Volume 381 — United States Reports

Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the right to travel and area restrictions on passports (travel to Cuba), holding that the Secretary of State is statutorily authorized to refuse to validate the passports of United States citizens for travel to Cuba and that the exercise of that authority is constitutionally permissible.

Held: contrary to the District Court, that McCoy was acting in his military capacity at the time of the accident. 7 Of the other two members of the panel, Judge Hastie did not reach the question whether civilian Guard employees were embraced within the Tort Claims Act, and Judge Staley was in accord with the views of the District of Columbia Circuit in Meyer. 8 'The Congress shall have Power * * * 'To provide for calling…

Held: was considered to 'impose on taxpayers the duty of making burdensome computations.' See S.Rep.No.673, Part 1, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 30 (1941).

Held: both because it contemplated the utilization of water power for the interstate transmission of electricity and because it would affect downstream navigability, 27 F.P.C. 801.

from pages 139-141 intentionally omitted] Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., for plaintiff. Richard H. Keatinge, San Marino, Cal., for defendant. George N. Hayes, Anchorage, Alaska, for State of Alaska, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Held: the grand jury supersedes the complaint procedure by returning an indictment. This interpretation of the statute reflects its purpose by insuring that within a reasonable time following the filing of the complaint, either the Commissioner will decide whether there is sufficient cause to bind the defendant over for grand jury action, or the grand jury itself will have decided whether or not to indict.

from pages 233-234 intentionally omitted] Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., for petitioner. Norris Darrell, New York City, for respondent. Daniel B. Goldberg, New York City, for Attorney General of Louisiana and others, as amici curiae.

from pages 252-253 intentionally omitted] John W. McConnell, Jr., Mobile, Ala., for petitioner. Paul Bender, Asst. Sol. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.

from pages 279-280 intentionally omitted] John W. Douglas, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Held: was, 'totally unsupported by their pleadings and contrary to the record.' Accordingly, the Commission ordered respondents 'to testify * * * regarding all matters deemed relevant by said Presiding Officer,' and to produce the information required by the subpoena and 'such other information and data as may be deemed relevant and…

Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965), is a landmark First Amendment Supreme Court case, in which the ruling of the Supreme Court struck down § 305(a) of the Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act of 1962, a federal statute requiring the Postmaster General to detain and deliver only upon the addressee's request unsealed foreign mailings of "communist political propaganda."

from pages 311-312 intentionally omitted] Sidney P. Howell, Jr., New York City, for petitioner. Albert G. Besser, Newark, N.J., for respondent.

Held: however, that, in Nebraska, 'Habeas corpus is not available to discharge a prisoner from a sentence of penal servitude if the court imposing it had jurisdiction of the offense and of the person charged with the crime, and the sentence was within the power of the court.' 177 Neb., at 412, 129 N.W.2d, at 112.

from pages 357-359 intentionally omitted] Frederic L. Ballard, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., and John F. Sonnett, New York City, for petitioners. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

from pages 392-394 intentionally omitted] Sol. Gen. Archibald Cox and William T. Coleman, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioners. David T. Searls, Houston, Tex., for respondents.

Held: “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in places of public accommodation and removes peaceful attempts to be served on an equal basis from the category of punishable activities. Although the conduct in the present cases occurred prior to enactment of the Act, the still-pending convictions are abated by its passage.” The convictions in this case did not become final until today.

United States v. Brown 381 U.S. 437 (1965) was a decision of the US Supreme Court that upheld the rights of communists to hold leadership positions in labor unions.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to use contraceptives without government restriction. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its effect was "to deny disadvantaged citizens ...

Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court overturned the fraud conviction of petitioner Billy Sol Estes, holding that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights had been violated by the publicity associated with the pretrial hearing, which had been carried live on both television and radio. News photography was permitted throughout the trial and parts of it were broadcast as well.

Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires that new interpretations of constitutional criminal rights have retrospective effect.

from pages 657-658 intentionally omitted] Harrison Combs, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John A. Rowntree, Knoxville, Tenn., for respondents. Theodore J. St. Antoine, Washington, D.C., for American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, as amicus curiae.

from pages 676-678 intentionally omitted] Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. George B. Christensen, Chicago, Ill., for respondent. Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Held: first, that Chairman Dixon was disqualified from participating in the decision because he had indicated in a speech made while the case was pending that he had prejudged it. The majority of the court held, further, that the Commission's order was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

Held: as I read the opinion, that an injunction against any enforcement of any kind of the state statute (as distinguished from an order enjoining state officers from committing lawless acts) could issue there only because (1) there were threats of prosecutions purely to harass, with no hope of ultimate success, (2) the law was challenged as, and found to be on its face, an "overly broad and vague regulation of…