Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T11:43:14.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constitutional Law in 1954–1955

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

David Fellman
David Fellman
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On October 9, a week after the 1954 Term began, Justice Robert H. Jackson died, and for his place the President nominated Judge John Marshall Harlan, on November 8, 1954. Judge Harlan had been appointed in March, 1953, to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Senate did not act on the Harlan nomination until March 16, 1955, when it was confirmed by a vote of 71–11, and the new Justice took the oath of office on March 28. Accordingly, the Court was handicapped during much of the Term by not having a full bench, and apparently the argument of important cases was delayed until the vacancy was filled. Former Justice Owen J. Roberts, who had taken his seat on appointment by President Hoover on June 2, 1930, and resigned July 31, 1945, died on May 17, 1955.

At the end of the Term, Chief Justice Warren announced that henceforth the Court will not hear oral arguments or hold open sessions on Friday, which will be reserved for the conferences of the Justices. Thus the ancient practice of holding the “recitation periods” on Saturday has, at least for the present, come to an end.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 1956 , pp. 43 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On Justice Jackson see: Symposium, with articles by Frankfurter, Felix, Gardner, Warner W., Fairman, Charles, and Taylor, Telford, in the Columbia Law Review, Vol. 55, pp. 435–525 (April, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jaffe, Louis L., “Mr. Justice Jackson”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 68, pp. 940–98 (April, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weidner, Paul A., “Justice Jackson and the Judicial Function”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 53, pp. 567–94 (Feb., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bishop, W. W. Jr., “Robert H. Jackson”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 49, pp. 44–50 (Jan., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. At the time of his death, Justice Jackson was working on the Godkin lectures, which he was scheduled to deliver at Harvard early in 1955. They have been published under the title,The Supreme Court in the American System of Government (Cambridge, 1955)Google Scholar.

2 See Ballantine, Arthur A., “John M. Harlan for the Supreme Court”, Iowa Law Review, Vol. 40, pp. 391–99 (Spring, 1955)Google Scholar; Friedman, Edward L. Jr., “Mr. Justice Harlan”, Notre Dame Lawyer, Vol. 30, pp. 349–59 (May, 1955)Google Scholar.

3 349 U.S. 971.

4 See Crosskey, William Winslow, “Charles Fairman, ‘Legislative History,’ and the Constitutional Limitations on State Authority”, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 22, pp. 1–143 (Autumn, 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Charles Fairman, “A Reply to Professor Crosskey,” ibid., pp. 144–56; Brown, Stuart Gerry, “Politics and Mr. Crosskey's Constitution, I”, Syracuse Law Review, Vol. 6, pp. 261–72 (Spring, 1955)Google Scholar; Petro, Sylvester, “Crosskey and the Constitution: A Reply to Goebel”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 53, pp. 312–49 (Dec., 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Rodell, Fred, Nine Men (New York, 1955)Google Scholar. See also: Corwin, Edward S., Our Expendable Constitution (University of Illinois Bulletin, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, 1955)Google Scholar; Burton, Harold H., “Unsung Services of the Supreme Court of the United States”, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 24, pp. 169–77 (Summer, 1955)Google Scholar; Peltason, Jack W., Federal Courts in the Political Process (Garden City, N.Y., 1955)Google Scholar; Rosenblum, Victor G., Law as a Political Instrument (Garden City, N.Y., 1955)Google Scholar; Mayers, Lewis, The American Legal System (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Mendelson, Wallace, “Mr. Justice Frankfurter and the Process of Judicial Review”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 103, pp. 295–320 (Dec., 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weiss, Leo, “Justice Murphy and the Welfare Question”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 53, pp. 541–66 (Feb., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yankwich, Leon R., “Some Challenges to Our Constitutional Ideals”, Southern California Law Review, Vol. 28, pp. 1–17 (Dec., 1954)Google Scholar; McWhinney, Edward, “The Supreme Court and the Dilemma of Judicial Policy-Making”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 39, pp. 837–51 (June, 1955)Google Scholar; Dean, Howard E., “Judicial Review, Judicial Legislation, and Judicial Oligarchy”, Oregon Law Review, Vol. 34, pp. 20–32 (Dec., 1954)Google Scholar.

