Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:20:30.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constitutional Law in 1957–1958

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

There was no change in the personnel of the Supreme Court during the 1957 Term. Nor was there any let-up in attacks upon the Court arising from its recent decisions regarding such touchy subjects as racial segregation in public schools, loyalty programs, the powers of legislative investigating committees, and subversive persons and activities. A great deal of this criticism travelled a pretty low road, but some came from high and responsible sources, such as Learned Hand. Of great weight was a resolution adopted by the annual Conference of (State) Chief Justices on August 24, 1958, by a vote of 36 to 8, which affirmed its faith in traditional federalism and urged the Supreme Court to “exercise one of the greatest of all judicial powers—the power of judicial selfrestraint—by recognizing and giving effect to the difference between that which on the one hand, the Constitution may prescribe or permit, and that which, on the other, a majority of the Supreme Court, as from time to time constituted, may deem desirable or undesirable ….”

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , March 1959 , pp. 138 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1959

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 For studies of Justices, past and present, see: Gerhart, Eugene C., America's Advocate: Robert H. Jackson (Indianapolis, 1958)Google Scholar; Beitzinger, Alfons J., “Chief Justice Taney and the Publication of Court Opinions,” Catholic University of America Law Review, Vol. 7, pp. 32–36 (January, 1958)Google Scholar; Schmidhauser, John R., “Jeremy Bentham, the Contract Clause and Justice John Archibald Campbell,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 11, pp. 801–820 (June, 1958)Google Scholar; Symposium on Justice Harlan, John Marshall, Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 321–474 (Spring, 1958)Google Scholar; Westin, Alan F., “Stephen J. Field and the Headnote to O'Neil v. Vermont: A Snapshot of the Fuller Court,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 67, pp. 363–383 (January, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Warren, Earl, “Chief Justice William Howard Taft,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 67, pp. 353–362 (January, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Symposium on Frankfurter, Justice Felix, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 67, pp. 179–323 (December, 1957)Google Scholar; Berman, Daniel M., “Mr. Justice Brennan: A Preliminary Appraisal,” Catholic University of America Law Review, Vol. 7, pp. 1–15 (January, 1958)Google Scholar; McQuade, Francis P. and Kardos, Alexander T., “Mr. Justice Brennan and his Legal Philosophy,” Notre Dame Lawyer, Vol. 33, pp. 321–349 (May, 1958)Google Scholar; Volz, Marlin M., “Mr. Justice Whittaker,” Notre Dame Lawyer, Vol. 33, pp. 159–179 (March, 1958)Google Scholar. For other aspects of American constitutional history see: McDonald, Forrest, We the People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution (Chicago, 1958)Google Scholar; Wright, Benjamin F., Consensus and Continuity, 1776–1787 (Boston, 1958)Google Scholar; Ulmer, S. Sidney, “Charles Pinckney: Father of the Constitution,” South Carolina Law Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 225–247 (Winter, 1958)Google Scholar; Doro, Marion E., “The Brandeis Brief,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 11, pp. 783–799 (June, 1958)Google Scholar; Surrency, Erwin C., “The Judiciary Act of 1801,” American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 2, pp. 53–65 (January, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See generally: Westin, Alan F., The Anatomy of a Constitutional Law Case (New York, 1958)Google Scholar; Cushman, Robert E., Leading Constitutional Decisions (11th ed., New York, 1958)Google Scholar; Jaffe, Louis L., “The Right to Judicial Review,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, pp. 401–437 (January, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pp. 769–814 (March, 1958); Barker, Lucius J., “The Offshore Oil Controversy since 1953,” Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 1958, pp. 107–127 (January, 1958)Google Scholar.

2 See, e.g., Gordon, Rosalie M., Nine Men Against America (New York, 1958)Google Scholar.

3 See Hand, Learned, The Bill of Rights (Cambridge, 1958), p. 73 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “For myself it would be most irksome to be ruled by a bevy of Platonic Guardians, even if I knew how to choose them, which I assuredly do not.”

