UNITED STATES REPORTS VOLUME 425 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT AT OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinions of March 24 (concluded) Through (in part) June 1, 1976 Orders of March 29 Through May 27, 1976 HENRY PUTZEL, jr. reporter of decisions UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1978 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 028-001-00394-0 / Catalog No. JU 6.8:425 Errata 417 U. S. lxiii, last line; 520 n. 15, line 7; 527, line 9; and 527 n. 5, line 5: “[1970] 3 U. 8. T. 2517” should be “[1970] 21 U. S. T. (pt. 3) 2517”. 424 U. S. title page: “January 30 Through March 24, 1976” should be “January 30 Through (in part) March 24, 1976”. 424 U. 8.115 n. 157, line 7: “244” should be “241”. n JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT DURING THE TIME OF THESE REPORTS WARREN E. BURGER, Chief Justice. WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, Jr., Associate Justice. POTTER STEWART, Associate Justice. BYRON R. WHITE, Associate Justice. THURGOOD MARSHALL, Associate Justice. HARRY A. BLACKMUN, Associate Justice. LEWIS F. POWELL, Jr., Associate Justice. WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, Associate Justice. JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Associate Justice. retired STANLEY REED, Associate Justice. WILLIAM 0. DOUGLAS, Associate Justice. TOM 0. CLARK, Associate Justice. OFFICERS OF THE COURT EDWARD H. LEVI, Attorney General. ROBERT H. BORK, Solicitor General. MICHAEL RODAK, Jr., Clerk. HENRY PUTZEL, jr., Reporter of Decisions. ALFRED WONG, Acting Marshal. EDWARD G. HUDON, Librarian.* BETTY J. CLOWERS, Acting Librarian.! *Mr. Hudon retired as Librarian effective April 30, 1976. +Mrs. Clowers was appointed Acting Librarian effective May 4, 1976. ni SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Allotment of Justices It is ordered that the following allotment be made of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42, and that such allotment be entered of record, viz.: For the District of Columbia Circuit, Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice. For the First Circuit, William J. Brennan, Jr., Associate Justice. For the Second Circuit, Thurgood Marshall, Associate Justice. For the Third Circuit, William J. Brennan, Jr., Associate Justice. For the Fourth Circuit, Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice. For the Fifth Circuit, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Associate Justice. For the Sixth Circuit, Potter Stewart, Associate Justice. For the Seventh Circuit, John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice. For the Eighth Circuit, Harry A. Blackmun, Associate Justice. For the Ninth Circuit, William H. Rehnquist, Associate Justice. For the Tenth Circuit, Byron R. White, Associate Justice. December 19, 1975. (For next previous allotment, see 404 U. S., p. v.) IV TABLE OF CASES BEPOBTED Note: All undesignated references herein to the United States Code are to the 1970 edition. Cases reported before page 901 are those decided with opinions of the Court or decisions per curiam. Cases reported on page 901 et seq. are those in which orders were entered. Page Abajo Petroleum v. Shell Oil Co................................. 912 Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists Assn.......... 1 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education............................. 949 Accu-Namics, Inc. v. Usery...................................... 903 Accuracy in Media, Inc. v. Federal Com. Comm’n............... 934 Acheson Industries; Wallace Clark & Co. v....................... 976 Acting Administrator, FAA; Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v... 910 Adams v. Hickton................................................ 940 Administrator, EPA; E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v.... 933 Administrator, EPA; Kennecott Copper Corp, v.................... 935 Administrator of N. Y. C. Human Resources v. Foster Families. 988 Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs; Chandler v.................. 840 Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. United States.................... 973 Agger v Seaboard Allied Milling Corp............................ 937 Ag Pro, Inc.; Sakraida v........................................ 273 Aikens; Lash v...........*...................................... 947 Air Line Pilots Assn. v. Wells................................. 1000 Airlite Plastics Co.; Plastilite Corp, v........................ 938 Aitchison; Berger v............................................. 930 A. L. v. G. R. H................................................ 936 Alabama; Belcher v....................................... 952 Alabama; Matheny v..................................... 982 Alabama; Taylor v................................... 942,1000 Alabama; Trammell v.................................... 980 Alabama; Western Grain Co. v............................ 1000 Alabama State Bar Board of Comm’rs; Parrish v................... 944 Aldens, Inc. v. Kane............................................ 943 Alexander v. Kritzman........................................... 952 Alexander v. Superior Court of California....................... 