6 See: Stouffer, Samuel A., Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Hofstadter, Richard and Metzger, Walter P., The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; MacIver, Robert M., Academic Freedom in Our Time (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; American Civil Liberties Union, 34th Annual Report, America's Need: A New Birth of Freedom (New York, 1954)Google Scholar; Fraenkel, Osmond K., The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties, rev. ed. (American Civil Liberties Union, New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Natural Law and Natural Rights, ed. Harding, Arthur L. (Dallas, 1955)Google Scholar; Kempton, Murray, Part of Our Time (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Beth, Loren P., “The Case for Judicial Protection of Civil Liberties”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 17, pp. 100–12 (Feb., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fuller, Lon L., “Freedom—A Suggested Analysis”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 68, pp. 1305–25 (June, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ploscowe, Morris, “A Modern Law of Arrest”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 39, pp. 473–77 (April, 1955)Google Scholar; Roy Moreland, “Some Trends in the Law of Arrest,” ibid., pp. 479–92; Caleb Foote, “Tort Remedies for Police Violations of Individual Rights,” ibid., pp. 493–516; Tresolini, Rocco, Taylor, R. W., and Barnett, E. B., “Arrest without Warrant: Extent and Social Implications”, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol. 46, pp. 187–98 (July–Aug., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mendelson, Wallace, “Foreign Reactions to American Experience with Due Process of Law”, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 41, pp. 493–503 (May, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, “The Doctrine of Immunity under the Civil Rights Acts”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 68, pp. 1229–40 (May, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Colby, Lauren, “Recent Developments in the Right to Public Trial”, Syracuse Law Review, Vol. 6, pp. 339–46 (Spring, 1955)Google Scholar; Note, “Constitutionality of Rebuttable Statutory Presumptions”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 55, pp. 527–49 (April, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 On free speech problems see: Chenery, William L., Freedom of the Press (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Haight, Anne Lyon, Banned Books, 2d ed. (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Congress for Cultural Freedom, Science and Freedom (Boston, 1955)Google Scholar; University of Michigan Law School, Communications Media: Legal and Policy Problems (Ann Arbor, 1954)Google Scholar; Brownell, Herbert Jr., “Freedom and Responsibility of the Press in a Free Country”, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 34, pp. 178–86 (Summer, 1955)Google Scholar; Shuman, S. I., “Publicizing Judicial Proceedings”, Wayne Law Review, Vol. 1, pp. 1–44 (Winter, 1954)Google Scholar; Note, “Free Press and Fair Trial—A Conflict”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 39, pp. 431–44 (March, 1955)Google Scholar; Jones, Edgar A. Jr., “Picketing and the Communication of Ideas”, U.C.L.A. Law Review, Vol. 2, pp. 212–23 (Feb., 1955)Google Scholar; Note, “Regulation of Comic Books”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 68, pp. 489–506 (Jan., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, “Crime Comics and the Constitution”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 7, pp. 237–60 (March, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Comment, “Censorship of Obscene Literature by Informal Governmental Action”, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 22, pp. 216–33 (Autumn, 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Whelan, Charles M., “Censorship and the Constitutional Concept of Morality”, Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 547–81 (June, 1955)Google Scholar; Beth, Loren P., “Group Libel and Free Speech”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 39, pp. 167–84 (Jan., 1955)Google Scholar; Yankwich, Leon R., “Private Libel or Public Exhortation”, Notre Dame Lawyer, Vol. 30, pp. 245–72 (March, 1955)Google Scholar; Murphy, Jay W., Games, T. J., and Kaufman, Samuel II, “Book Labelling—An Ominous Venture in Censorship”, Alabama Law Review, Vol. 6, pp. 186–234 (Spring, 1954)Google Scholar.

