Legal Document

420 U.S. 139 95 Supreme Court Reporter 853. 43 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 85 James Pacific KF135 P2 LEE, Jr., and Ronald Richv.William THORNTON, District Director, Customs Service, et al. Number 73—7006. Feb. 18, 1975. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellants brought actions in the for of Vermont that challenged constitutionality, facially as applied, various provisions customs laws, 46 Statutes-at-Large 717 757, amended, 19 Code KF62 §§ 1460 1618, mandate procedures to effect forfeiture remission or mitigation penalties imposed after Border Patrol agents apprehended them seized their vehicles when they crossed border from Canada without passing through a station. The complaints sought (1) declaratory judgments were unconstitutional, (2) injunctions against enforcement, (3) mandamus relief requiring return moneys paid mitigated forfeitures based on violations (4) damages. A three-judge court was convened. held it had jurisdiction under Tucker Act, 28 § 1346(a)(2), rejected appellants' constitutional claims, enjoined appellees applying laws except construed by court, declined remit fines, returned single-judge question 2 did not address other alternative bases asserted complaints. district courts Act over '(a)ny . civil action claim founded either upon Constitution, any Congress .' does include claims enjoin enforcement laws. empowers award damages but grant injunctive relief. Richardson versus Morris, 409 464, 93 629, 34 647 (1973); King, 395 1, 89 1501, 23 52 (1969); Sherwood, 312 584, 589—591, 61 767, 771—772, L.Ed. 1058 (1941). It follows improperly convened, this therefore has no entertain appeal Court's refusal additional claims. Appellants' motion leave proceed forma pauperis is granted, judgment vacated, case remanded consideration jurisdiction. 3 So ordered. 4 Vacated remanded. 5 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS MARSHALL took part decision case.

Classification Label: 8