979 Alexander v. United States...................................... 905 v VI TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba............ 682 Algonquin SNG, Inc.; Federal Energy Administration v.... 903 Allanson v. Georgia............................................. 937 Allegheny-Ludlum Industries; Harris v.................... 944 Allen; Hopper v................................................. 944 Allen v. United States..................................... 985,1001 Alonso v. California Dept, of Human Resources................... 903 Alvarez v. United States........................................ 995 American Airlines; Williams v................................... 951 American Eagle Tanker Corp.; Gilbert v.................... 913 American Electric Power System v. Sierra Club................... 932 American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Starnes..................... 637 American President Lines; Dirk v........................ 993 American Stevedores, Inc. v. Olaf Pedersen’s Rederi........... 951 American Tobacco Co. v. Russell..,.............................. 935 American Trucking Assns. v. United States....................... 955 Anastos v. M. J. D. M. Truck Rentals............................ 927 Anchorage Office Building Co. v. WMATC.......................... 959 Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.; Whitten v.................... 981 Anderson; Hardwick v.......................................... 980 Andrews; Drew Municipal Separate School District v............ 559 Andrus v. Oregon.............................................. 957 Ann Arbor Trust Co.; North American Co. for Insurance v.. 993 Archer v. Government of the Virgin Islands...................... 906 Archuleta v. Archuleta........................................ 940 Arizona; Gary v................................................. 916 Arizona; Gause v................................................ 915 Arizona; Harmon v,.................................... 942 Arizona v. New Mexico........................................... 794 Arizona; Quiroz v............................................... 974 Arizona; Torrez v............................................... 916 Arizona Power Pooling Assn.; Arizona Public Service Co. v.. 911 Arizona Public Service Co. v. Arizona Power Pooling Assn.. 911 Arkansas; Smith v............................................... 912 Arkansas-Best Freight System; Bowman Transportation v... 901 Arnett v. Five Gill Nets........................................ 907 Associated Dry Goods Corp. v, Commissioner of Taxation... 999 Associates of Obstetrics & Surgery; National Bank v........... 460 Association. For labor union, see name of trade. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States.................... 992 Attorney General; Lau v........................................ 992 Attorney General; Tremarco v.................................... 978 Attorney General of Florida; Standard Oil Co. v................. 930 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED vn Page Attorney General of Pennsylvania; Aldens, Ine. v............... 943 Austin National Bank; Humane Society of Austin v............. 976 Automobile Workers v. Ford Motor Co............................ 998 Automobile Workers; Maschhoff v................................ 993 Aviles v. United States........................................ 961 Avrech v. Secretary of Navy.................................... 970 A. Z. Ford, Inc.; Ochenkowski v................................ 980 Aztec Properties; Union Planters National Bank v............. 975 Baberson v. Mississippi........................................ 962 Baez; S. S. Kresge Co. v....................................... 904 Baker v. Rumsfeld.............................................. 966 Bakery & Confectionery Workers; Nolde Bros, v.......... 970 Balay v. New York.............................................. 942 Bangor Punta Corp. v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc.............. 910 Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Palm Beach Biltmore, Inc... 904 Barnes v. United States........................................ 952 Barnett; Brown v............................................... 958 Barrett v. Smith............................................... 977 Barrett v. Zweibon............................................. 944 Barton; Berger v............................................... 985 Bastone v. United States............................*.......... 973 Bates; Convalescent Care, Inc. v............................... 952 Batte v. United States....................................... 961 Batterton v. Francis..............*............................ 969 Baxter v. Palmigiano........................................... 308 Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. Labor Board....................... 970 Bazakas v. Gaynor.............................................. 941 Beasley v. United States....................................... 956 Beathune v. United States...................................... 996 Beattie v. United States....................................... 970 Beattie; United States v....................................... 967 Beaver v. United States........................................ 