On freedom of religion questions see: Snee, J. M., “Religious Disestablishment and the Fourteenth Amendment”, Washington University Law Quarterly, Vol. 1954, pp. 371–407 (Dec., 1954)Google Scholar; Punke, Harold H., “Religious Issues in American Public Education”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 20, pp. 138–68 (Winter, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cushman, Robert F., “The Holy Bible and the Public Schools”, Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 475–99 (Spring, 1955)Google Scholar; Rodes, Robert E. Jr., “Religious Education and the Historical Method of Constitutional Interpretation”, Rutgers Law Review, Vol. 9, pp. 682–95 (Summer, 1955)Google Scholar; Pfeffer, Leo, “Released Time and Religious Liberty: A Reply”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 53, pp. 91–98 (Nov., 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Paul G. Kauper, “Released Time and Religious Liberty: A Further Reply,” ibid., pp. 233–36; Blum, Virgil C., “Religious Liberty and the Religious Garb”, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 22, pp. 875–88 (Summer, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Comment, “Religious Garb in the Public Schools: A Study in Conflicting Liberties”, ibid., pp. 888–95; Note, “The First Amendment and Distribution of Religious Literature in the Public Schools”, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 41, pp. 789–807 (Oct., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blum, Virgil C., “Religious Liberty and Bus Transportation”, Notre Dame Lawyer, Vol. 30, pp. 384–437 (May, 1955)Google Scholar; Pfeffer, Leo, “Religion in the Upbringing of Children”, Boston University Law Review, Vol. 35, pp. 333–93 (June, 1955)Google Scholar; Overton, Elvin E., “Religion and Adoption”, Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 23, pp. 951–58 (June, 1955)Google Scholar; Note, “Constitutionality of Mandatory Religious Requirements in Child Care”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 64, pp. 772–86, (April, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cawley, C. C., “Criminal Liability in Faith Healing”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 39, pp. 48–74 (Dec., 1954)Google Scholar.

8 There was a great deal of writing during the Term under discussion on various aspects of security problems. See: Goldbloom, Maurice J., American Security and Freedom (Boston, 1954)Google Scholar; O'Brian, John Lord, National Security and Individual Freedom (Cambridge, Mass., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mason, Alpheus T., Security through Freedom (Ithaca, 1955)Google Scholar; Chase, Harold W., Security and Liberty: The Problem of Native Communists, 1947–1955 (Garden City, N. Y., 1955)Google Scholar; Merson, Martin, The Private Diary of a Public Servant (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Murray, Robert K., Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919–1920 (Minneapolis, 1955)Google Scholar; Symposium, “Secrecy, Security, and Loyalty”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scienists, Vol. 11, pp. 106–69 (April, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and see especially Morgenthau, Hans, “The Impact of the Loyalty-Security Measures on the State Department”, pp. 134–40Google Scholar; Symposium, “Internal Security and Civil Rights”, Annals of the American Academy, Vol. 300, July, 1955Google Scholar; Note, “Federal Anti-Subversive Legislation of 1954”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 55, pp. 631–747 (May, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Comment, “The Communist Control Act of 1954”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 64, pp. 712–65 (April, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blumrosen, A. W., “Repeated Federal Employee Security Adjudications”, Wayne Law Review, Vol. 1, pp. 77–104 (Spring, 1955)Google Scholar; Dotson, Arch, “The Emerging Doctrine of Privilege in Public Employment”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 15, pp. 77–88 (Spring, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haerle, Paul R., “The Communist Control Act of 1954”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 53, pp. 1153–65 (June, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hunt, Alan Reeve, “Federal Supremacy and State Anti-Subversive Legislation”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 53, pp. 407–38 (Jan., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Comment, “Control of Communist Unions; A New Approach”, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 50, pp. 396–409 (July–Aug., 1955)Google Scholar; Note, “Government Exclusion of Foreign Political Propaganda”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 68, pp. 1393–1409 (June, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Westin, A. F., “Critique of Civil Libertarian Reactions to the ‘Communist Problem’”, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 50, pp. 58–70 (March–April, 1955)Google Scholar. See also the following publications of the Fund for the Republic: Preliminary Study, Personnel Security Programs of the Federal Government (1954)Google Scholar; Digest of the Public Record of Communism in the United States (1955); Bibliography on the Communist Problem in the United States (1955); Yarmolinsky, Adam, Case Studies in Personnel Security (Washington: Bureau of National Affairs, 1955)Google Scholar; Watts, Rowland, The Draftee and Internal Security (New York: Workers Defense League, 1955)Google Scholar.