4 For the full text see New York Times, August 24, 1958.

5 See Elliott, Shelden D., “Court-Curbing Proposals in Congress,” Notre Dame Lawyer, Vol. 33, pp. 597–616 (August, 1958)Google Scholar; Symposium, “Moves in Congress to Curb the United States Supreme Court,” Congressional Digest, Vol. 37, pp. 131–160 (May, 1958)Google Scholar; Horsky, Charles A., “Law Day: Some Reflections on Current Proposals to Curtail the Supreme Court,” Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 42, pp. 1105–1111 (May, 1958)Google Scholar; Steamer, Robert J., “Statesmanship or Craftsmanship: Current Conflict over the Supreme Court,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 11, pp. 265–277 (June, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Celler, Emanuel, “The Supreme Court Survives a Barrage,” The Reporter, Vol. 19, pp. 31–33 (November 27, 1958)Google Scholar; Kurland, Philip B., “The Supreme Court and Its Literate Critics,” Yale Review, Vol. 47, pp. 596–599 (June, 1958)Google Scholar; McWhinney, Edward, “The Great Debate: Activism and Self-Restraint and Current Dilemmas in Judicial Policy-Making,” New York University Law Review, Vol. 33, pp. 775–795 (June, 1958)Google Scholar; Note, “Congressional Reversal of Supreme Court Decisions: 1945–1957,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, pp. 1324–1337 (May, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a general appraisal of the Court see: Swisher, Carl B., The Supreme Court in Modern Role (New York, 1958)Google Scholar.

6 The decisions which would have been set aside were Cole v. Young, 351 U.S. S36 (1956); Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957); Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957); Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956).

7 Cited in note 6, above.

8 See note 6, above.

9 Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957). See Hogan, James E. and Snee, Joseph M., “The McNabb-Mallory Rule: Its Rise, Rationale and Rescue,” Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 1–46 (Fall, 1958)Google Scholar.

10 Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).

11 272 U.S. 52.

12 Rathbun V. United States 295 U.S. 602 (1985).

13 357 U.S. 349.

14 See: Douglas, William O., The Right of the People (New York, 1958)Google Scholar; Pritchett, C. Herman, The Political Offender and the Warren Court (Boston, 1958)Google Scholar; Caughey, John W., In Clear and Present Danger (Chicago, 1958)Google Scholar; Miller, Arthur S., “The Constitutional Law of the ‘Security State’,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 10, pp. 620–671 (July, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Murphy, Walter F., “Civil Liberties and the Japanese American Cases: A Study in the Uses of Stare Decisis ,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 11, pp. 3–13 (March, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Henderson, Gordon D., “Courts-Martial and the Constitution: The Original Understanding,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, pp. 293–324 (December, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lewis, Anthony, “Legislative Apportionment and the Federal Courts,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, pp. 1057–1098 (April, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958); Dayton v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 144 (1958). See: Note, “Passports: At the Brink of the Constitution,” Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 142–161 (Fall, 1958)Google Scholar.

16 355 U.S. 579 (1958). For a major study see: Brown, Ralph S., Loyalty and Security (New Haven, 1958)Google Scholar. See also: Krasnowiecki, Jan Z., “Confrontation by Witnesses in Government Employee Security Proceedings,” Notre Dame Lawyer, Vol. 33, pp. 180–208 (March, 1958)Google Scholar.

17 Lewis, Anthony, in the New York Times, January 20, 1958, p. 24 Google Scholar.

18 Sacher v. United States, 356 U.S. 576 (1958). See: Comment, “Constitutional Limitations upon Congressional Investigations,” UCLA Law Review, Vol. 5, pp. 645–663 (July, 1958)Google Scholar.

19 Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957). See this Review, Vol. 52, pp. 146–148 (March, 1958).

20 356 U.S. 44 (1958). See Comment, “Citizenship—Power of Congress to Effect Involuntary Expatriation,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 56, pp. 1142–1167 (May, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 356 U.S. 86 (1958).

22 §401(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S.C. §1481(a) (8).