905 Beckwith v. United States...................................... 341 Beer v. United States........................................ 130 Behring Corp. v. Bennett....................................... 975 Belcher v. Alabama............................................. 952 Belcher v. Stengel............................................. 910 Bell v. Oklahoma............................................... 906 Bellwood Fire and Police Comm’rs; DeGuiseppe v................. 937 Beltran v. Government of the Canal Zone........................ 906 Bennett; Behring Corp, v....................................... 975 Benschoter v. First National Bank of Lawrence.................. 928 Berard v. United States........................................ 913 VIII TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Berger v. Aitchison.......................................* 930 Berger v. Barton............................................. 985 Berger v. Klein.............................................. 948 Berger v. North Dakota....................*.................. 913 Bermudez v. United States.................................... 970 Berry v. Louisiana........................................... 954 Bibbs v. Wyrick.............................................. 981 Biddy v. Diamond............................................. 950 Big Rivers Electric Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agcy.. 934 Bishop v. Wainwright......................................... 980 Bitzer; Fitzpatrick v........................................ 902 Bitzer v. Matthews........................................... 902 Black v. United States....................................... 939 Blankenship v. United States................................. 978 Blanton v. United States..................................... 935 Boardman; Esteva v........................................... 967 Board of Comm’rs of Alabama State Bar; Parrish v........... 944 Board of Ed. of Cincinnati v. Bronson........................ 934 Board of Ed. of Detroit v. Abood............................. 949 Board of Ed. of Mt. Healthy v. Doyle......................... 933 Board of Ed. of Ohio v. Bronson.............................. 934 Board of Ed. of San Mateo; Citizens for Par. Rights v.... 908,1000 Board of Fire and Police Comm’rs; DeGuiseppe v........ 937 Board of Junior College District No. 515 v. Hostrop... 963 Board of Junior College District No. 515; Hostrop v... 963 Board of School Comm’rs of Mobile County; Davis v.... 944 Board of Trustees, California State University; Wong v.... 986 Bobo v. United States...................................... 995 Bogatin v. New York.......................................... 912 Boggs; Wilson v.............................................. 906 Bohack Corp. v. General Warehousemen......................... 966 Bolkcom v. Carborundum Co.................................... 951 Bombard; Miller v............................................ 954 Bonne Bell, Inc.; E. J. Delaney Corp, v...................... 907 Bonnell v. Kentucky.......................................... 962 Bonner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis......................... 926 Bonner; Rich v............................................... 915 Boone v. Kansas...........................„...............915,985 Bordeaux v. United States.................................... 950 Borough. See name of borough. Boruski v. Reed.............................................. 949 Bostic; Hall v............................................... 954 Bounds v. Smith.......................................... 910,968 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED ix Page Bowen v. New York News, Inc................................... 936 Bowen; Udall v............................................ 932,947 Bowman Transportation v. Arkansas-Best Freight System... 901 Bradford v. United States..................................... 914 Bradley v. Lunding.........t.................................. 956 Brathwaite; Manson v.......................................... 957 Breaux v. Henderson........................................... 915 Bricklayers v. Waters......................................... 997 Bridgeman v. United States.................................... 961 Britt; McCollin v............................................. 940 Bromberg v. Chairman, U. S. Civil Service Comm’n............ 963 Bronson; Board of Education of Cincinnati v................... 934 Bronson; Ohio State Board of Education v...................... 934 Brooks v. Mississippi State Probation and Parole Board.... 988 Brooks v. Virginia............................................ 914 Brotherhood. For labor union, see name of trade. Brown v. Barnett.......................................... 958 Brown v. Cowan............................................ 940 Brown; Democratic Committee of Columbiana County v... 975 Brown v. General Services Administration...................... 820 Brown v. Illinois............................................. 941 Brown v. United States.................................... 905,996 Bryant v. United States................................... 