9 349 U.S. 331 (1955). See Sirotkin, Phillip, “The Peters Case”, The Nation. Vol. 180, pp. 438–40 (May 21, 1955)Google Scholar.

10 341 U.S. 918 (1951).

11 182 F. 2d 46 (1950). See this Review, Vol. 46, pp. 165–67 (March, 1955).

12 Congress has not been altogether indifferent to the current criticisms of the security program. It has passed an act, approved August 9, 1955, creating a 12-member Commission on Government Security tp study and investigate the entire federal program. The Commission is required to submit a final report not later than December 31, 1956. Public Law 304, 84th Cong., 1st sess., c. 664.

13 For writings during the year under review dealing with self-incrimination problems see: Griswold, Erwin N., The Fifth Amendment Today (Cambridge, Mass., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; April, Nathan, “A Reappraisal of the Immunity from Self-incrimination”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 39, pp. 75–92 (Dec., 1954)Google Scholar; Flint, George S., “Witness Immunity Act of 1954”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 53, pp. 858–71 (April, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, C. D., “Problems of the Fifth Amendment”, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 24, pp. 19–52 (Spring, 1955)Google Scholar; Dixon, Robert G. Jr., “The Doctrine of Separation of Powers and Federal Immunity Statutes”, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 23, pp. 501–34, 627–57 (April, June, 1955)Google Scholar; Hyman, Arthur B., “What Price Constitutional Immunity?” Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 23, pp. 931–42 (June, 1955)Google Scholar; Inbau, Fred E., “Should We Abolish the Constitutional Privilege against Self-incrimination?”, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Polic Science, Vol. 45, pp. 180–84 (July–Aug., 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Noonan, John T. Jr., “Inferences from the Invocation of the Privilege against Self-incrimination”, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 41, pp. 311–42 (April, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

On closely related topics see: Redlich, N., “Searches, Seizures, and Self-incrimination in Tax Cases”, Tax Law Review, Vol. 10, pp. 191–212 (Jan., 1955)Google Scholar; Schwartz, Louis B., “On Current Proposals to Legalize Wire Tapping”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 103, pp. 157–67 (Nov., 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, “State Exclusionary Rule as a Deterrent against Unreasonable Search and Seizure”, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 45, pp. 697–707 (March–April, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, “State Police, Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence and Section 242 of the Civil Rights Statute”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 7, pp. 76–96 (Dec., 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Edwards, Richard A., “Criminal Liability for Unreasonable Searches and Seizures”, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 41, pp. 621–32 (June, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, “Constitutional Limits on the Admissibility in the Federal Courts of Evidence Obtained from Required Records”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 68, pp. 340–49 (Dec., 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 See: Barth, Alan, Government by Investigation (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Taylor, Telford, Grand Inquest: The Story of Congressional Investigations (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Legislative Reference Service, Congressional Power of Investigation, Sen. Doc. 99, 83d Cong., 2d sess., (1954)Google Scholar; Tompkins, Dorothy C., Investigating Procedures of Congressional Committees: A Bibliography (Berkeley: Bureau of Public Administration, University of California, 1954)Google Scholar; Tunstall, Robert B., “Scope and Limitations of the Investigating Power of Congress”, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 40, pp. 875–97 (Nov., 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hoffmann, Walter F., “The Legitimate Functions of a Congressional Investigation”, Rutgers Law Review, Vol. 9, pp. 528–43 (Spring, 1955)Google Scholar.

15 349 U.S. 155 (1955).

16 Citing McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 173–74 (1927); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190 (1881).

17 Citing United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953). The Chief Justice seema to believe that Congress has only legislative functions.

18 Citing Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 192–93 (1881).

19 Nothing was cited.

20 The cases cited on this point were: Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); Brunner v. United States, 343 U.S. 918 (1952); Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951). The Hoffman case grew out of an investigation of violations of customs narcotics and liquor laws, and had nothing to do with so-called subversive activity.

21 The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had previously ruled that criminal intent did not have to be proved to establish a violation of Section 192. See Barsky v. United States, 167 F. 2d 241 (App. D.C. 1948); Fields v. United States, 164 F. 2d 97 (App. D.C. 1947).

