671, 24 663. In divided orders has power 1253 those preliminary injunctions. case, however, involves refined Goldstein. For here kind either injunction—interlocutory permanent. Cf. Rockefeller Catholic Medical Center, 397 820, 1517, 25 806; Mitchell Donovan, 398 427, 1763, 378. All write rather discursive ending paragraph quoted above.2 Legislature session 474, entered further kind. And even though Court's fully exposed original oral argument still during 15-month period elapsed again. 11 What deal mere technicality. supra, pointed out that: 'This more than once stated Three-Judge narrowly construed since 'any loose construction requirements (the Act) would defeat keep narrow confines appellate docket.' Phillips States, 312 (246), 250, 61 (480) 483 (85 L.Ed. 800). See Stainback Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 368, 375, 69 606, 610, 93 741 (1949); Moore Fidelity & Deposit Co., 272 317, 321, 47 105, 106, 71 273 (1926).' U.S., 478, S.Ct., 675. But underlying policy considerations fundamental economy judicial resources. 12 One basic reasons limit until issues injunction, enters one, simply possible know certainty what decided—a affairs conspicuously evident here. asked '(r)estraining appropriate Defendants, agents, servants, employees attorneys all others acting concert enforcement, operation execution 474.' Is 'injunctive relief' thought 'entitled'? If not, less enjoined. more? whom run? Did intend enjoin provisions statute? Or hold speech, so-called symbolic speech? confining attention part prohibits use, certain places conditions, 'loud vociferous language'? answers questions cannot divined degree assurance opinion. 13 Rule 65(d) Federal Rules Civil Procedure 'shall specific terms' describe reasonable detail act acts sought restrained.'3 As International Longshoremen's Assn. Local 1291 Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn., 389 64, 74, 88 201, 206, 19 236, 'Rule designed precisely sort confusion clouded command.' An extraordinary writ, enforceable contempt. 'The contempt potent weapon. When founded decree too vague understood, can one. responded danger requiring frame who must obey intends require means forbid.' Id., 76, 208. 14 That requirement essential cases where case. It absolutely vital nullify law duly enacted sovereign State. Watson Buck, 313 387, 962, 85 1416.4 15 absence has, fact, been recognized parties. new trial, appellants given 'an advisory opinion.' appellees, brief emphasized '(n)o kind—has ordered below.' Accordingly, said, properly raised precise form remedy granted.' asserted 'the issuance time, wit, remand issued neither nor one,5 'remand below' merits way all.6 16 restraint tact evidently motivated refraining entry understandable. when should enjoined unconstitutional—and fails follow up injunction—the result unfortunate best. confronted court, officials doubt hesitate long disregarding it. Yet order, unable intended enjoin, well 17 need hardly added doubtless unintended inadvertent. make point guidance future courts laws unconstitutional. 18 ordered. 20 Appeal dismissed. BLACKMUN consideration decision 22 WHITE, BRENNAN joins, concurring. N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions join deem express my viewed having operative effect invalidating issue phase reviewed Appeals, come directly limited appeals orders. agree that, amounts appealable appellee University Committee End War Viet Nam unincorporated association centered Texas. two one nonmember sympathetic purposes. also 'addendum' response trial. reads '(d) Form Scope Injunction Restraining Order. Every every restraining forth issuance; terms; detail, reference document, restrained; binding employees, attorneys, active partipation receive actual personal service otherwise.' This suggest lack specificity alone deprive 1253. semblance effort comply makes clear think itself constituted injunction. Even subsequent inaction considered denial demanded forthcoming, favor. Public Service commission Missouri Brashear Freight Lines, Inc., 306 204, 59 480, 83 608 (1939). do decide whether might 'judgment' Appeals Fifth Circuit. Hark, 320 531, 534, 64 359, 360, 290; Schaefer Brewing 356 227, 232—233, 78 674, 677 678, 721; Burns Ohio, 360 252, 254—257, 79 1164, 1166—1168, 1209. R. Robertson KF105 F3 Kirkham, Jurisdiction 45 (Wolfson Kurland ed. 1951). event, assume take formal sufficient precision clarity insure aggrieved availability appeal.

Classification Label: 8