23 See Avins, Alfred, The Law of AWOL (New York, 1957)Google Scholar.

24 356 U.S. 129 (1958).

25 Nowak v. United States, 356 U.S. 660 (1958). A similar conclusion was reached in a companion case, Maisenberg v. United States, 356 U.S. 670 (1958), on about the same facts. In Matles v. United States, 356 U.S. 256 (1958), the Court held that an affidavit showing good cause is a prerequisite to the initiation of denaturalization proceedings.

26 Rowoldt v. Perfetto, 355 U.S. 115 (1957). See Lowenstein, Edith, ed., The Alien and the Immigration Law (Naw York, 1958)Google Scholar.

27 354 U.S. 478 (1957). See this Review, Vol. 52, pp. 172–176 (March, 1958).

28 Mounce v. United States, 355 U.S. 180 (1957). (In this case the Solicitor General had confessed error.) Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, 355 U.S. 372 (1958).

29 One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958).

30 Times Film Corp. v. Chicago, 355 U.S. 35 (1957). On censorship problems see: Gardiner, Harold C., Catholic Viewpoint on Censorship (Garden City, N.Y., 1958)Google Scholar; Paul, J. C. N. and Schwartz, M. L., “Obscenity in the Mails: A Comment on Some Problems of Federal Censorship,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 106, pp. 214–253 (December, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carden, Philip M., “The Supreme Court and Obscenity,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 11, pp. 585–598 (March, 1958)Google Scholar; Note, “Entertainment: Public Pressures and the Law,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, pp. 326–367 (December, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Yates v. United States, 355 U.S. 66 (1957).

32 The original decision of the Court, arrived at in November, 1957, remanded the case to the district court for resentencing, since the Court affirmed the contempt conviction only on the first specification, and vacated the other ten. The District Court resentenced Yates to one year's imprisonment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, though it noted that the sentence was severe. In May, 1958, the Supreme Court reversed and reduced the sentence to the seven months already served, acting in its capacity as supervisor of the administration of justice in the federal courts. Yates v. United States, 356 U.S. 363 (1958). Three Justices dissented.

33 355 U.S. 184 (1957).

34 199 U.S. 521 (1905).

35 See Fellman, David, The Defendant's Rights (New York, 1958), p. 194 Google Scholar.

36 357 U.S. 386 (1958).

37 284 U.S. 299 (1932).

38 356 U.S. 148 (1958). See: Grant, J. A. C., “Federalism and Self-Incrimination,” UCLA Law Review, Vol. 5, pp. 1–25 (January, 1958)Google Scholar; Horowitz, George, “The Privilege against Self-Incrimination,” Temple Law Quarterly, Vol. 31, pp. 121–144 (Winter, 1958)Google Scholar; Note; “Self-Incrimination by Federal Grand Jury Witnesses: Uniform Protection Advocated,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 67, pp. 1270–1287 (June, 1958)Google Scholar; Pollitt, Daniel H., “The Fifth Amendment Plea before Congressional Committees Investigating Subversion: Motives and Justifiable Presumptions—A Survey of 120 Witnesses,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 106, pp. 1117–1137 (June, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kemp, John A., “The Background of the Fifth Amendment in English Law: A Study of its Historical Implications,” William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 1, pp. 247–286 (No. 2, 1958)Google Scholar.

39 Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958).

40 Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493 (1958).

41 Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480 (1958).

42 Benanti v. United States, 355 U.S. 96 (1957).

43 Nardone v. United States, 302 U.S. 379 (1937); 308 U.S. 338 (1939).

44 Schwartz v. Texas, 344 U.S. 199 (1952).

45 Rathbun v. United States, 355 U.S. 107 (1957). See Bradley, Edwin J. and Hogan, James E., “Wiretapping: From Nardone to Benanti and Rathbun,” Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 418–442 (Spring, 1958)Google Scholar.

46 Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339 (1958).

47 Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245 (1910).

48 Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956).

49 356 U.S. 369 (1958).

50 Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932).