22 349 U.S. 190 (1955).

23 349 U.S. 219(1955).

24 See: Auerbach, Frank L., Immigration Laws of the United States (Indianapolis, 1955)Google Scholar; Schwartz, Charles P. Jr., “American Immigration Policy”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 55, pp. 311–41 (March, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Comment, “The Expatriation Act of 1954”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 64, pp. 1164–1200 (July, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frantz, Laurent B., “Deportation Deliriums”, The Nation, Vol. 180, pp. 258–64 (March 26, 1955)Google Scholar.

25 Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229 (1953). See this Review, Vol. 48, pp. 67–68 (March, 1954).

26 Rubinstein v. Brownell, 92 App. D.C. 328, 206 F. 2d 449 (1953).

27 346 U.S. 929 (1954).

28 349 U.S. 48 (1955).

29 Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel. Accardi, 349 U.S. 280 (1955).

30 U.S. ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954). See this Review, Vol. 49, pp. 70–71 (March, 1955).

31 349 U.S. 302 (1955).

32 339 U.S. 33 (1950).

33 64 Stat. 1048 (1951).

34 Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522 (1954); Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952).

35 Citin g as examples Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 138–39 (1810); Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277 (1867); Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333 (1867).

36 348 U.S. 26 (1954). The problems growing out of urban redevelopment were explored extensively during the year. See: Symposium, “Land Planning in a Democracy”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 20, pp. 197–350 (Spring, 1955)Google Scholar, and especially, Johnson, Corwin W., “Constitutional Law and Community Planning”, pp. 199–217Google Scholar; Symposium, “Urban Housing and Planning”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 20, pp. 351–529 (Summer, 1955)Google Scholar; Note, “Public Use as a Limitation on Eminent Domain in Urban Renewal”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 68, pp. 1422–36 (June, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lavine, Richard A., “Extent of Judicial Inquiry into Power of Eminent Domain”, Southern California Law Review, Vol. 28, pp. 369–83 (July, 1955)Google Scholar; Rodda, Clinton, “The Accomplishment of Aesthetic Purposes under the Police Power”, Southern California Law Review, Vol. 27, pp. 149–79 (Feb., 1954)Google Scholar; Bergs, Robert A., “Aesthetics as a Justification for the Exercise of the Police Power or Eminent Domain”, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 23, pp. 730–50 (June, 1955)Google Scholar.

37 Compare this decision with City of New Orleans v. Levy 223 La. 14, 64 So. 2d 798 (1953), wherein the Supreme Court of Louisiana held constitutional a city ordinance providing for the preservation of the quaint and distinctive character of the Vieux Carré section of New Orleans by imposing restrictions on the use of signs and on building alterations. The court said that “perhaps aesthetic considerations alone would not warrant an imposition” of these restrictions, and therefore went on to argue that the legislation had commercial value also, and would promote the welfare of the community. For recent comparable decisions see: Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, 128 N.E. 2d 557 (Mass. 1955); State ex rel. Saveland Park Holding Corp. v. Wieland, 269 Wis. 262, 69 N.W. 2d 217 (1955), certiorari denied, 76 S. Ct. 81 (1955).

38 348 U.S. 272 (1955).

39 60 Stat. 1049.

40 Otoe and Missouria Tribe of Indians v. United States, 131 F. Supp. 265 (1955), certiorari denied, 76 S. Ct. 82 (1955)

41 Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).

42 Confirmed in Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1 (1952).

43 Isserman v. Ethics Committee. 345 U.S. 927 (1953).

44 In re Isserman, 345 U.S. 286 (1953). Justice Clark did not participate.

45 346 U.S. 949–1018.

46 In re Disbarment of Isserman, 348 U.S. 1 (1954).

47 Application of Levy, 214 F. 2d 331 (1954).

48 In re Levy, 348 U.S. 978 (1955).

49 Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1.(1952).

50 Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954).

51 Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 539 (1925).

52 In dissenting opinions in Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1 (1952) and Isserman v. Ethics Committee, 345 U.S. 927 (1953).

53 345 U.S. 22.

54 348 U.S. 419 (1955).

