ROSENBERG ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg sought a stay of their execution to allow time for a clemency petition to the President, which the Supreme Court denied on June 19, 1953. The Court held that while it could not interfere with the President's exclusive constitutional power of clemency, it would consider granting a stay if execution were imminent to permit a meaningful opportunity for clemency review. Justice Frankfurter's concurrence expressed concern that denying a stay might effectively preclude the clemency process from operating, though he assumed the execution time had not been fixed as stated by the petitioners.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Motion of the petitioners for a further stay of the execution, as set forth in the written motion, is denied.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter. On the assumption that the sentences against the Ro-senbergs are to be carried out at 11 o’clock tonight, their counsel ask this Court to stay their execution until opportunity has been afforded to them to invoke the constitutional prerogative of clemency. The action of this Court, and the division of opinion in vacating the stay granted by Mr. Justice Douglas, are, of course, a factor in the situation, which arose within the last hour. It is not for this Court even remotely to enter into the domain of clemency reserved by the Constitution exclusively to the President. But the Court must properly take into account the possible consequences of a stay or of a denial of a stay of execution of death sentences upon making an appeal for executive clemency. Were it established that counsel are correct in their assumption that the sentences of death are to be carried out at 11 p. m. tonight, I believe that it would be right and proper for this Court formally to grant a stay with a proper time-limit to give appropriate opportunity for the process of executive clemency to operate. I justifiably assume, however, that the time for the execution has not been fixed as of 11 o’clock tonight. Of course I respectfully assume that appropriate consideration will be given to a clemency application by the authority constitutionally charged with the clemency function.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1953)…nts cited Newman, Control of Information Eelating to Atomic Energy, 56 Yale L. J. 769. That article deals extensively with the relationship of sentences under the Atomic Energy Act to those under the Espionage Act. The order denying a further stay, 346 U. S. 322, reads: "Motion of the petitioners for a further stay of the execution, as set forth in the written motion, is denied. "Mr. Justice Black dissents. “Mr. Justice Frankfurter. “On the assumption that the sentences against the Rosenbergs are to be c…
-
Meredith v. Fair, 306 F.2d 374 (5th Cir. 1962)…ning the cause has inherent power to review the action of the single judge, whether or not the single judge is a member of the panel. Rosenberg v. United States, 1953, 346 U.S. 273, 73 S.Ct. 1152, 97 L.Ed. 1607, reconsideration denied, 346 U.S. 324, 73 S.Ct. 1178, 97 L.Ed. 1634, reconsideration denied, 346 U.S. 324, 73 S.Ct. 1178, 97 L.Ed. 1634. A contrary position would allow a judge in the minority, were he a member of the panel deciding the case, to frustrate the mandate of the majority. And, it is unthi…1 / 2