51 The Court majority declined to rule on the question whether the factual issue of entrapment should be decided by the judge or the jury on the ground that it had not been argued; the four concurring Justices thought that the Court ought to rule squarely that this is a question for the court, not the jury. In a companion case, Masciale v. United States, 356 U.S. 386 (1958), the Court affirmed a conviction where the issue of entrapment had gone to the jury. Again a bare majority of the Court held that whether the issue is for the judge or the jury was never raised by the parties. Four Justices dissented, arguing that the trial court should itself have ruled on the issue of entrapment, and not left it to the jury; they would have remanded to the district court for determination of this issue.

52 357 U.S. 275 (1958).

53 United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U.S. 155 (1958).

54 Public Service Commission of Utah v. United States, 356 U.S. 421 (1958).

55 See: Conner, James C., “Supreme Court Certiorari Policy and the Federal Employers' Liability Act,” Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 451–468 (Spring, 1958)Google Scholar; this Review, Vol. 52, pp. 166–167 (March, 1958).

56 Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U.S. 18 (1957) (railroad engineer, while walking to his engine, slipped upon loose gravel on the surface of the railroad yard); Honeycutt v. Wabash R. Co., 355 U.S. 424 (1958) (employee, working under a railroad car with a rivet gun, struck on forehead by a metal clip); Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 356 U.S. 41 (1958) (employee stepping backward fell into a ditch); Stinson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 355 U.S. 62 (1957) (body of deceased employee found on the track after the train had been moved).

57 Grimes v. Raymond Concrete Pile Co., 356 U.S. 252 (1958) (employee worked as a pile driver); Butler v. Whiteman, 356 U.S. 271 (1958) (deceased was a wharf employee). See also Palermo v. Luckenbach Steamship Co., 355 U.S. 20 (1957), involving the adequacy of the judge's instructions in a maritime tort case.

58 Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 355 U.S. 426 (1958).

59 356 U.S. 165 (1958). See: Murphy, Walter F., “The Contempt Power of the Federal Courts,” Federal Bar Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 34–55 (January–March, 1958)Google Scholar; Schneider, Howard, “The Civil Rights Act of 1957 and Contempt of Court,” Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 661–678 (Summer, 1958)Google Scholar.

60 72 Stat. 415.

61 See Report of the Proceedings of a Special Session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, March 14–15, 1957, p. 9. There were no hearings on the 1958 Act, but there had been a short hearing on an earlier version on July 12, 1957. Hearing before Subcommittee No. 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., on H.R. 2516 and H.R. 4497, “Jurisdiction of Federal Courts concerning Diversity of Citizenship.”

62 The Administrative Office of the United States Courts has estimated that the new provision will eliminate 38.2 per cent of contract cases and about 10 per cent of tort cases.

63 The precedent for the “principal place of business” clause is found in the jurisdictional provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.8.C. §11.

64 Senate Report No. 1830, July 11, 1958, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 8.

65 Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, 356 U.S. 525 (1958).

66 United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570 (1958).

67 United States v. Cores, 356 U.S. 405 (1958).

68 Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958).

69 Panama Canal Co. v. Grace Line, 356 U.S. 309 (1958).

70 357 U.S. 449 (1958). See Robison, Joseph B., “Protection of Associations from Compulsory Disclosure of Membership,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 58, pp. 614–649 (May, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928).

72 Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958); First Unitarian Church v. Los Angeles, 357 U.S. 545 (1958). See: Greenberg, Milton, “Loyalty Oaths: An Appraisal of the Legal Issues,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 20, pp. 487–514 (August, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On free speech generally see: Berns, Walter, Freedom, Virtue, and the First Amendment (Baton Rouge, La., 1957)Google Scholar; Rogge, O. John, “Congress Shall Make No Law …,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 56, pp. 331–374 (January, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pp. 579–618 (February, 1958). On related subjects see: Cowan, Thomas A., “Interference with Academic Freedom: The Pre-Natal History of a Tort,” Wayne Law Review, Vol. 4, pp. 205–227 (Summer, 1958)Google Scholar; O'Brien, F. William, Justice Reed and the First Amendment: The Religious Clauses (Georgetown, 1958)Google Scholar.