55 Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 (1954); Friedberg v. United States, 348 U.S. 142 (1954); Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147 (1954); United States V. Calderon, 348 U.S. 160 (1954). Since 1943, when the Court last reviewed a case involving the net worth approach, United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 503 (1943), it had consistently refused to grant certiorari in such cases. See Mills, Leslie, “The Net Worth Approach in Determining Income”, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 41, pp. 927–57 (Nov., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burns, J. W. and Racklin, M. L., “Trial by Net Worth”, Taxes, Vol. 33, pp. 121–30 (Feb., 1955)Google Scholar.

56 Holland v. United States, supra.

57 Smith v. United States, supra.

58 348 U.S. 222 (1955).

59 Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922).

60 Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U.S. 356 (1953). See this Review, Vol. 49, pp. 74–75 (March, 1955).

61 United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assoc., 322 U.S. 533 (1944).

62 Hart v. B. F. Keith Vaudeville Exchange, 262 U.S. 271 (1923).

63 Justices Burton and Reed concurred for the reasons given by Justice Burton in his dissenting opinion in the Toolson case. Justice Minton concurred because he thought this case was controlled by the Hart case.

64 348 U.S. 236 (1955).

65 Congress has on occasion exempted particular activities from the antitrust laws: e.g., labor organizations, 38 Stat. 731 (1914), agricultural associations, 42 Stat. 388 (1922), and insurance, 59 Stat. 34 (1945).

66 348 U.S. 115 (1954).

67 On sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C., for $1.00.

68 See especially the general dissent of Professor Schwartz, Louis B., Report, pp. 390–92Google Scholar.

69 See the symposium on this section of the Report in the Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 50, pp. 305–48 (July–Aug., 1955)Google Scholar. See also Stocking, George W., “The Rule of Reason, Workable Competition, and Monopoly”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 64, pp. 110762 (July, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Congress raised the maximum fine to $50,000 per count in 1955, Act of July 7, 1955 Public Law 135, 84th Cong., 1st sess., c. 281.

71 Congress has passed such a law, Act of July 7, 1955, Public Law 137, 84th Cong., 1st sess., c. 283.

72 349 U.S. 427 (1955). See Beth, Loren P., “Essentiality to Production for Commerce”, Missouri Law Review, Vol. 20, pp. 256–72 (June, 1955)Google Scholar.

73 Raymond v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 243 U.S. 43 (1917).

74 See Fay, Richard J., “En Banc Proceedings in the United States Courts of Appeals”, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 22, pp. 482–92 (March, 1954)Google Scholar.

75 Granville-Smith v. Granville-Smith, 349 U.S. 1 (1955).

76 For recent writings on administrative law topics see: Note, “Judicial Review of Reversals of Policies by Administrative Agencies”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 68, pp. 1251–60 (May, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fuchs, Ralph F., “The Hearing Officer Problem—Symptom and Symbol”, Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 281–325 (Winter, 1955)Google Scholar; Davis, Kenneth Culp, “Standing to Challenge Governmental Action”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 39, pp. 353–430 (March, 1955)Google Scholar; “Ripeness of Governmental Action for Judicial Review”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 68, pp. 1122–53, 1326–73 (May, June, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 327 U.S. 114 (1946).

78 346 U.S. 389 (1953). See this Review, Vol. 49, pp. 84–85 (March, 1955).

79 346 U.S. 1 (1953). See this Review, Vol. 48, p. 75 (March, 1954).

80 348 U.S. 375 (1955). See Tietz, J. B., “Jehovah's Witnesses: Conscientious Objectors”, Southern California Law Review, Vol. 28, pp. 123–37 (Feb., 1955)Google Scholar.

81 348 U.S. 385 (1955).

82 348 U.S. 397 (1955).

83 348 U.S. 407 (1955).

84 349 U.S. 458 (1955).

85 349 U.S. 375 (1955).

86 345 U.S. 559 (1953).

87 Williams v. State, 88 S.E. 2d 376.

88 348 U.S. 511 (1955).

89 Montgomery Bldg. Council v. Ledbetter Erection Co., 344 U.S. 178 (1952).

90 348 U.S. 48 (1954).

91 348 U.S. 310 (1955).

92 Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648 (1895).

