UNITED STATES v. THOMAS, REGISTRAR OF VOTERS OF WASHINGTON PARISH, LOUISIANA, et al.
No. 667.
Argued February 23-24, 1960.
Decided February 29, 1960.
Solicitor General Rankin argued the cause and filed a brief for the United States.
Weldon A. Cousins and Henry J. Roberts, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General of Louisiana, argued the cause for respondent Thomas. With them on the brief were Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana, and M. E. Culligan, Assistant Attorney General.
Per Curiam.
Pursuant to its order of January 26, 1960, 361 U. S. 950, the Court has before it (1) the application of the United States for an order vacating the order of the Court of Appeals, dated January 21, 1960, staying the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division, dated January 11, 1960; and (2) the petition of the United States for a writ of certio-rari. to the Court of Appeals to review the judgment of the District Court as to the respondent, Curtis M. Thomas, Registrar of Voters, Washington Parish, Louisiana. Having considered the briefs and oral arguments submitted by both sides, the Court makes the following disposition of these matters:
The petition for certiorari is granted. Upon the opinion, findings of fact, and conclusions of law of the District Court and the decision of this Court rendered today in No. 64, United States v. Raines, ante, p. 17, the aforesaid stay order of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the judgment of the District Court as to the respondent Thomas is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.