73 355 U.S. 313 (1958).

74 The Court relied mainly upon Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), though other precedents were cited.

75 355 U.S. 131 (1957). See: Farmer, Guy and Williamson, Charles G. Jr., “Picketing and the Injunctive Power of State Courts—From Thornhill to Vogt,” University of Detroit Law Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 431–455 (April, 1958)Google Scholar.

76 Beilan v. Board of Education of Philadelphia, 357 U.S. 399 (1958). On various aspects of federal review of state exercises of the police power see: Roettinger, Ruth L., The Supreme Court and State Police Power (Washington, 1957)Google Scholar; Hetherington, John A. C., “State Economic Regulation and Substantive Due Process,” Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 53, pp. 13–32 (March–April, 1958)Google Scholar, pp. 226–251 (May–June, 1958).

77 Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, 350 U.S. 551 (1956). See this Review, Vol. 51, pp. 187–189 (March, 1957). Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 353 U.S. 252 (1957), was distinguished on the ground that in that case the Court had stressed the fact that the action of the state was not based on the mere refusal to answer relevant questions, but rather on impermissible inferences from the refusal. See this Review, Vol. 52, pp. 179–181 (March, 1958).

78 Lerner v. Casey, 357 U.S. 468 (1958).

79 Hoag v. New Jersey, 356 U.S. 464 (1958).

80 Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).

81 Ciucci v. Illinois, 356 U.S. 571 (1958).

82 Alfonse Bartkus v. Illinois, 355 U.S. 281 (1958).

83 Alfonse Bartkus v. Illinois, 356 U.S. 969 (1958).

84 357 U.S. 371 (1958).

85 As decided in Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927).

86 357 U.S. 433 (1958).

87 Clcenia v. Lagay, 357 U.S. 504 (1958). In this case the Court also ruled that the state had not denied due process because it had required the defendant to plead to the indictment without an opportunity to inspect his confession. Many states, it was noted, give the judge discretion whether or not to allow inspection before trial. See: Allen, Francis A., “The Supreme Court and State Criminal Justice,” Wayne Law Review, Vol. 4, pp. 191–204 (Summer, 1958)Google Scholar.

88 Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560 (1958). The Court also rejected the state's contention that there was enough other evidence to sustain the verdict, holding that since the coerced confession was part of the evidence before the jury, and the jury returned a general verdict, no one could say what credit and weight the jury gave to the confession. Justice Clark dissented on this point on the authority of Stein v. New York, 346 U.S. 156 (1953). But speaking for the Court, Justice Whittaker pointed out that in the Stein case the Court had not found that the confession was coerced.

89 Ashdown v. Utah, 357 U.S. 426 (1948). On the facts, a bare majority of the Court held that the confession used in Thomas v. Arizona, 356 U.S. 390 (1958) had been voluntary, “a spontaneous exclamation of a guilty conscience.” There was no evidence of a physical beating, no continuous relay questioning, no incommunicado detention or psychiatric inducement. The accused was a grown man of at least normal intelligence and not a stranger to the processes of law.

90 355 U.S. 155 (1957). See: Note, “Representation by Counsel in Administrative Proceedings,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 58, pp. 395–407 (March, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 355 U.S. 28 (1957).

92 Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935); Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942).

93 Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9 (1950).

94 Caritativo v. California, 357 U.S. 549 (1958).

95 355 U.S. 225 (1957).

96 McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957).

97 Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878).

98 International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

99 The Court also held that although the California law went into effect after the Company had entered into this agreement, there was no violation of the obligation of contract, since the statute was purely remedial and neither enlarged nor impaired the Company's substantive rights and obligations. It merely gave the claimant a California forum to enforce his substantive rights, and the Company was given a reasonable time to appear and defend on the merits. Under these circumstances the Company had no vested right not to be sued in California.

100 Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958).

101 There was plenty of writing on the various aspects of the desegregation problem. See: Fletcher, John L. Jr., The Segregation Case and the Supreme Court (Boston, 1958)Google Scholar; Shoemaker, Don, ed., With All Deliberate Speed (New York, 1957)Google Scholar; Note, “Implementation of Desegregation by the Lower Courts,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, pp. 486–502 (January, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Spicer, George W., “The Supreme Court and Racial Discrimination,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 11, pp. 821–852 (June, 1958)Google Scholar; Pollitt, Daniel H., “Presidential Use of Troops to Execute the Laws: A Brief History,” North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 36, pp. 117–141 (February, 1958)Google Scholar; Comment, “Executive Powers—Use of Troops to Enforce Federal Laws,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 56, pp. 249–272 (December, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmidhauser, John R., The Supreme Court as Final Arbiter in Federal-State Relations, 1789–1957 (Chapel Hill, 1958)Google Scholar; Abernathy, Glenn, “Expansion of the State Action Concept under the Fourteenth Amendment,” Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 375–418 (Spring, 1958)Google Scholar; Symposium on “Integration in Housing,” Lawyers Guild Review, Vol. 18, pp. 1–45 (Spring, 1958)Google Scholar. Current issues of the Race Relations Law Reporter are indispensable for keeping up with legal developments in this field; see especially the following special studies: “Precedent and the Constitution,” Vol. 3, pp. 395–405 (April, 1958)Google Scholar; “Substantive Civil Rights under Federal Legislation,” Vol. 3, pp. 133–161 (February, 1958)Google Scholar; “Legal Definition of Race,” Vol. 3, pp. 571–588 (June, 1958)Google Scholar.

102 Aaron v. Cooper, 357 U.S. 566 (1958).

103 Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

104 Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E. D. Ark. 1956), affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 243 F. 2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). Review by the Supreme Court was not sought.

105 Justice Frankfurter filed a separate, eloquent concurring opinion on October 6, 358 U.S. 20.

106 Eubank s v. Louisiana, 356 U.S. 584 (1958).

107 Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956). See this Review, Vol. 51, pp. 191–193 (March, 1957); Willcox, Bertram F. and Edward, J. Bloustein, “The Griffin Case—Poverty and the Fourteenth Amendment,“ Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 1–26 (Fall, 1957)Google Scholar; Note, “Aid for Indigent Litigants in the Federal Courts,“ Columbia Law Review, Vol. 58, pp. 832–853 (June, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

108 Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, 357 U.S. 214 (1958).

109 Chicago v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co., 357 U.S. 77 (1958).

110 Public Utilities Commission of California v. United States, 355 U.S. 534 (1958).

111 355 U.S. 286 (1958). See Note, “The Federal Assimilative Crimes Act,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 70, pp. 685–698 (February, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

112 United States v. Detroit, 355 U. S. 466 (1958).

113 United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U.S. 174 (1944), was distinguished on the ground that there the tax was a general ad valorem property tax laid on government property in the hands of a private bailee; the tax was on the property and not on the privilege of using or possessing it.

114 United States v. Township of Muskegon, 355 U.S. 484 (1958).

115 Curry v. United States, 314 U.S. 14 (1941), whieh involved a cost-plus contract with the government, was held to be squarely in point.

116 Detroit v. Murray Corporation, 355 U.S. 489 (1958).

117 Again United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U.S. 174 (1944) was distinguished on the ground that there the tax was laid on government property as such, whereas here the tax is specifically on the person in possession, the state being careful not to attempt to tax the government's own interest in the property. The Court cited as controlling Easo Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 U.S. 495 (1953), which upheld a tax levied on the storage of gasoline for the United States.

118 Kovacs v. Brewer, 356 U.S. 604 (1958). See: Baer, Herbert R., “The Law of Divorce Fifteen Years after Williams v. North Carolina,” North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 36, pp. 265–296 (April, 1958)Google Scholar; Nadelmann, Kurt H., “Full Faith and Credit to Judgments and Public Acts,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 56, pp. 33–88 (November, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.