93 348 U.S. 437 (1955). For an able discussion of the complexities involved in this litigation see: Wollett, Donald H. and Wellington, Harry H., “Federalism and Breach of the Labor Agreement”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 7, pp. 445–79 (July, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 348 U.S. 356 (1955).

95 On the due process clause see: Graham, Howard J., “Our ‘Declaratory’ Fourteenth Amendment”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 7, pp. 3–39 (Dec., 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, “An Innocent Abroad: The Constitutional Corporate ‘Person’”, U.C.L.A. Law Review, Vol. 2, pp. 155–211 (Feb., 1955)Google Scholar; Holmes, Robert M., “The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights—An Historical Interpretation”, South Carolina Law Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 596–619 (Summer, 1955)Google Scholar; Beisel, Albert R. Jr., “Control over Illegal Enforcement of the Criminal Law: Role of the Supreme Court”, Boston University Law Review, Vol. 34, pp. 413–48 (Nov., 1954)Google Scholar, Vol. 35, pp. 1–76 (Jan., 1955); Collings, Rex A. Jr., “Unconstitutional Uncertainty—An Appraisal”, Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 195–237 (Winter, 1955)Google Scholar; Note, “The Right of State Appeal in Criminal Cases”, Rutgers Law Review, Vol. 9, pp. 545–54 (Spring, 1955)Google Scholar.

96 348 U.S. 483(1955).

97 279 U.S. 337 (1929).

98 94 U.S. 113(1876).

99 See Semler v. Oregon State Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608, 611 (1935).

100 333 U.S. 257 (1948).

101 349 U.S. 133 (1955).

102 Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927).

103 Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1 (1952).

104 Regan v. New York, 349 U.S. 58 (1955).

105 348 U.S. 37 (1954).

106 167 U.S. 409 (1897).

107 316 U.S. 455 (1942).

108 348 U.S. 3 (1954). Consult: Beany, William M., The Right to Counsel in American Courts (Ann Arbor, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and see the review by Donnelly, Richard C. in Yale Law Journal, Vol. 64, pp. 1089–95 (June, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fellman, David, “The Right to Counsel under State Law”, Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 1955, pp. 281–328 (March, 1955)Google Scholar. It is of interest that once again the Judicial Conference of the United States has approved proposed legislation which would provide for the appointment of public defenders by federal district courts which wanted them, or in the alternative would allow compensation to counsel appointed to represent indigent defendants. Report of the Proceedings of a Special Session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, March 24, 25, 1955, Washington D.C., p. 21Google Scholar.

109 348 U.S. 105 (1954).

110 See Note, “Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 55, pp. 196–209 (Feb., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). See this Review, Vol. 49, pp. 96–99 (March, 1955). There was much discussion of the problem of school segregation during the Term. See: Woodward, C. Vann, The Strange Career of Jim Crow (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Williams, Robin M. Jr., and Ryan, Margaret W., Schools in Transition (Chapel Hill, 1954)Google Scholar; Pierce, Truman and others, White and Negro Schools in the South (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1955)Google Scholar; Paul, James C. N., The School Segregation Decision (Chapel Hill: Institute of Government, University of North Carolina, 1954)Google Scholar; Hill, Herbert and Greenberg, Jack, Citizen's Guide to De-Segregation (Boston, 1955)Google Scholar; Smith, Lillian, Now Is the Time (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Symposium, “Segregation in the Public Schools”, Journal of Public Law, Vol. 3, pp. 5–170 (Spring, 1954)Google Scholar; Sutherland, Arthur E., “Segregation by Race in Public Schools: Retrospect and Prospect”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 20, pp. 169–83 (Winter, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bertain, George J. Jr., “Racial Segregation in the Public Schools”, Catholic University of America Law Review, Vol. 5, pp. 141–56 (May, 1955)Google Scholar; Rorty, James, “Desegregation along the Mason-Dixon Line”, Commentary, Vol. 18, pp. 493–503 (Dec., 1954)Google Scholar. For a brilliant discussion of the school segregation cases see Edmond Cahn, “1954 Annual Survey of American Law: Jurisprudence”, New York University Law Review, Vol. 30, pp. 150–69 (Jan., 1955)Google Scholar.

112 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955).