905,914 Buchanon v. United States..................................... 950 Buckley; Carter v............................................. 955 Buckley v. Valeo.............................................. 946 Buffa v. United States........................................ 936 Buras v. Chevron Oil Co....................................... 980 Burgin v. United States....................................... 961 Burglin v. Kleppe............................................. 973 Burgwyn; Jones v.............................................. 916 Burnett v. United States..................................... 977 Burnette v. United States..................................... 939 Bums; Elrod v................................................. 909 Burroughs v. United States.................................... 906 Bush v. United States......................................... 986 Butler v. Dexter.............................................. 262 Byers v. United States........................................ 484 Cain v. United States......................................... 939 Cali v. Japan Airlines Co..................................... 951 California v. Harris.......................................... 934 California; Huston v.......................................... 945 California; Lyon v............................................ 962 X TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page California; Martinez v........................................... 979 California; Moore v.............................................. 977 California; Morgan v............................................. 938 California; Olden v.............................................. 917 California; Thomas v............................................ 954 California; Walters v........................................... 967 California; Witt v............................................... 916 California Adult Authority; Silverton v..................... 912 California Adult Authority; Thrasher v........................... 945 California Court of Appeal; Jackson v............................ 926 California Dept, of Human Resources; Alonso v.................... 903 California Director of Alcoholic Bev. Control; Richter v....... 988 California Director of Fish and Game v. Five Gill Nets.... 907 California Public Utilities Comm’n; Shade v................. 928,1000 California State Bar; Sullins v.................................. 937 California State University Board of Trustees; Wong v.......... 986 California Superior Court; Alexander v................... 979 Calley v. Hoffman................................................ 911 Calumet Flexicore Corp.; Gatto v................................. 936 Cameron v. Hopper.............................................. 915 Canal Zone; Ortega (Beltran) v........................... 906 Canon v. United States......................................... 991 Canton v. Whitman.............................................. 956 Capo v. United States.......................................... 971 Carborundum Co.; Bolkcom v............................ 951 Carey v. Sugar.................................................... 73 Caron v. North Carolina.......................................... 971 Carpenters v. Construction Industry Stabilization Com.......... 951 Carpenters; Hill v............................................. 969 Carrillo v. United States........................................ 952 Carter v. Buckley.............................................. 955 Carter v. Estelle.............................................. 979 Carter v. Maryland.......................................... 981,997 Carter v. Seals................................................ 989 Carter v. United States.......................................... 961 Cash v. Mathews................................................ 967 Castillo v. Estelle............................................, 994 Castro v. Regan.................................................. 997 Cataldo v. United States......................................... 969 Caterine v. United States........................................ 926 Celani v. Mathews................................................ 961 Celia v. Partenreederei MS Ravenna............................... 975 Central of Georgia R. Co.; Moss v........................ 907 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XI Page Central Telephone Co.; Cozzetti v............................ 908 Chairman, Board of Elections Comm’rs; Bradley v............. 956 Chairman, Employees’ Retirement Comm’n; Fitzpatrick v... 902 Chairman, Employees’ Retirement Comm’n v. Matthews.... 902 Chairman, U. S. Civil Service Comm’n; Bromberg v......... 963 Chamber of Commerce of the U. S. v. Francis................ 969 Chandler v. Roudebush...................................... 840 Chaneyfield v. New York City............................... 912 Chaparro v. United States.................................. 996 Chapdelaine v. Torrence.................................... 953 Chatman v. United States................................... 945 Chattanooga Housing Authority; Wamp v...................... 992 Chester Hospital; Rayner v............................... 942 Chevoor v. United States................................... 