GRIFFIN ET AL.
v.
MARYLAND; BELL ET AL. V. MARYLAND; BARR ET AL. V. CITY OF COLUMBIA; BOUIE ET AL. V. CITY OF COLUMBIA; ROBINSON ET AL. V. FLORIDA

U.S. | 1963-11-18
Nos. 6; No. 12; No. 9; No. 10; No. 60
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice White are of the opinion that the Court should not request the Department of Justice to file a brief concerning its views upon the basic constitutional issues on which the Department chose not to take a position in its original brief and in its oral argument.
375 U.S. 918 Supreme Court of the United States (1963) Positive Treatment

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.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court consolidated five cases involving sit-in demonstrations at segregated lunch counters in Maryland, South Carolina, and Florida to consider whether the convictions of the demonstrators violated constitutional protections. The Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief addressing broader constitutional issues regarding the sit-ins, though four Justices dissented from this request, believing the Court should not solicit the Department of Justice's views on issues it had previously declined to address.


© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court

Certiorari, 370 U. S. 935, to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Certiorari, 374 U. S. 805, to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Certiorari, 374 U. S. 804, to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Certiorari, 374 U. S. 805, to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of Florida. (Probable jurisdiction noted, 374 U. S. 803.) Argued October 15, 1963. In view of the statement of the Solicitor General on oral argument signifying “his readiness to express himself further, at the suggestion of the Court, to the broader constitutional issues which have been mooted,” the Solicitor General is invited to file a brief within 30 days expressing the views of the United States. Counsel for the parties may have 30 days thereafter to respond if they so desire.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice White are of the opinion that the Court should not request the Department of Justice to file a brief concerning its views upon the basic constitutional issues on which the Department chose not to take a position in its original brief and in its oral argument.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw