opinion: BLACK UNITY LEAGUE OF KENTUCKY et al. v. MILLER et al.
  No. 892.
  Decided March 3, 1969.
  William M. Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy, Robert Allen Sedler, and Morton Stavis for appellants.
  W. Scott Miller, Jr., pro se, and for other appellees.
  Per Curiam.
  Appellant organizations brought this suit for injunc-tive and declaratory relief against investigations which appellees, members of the Kentucky Un-American Activities Committee, were allegedly threatening to conduct. They contended that the investigations and accompanying contempt prosecutions would violate various rights, primarily those under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They did not allege that any of their officers or members had been called as witnesses, or that any subpoenas had been issued, or that any criminal prosecutions had been begun. The allegations of harassment were entirely conclusory. Appellees moved to dismiss, and appellants failed to respond, as was required by local court rules. These rules also stated that “[fjailure to respond may be good grounds for sustaining the motion.” D. C. W. D. Ky. Rule 5 (a). We hold that in this procedural context the trial court could take appellants’ conclusory allegations as insubstantial and could dismiss the complaint for failure to allege sufficient irreparable injury to justify federal intervention at this early stage. For this reason, the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
  Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
instruction: 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.