113 See Note, “Supreme Court Equity Jurisdiction: The Decrees in the Segregation Cases”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 64, pp. 124–36 (Nov., 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, “Implementation of the Segregation Decisions”, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 49, pp. 557–66 (Sept.–Oct., 1954)Google Scholar; Nicholson, F. B., “Legal Standing of the South's School Resistance Proposals”, South Carolina Law Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 1–64 (Fall, 1954)Google Scholar; Winter, William F., “Mississippi's Legislative Approach to the School Segregation Problem”, Mississippi Law Review, Vol. 26, pp. 165–72 (March, 1955)Google Scholar.

114 Vol. 1. No. 1, appeared September 3, 1954. The subscription rate is $2 for a year, $3.75 for two years. The address is P.O. Box 6156, Acklen Station, Nashville 5, Tennessee.

115 Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control of Florida, 347 U.S. 971 (1954).

116 State ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 60 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1952).

117 State ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 83 So. 2d 20 (Fla., Oct. 19, 1955).

118 Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, 245 Iowa 147, 60 N.W. 2d 110 (1953).

119 Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). See Vose, Clement E., “N.A.A.C.P. Strategy in the Covenant Cases”, Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 6, pp. 101–45 (Winter, 1945)Google Scholar.

120 109 U.S. 3, 17 (1883).

121 Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, 348 U.S. 880 (1954).

122 349 U.S. 70 (1955).

123 The gentle reader will be delighted to know that we now have it on the authority of a California judge that God does not permit segregation in the hereafter. Dooling J., concurring in Long v. Mountain View Cemetery Association, 130 C.A. 2d 328, 330, 278 P.2d 945, 946 (App. 1st Dist, 1955). The court held in this case that a cemetery was not a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the state equal rights law, and therefore dismissed an action for damages brought under it. The concurring judge denounced burial ground segregation as “a particularly stupid form of human arrogance and intolerance.”

For writings on other equal protection issues see: Abrams, Charles, Forbidden Neighbors: A Study of Prejudice in Housing (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Note, “The Operation of State Fair Employment Practices Commissions”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 68, pp. 685–97 (Feb., 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carter, Elmer A., “Practical Considerations of Anti-Discrimination Legislation-Experience under the New York Law against Discrimination”, Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 40–59 (Fall, 1954)Google Scholar; Note, “Segregation in Recreation”, Nebraska Law Review, Vol. 34, pp. 553–63 (March, 1955)Google Scholar; Foley, Patrick J., “Class Discrimination in Selection of Jurors”, Catholic University of America Law Review, Vol. 5, pp. 157–72 (May, 1955)Google Scholar.

124 Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 348 U.S. 61 (1954).

125 348 U.S. 468 (1955). See Schwarzer, William W., “Enforcing Federal Supremacy: Relief against Federal-State Regulatory Conflicts”, California Law Review, Vol. 43, pp. 234–50 (May, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

126 Cox v. Roth, 348 U.S. 207 (1955).

127 United States v. Acri, 348 U.S. 211 (1955). See Keyser, Arthur S., “Federal Tax Liens under the Federal Tax and Priority Statutes”, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 22, pp. 583–91 (April, 1954)Google Scholar.

128 United States v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Co., 348 U.S. 215 (1955).

129 United States v. Scovil, 348 U.S. 218 (1955).

130 See Des Moines National Bank v. Fairweather, 263 U.S. 103 (1923).

131 349 U.S. 143 (1955). On problems of American federalism see Anderson, William, The Nation and the States, Rivals or Partners? (Minneapolis, 1955)Google Scholar; Federalism, Mature and Emergent, ed. Macmahon, Arthur W. (Garden City, N.Y., 1955)Google Scholar.

132 348 U.S. 66 (1954). See Sumner, James D. Jr., “Full Faith and Credit for Judicial Proceedings”, U.C.L.A. Law Review, Vol. 2, pp. 441–99 (June, 1955)Google Scholar; “The Full-Faith-and-Credit Clause—Its History and Purpose”, Oregon Law Review, Vol. 34, pp. 224–49 (June, 1955)Google Scholar.

133 349 U.S. 408 (1955).

134 320 U.S. 430 (1943).

135 306 U.S. 493 (1939).