Legal Document

443 U.S. 709 99 Supreme Court Reporter 3086 61 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 860 Howard L. MORLAND et al.v.Robert Atlantic SPRECHER, Judge, of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, al. Number 78-1904. July 2, 1979. PER CURIAM. 1 On March 26, 1979, District Western Wisconsin entered a preliminary injunction restraining petitioners from publishing or otherwise disseminating an article entitled "The H-Bomb Secret: How We Got It, Why We're Telling It." June 21, one judge Circuit denied in part petitioners' motion expedited hearing their appeal. That is currently set September 10, 2 Petitioners seek writ mandamus to ordering it expedite They claim that parties who have been enjoined engaging constitutionally protected speech right prompt appellate review injunction. See National Socialist Party versus Skokie, 432 43, 97 2205, 53 96 (1977). also Nebraska Press Assn. Stuart, 423 1319, 237, 46 199 (1975) (BLACKMUN, J., chambers); 1327, 251, 237 chambers). In view conduct prosecuting appeal before Appeals, however, we conclude effectively relinquished whatever they might had consideration. 3 The Court's was on yet waited until 15, file meaningful Appeals. Prior time, (1) two weeks after its filing notice appeal, and then another week proposing be accorded special scheduling treatment; (2) proposal, suggested 89-day briefing schedule that—as knew—provided oral argument case, at earliest, 10 days Appeals' summer recess begin; (3) subsequent prehearing conference held by Senior Staff Attorney asked originally proposed extended additional three weeks, i. e., into latter half July; (4) participated second which panel discussed with parties, did not object either ordered court date; (5) pursuant conference, took 81 opening brief merits. It only upon 1979 (just four Circuit's scheduled begin), sought expedition. Accordingly, as petitioners, onus expedition would fallen entirely Government, severely limited opportunity respond brief, whose conscientious attempts during preceding months—by way conferences numerous discussions parties—to manage docket orderly fashion, frustrated. 4 true between May 8, were unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration based newly discovered information. But information affect essentials legal favor 26 order—i. ever since order issued, operating under allegedly unconstitutional irreparably injurious prior restraint against publication subject First Amendment protection. Because chose make long ripened, taken close months prepare own merits, forbore any Constitution afforded them. 5 leave petition 6 Denied. 7 Mr. Justice WHITE, whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 8 my declining hear arguments conclusion recess, has unduly delayed plenary consideration this case. And & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions do agree Brothers forfeited rights early had. Our cases indicate proffered justification should considered verified rejected courts without unnecessary delay. New York Times company States, 403 713, 91 2140, 29 822 (1971); Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 363, 1400, 28 Freedman Maryland, 380 51, 85 734, 13 649 (1965); cf. (1977); As see it, herein earliest date both practicable consistent mature questions involved. preferred reached stated then, assumption follow suggestion, withheld issuance mandamus. Connor Coleman, 440 612, 613-614, 1523, 1524, 59 619 (1979); 425 675, 679, 1814, 1816, 48 295 (1976); Bucolo Adkins, 424 641, 644, 1086, 1087, 47 301 Deen Hickman, 358 57, 58, 79 1, (1958); supra, U.S., 44, S.Ct., 2206; 1325-1326, 240. Of course, advancement Code KF62 § 1254(1), may request grant certiorari judgment

Classification Label: 8