935 Chevron Oil Co.; Buras v................................... 980 Chicago Director of Revenue; Head v........................ 993 Chicago Fire Dept. Comm’r v. Muscare....................... 560 Chief of Police of Louisville v. Davis..................... 985 Chilembwe v. U. S. Court of Appeals........................ 957 Chism; Koehler v........................................... 944 Choate v. United States.................................... 971 Chris-Craft Industries, Inc.; Bangor Punta Corp, v....... 910 Chris-Craft Industries, Inc.; First Boston Corp, v....... 910 Chris-Craft Industries, Inc.; Piper v...................... 910 Chrysler Corp.; Francis v.................................. 967 Chun; Yee v................................................ 913 Church; Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v..................... 908,985 Cimarron Coal Corp.; Georgia Power Co. v................... 952 Cincinnati Board of Education v. Bronson.................. 934 Circuit Court of St. Louis; Bonner v..................... 926 Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo Bd. of Ed.... 908,1000 City. See name of city. Civil Aeronautics Board; Roberts v......................... 966 Civil Service Comm’n Chairman; Bromberg v.................. 963 Clark v. Connecticut....................................... 962 Clark; Lennon v............................................ 985 Clark & Co. v. Acheson Industries.......................... 976 Clay v. Henderson.......................................... 995 Clay v. United States...................................... 914 Clerk, Hamilton County General Sessions Ct.; Maxwell v.... 927 Clodf eiter v. Commissioner................................ 979 Clutchette; Enomoto v...................................... 308 Coats; Metro Bolt & Fastener Corp, v....................... 974 XII TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Coe v. United States............................................ 979 Cohen v. Illinois Institute of Technology....................... 943 Cohoes Housing Authority v. Ippolito-Lutz, Inc.................. 913 Coleman; Connor v............................................... 675 Coleman; Ford Motor Co. v....................................... 927 Collier v. United States........................................ 940 Columbiana County Democratic Committee v. Brown........... 975 Columbia Pictures Industries v. Poster Exchange................. 971 Columbus; Harris v.............................................. 947 Combs v. Tennessee.............................................. 954 Commercial Banks Located Within This District; Raitport v.. 997 Commissioner; Clodfelter v...................................... 979 Commissioner; Kraut v........................................... 973 Commissioner; Paduano v......................................... 992 Commissioner, Chicago Fire Dept. v. Muscare..................... 560 Commissioner, Dept, of Human Resources of Ga. v. J. L.... 909 Commissioner of Correction of New York; Selikoff v...... 951 Commissioner of Internal Revenue. See Commissioner. Commissioner of Patents; Sears v................................ 904 Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; Jansen v.......... 972 Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Johnston.... 219 Commissioner of Social Services of New York v. Aitchison.... 930 Commissioner of Social Services of New York v. Barton. 985 Commissioner of Social Services of New York v. Klein.. 948 Commissioner of Taxation; Associated Dry Goods Corp. v... 999 Commissioner, Suffolk County Police Dept. v. Johnson...... 238 Commissioner, Va. Marine Comm’n v. Seacoast Products.... 949 Commonwealth. See name of Commonwealth. Commonwealth’s Attorney for Richmond; Doe v............... 901,985 Community Bank & Trust; Monongahela Appliance Co. v... 960 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. Moe.................. 463 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes; Moe v.................. 463 Connecticut; Clark v.......................................... 962 Connecticut; Simms v............................................ 954 Connor v. Coleman............................................... 675 Construction Industry Stabilization Com.; Carpenters v.... 951 Consumer Life Insurance Co.; United States v.................... 990 Continental Can Co.; Kaplan v................................... 981 Continental Oil Co.; Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers v.... 936 Convalescent Care, Inc. v. Bates................................ 952 Conway Corp.; Federal Power Comm’n v....................... 957 Cook v. Estelle................................................. 962 Cook v. Gray.................................................... 980 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XIII Page Cooper v. Illinois............................................ 994 Cooper v. United States....................................... 953 Cooperative Sendees, Inc.; Hills v............................ 988 Corbbins v. United States......................................961 Corex Corp. v. United States.................................. 912 Corrections Commissioner. See name of commissioner. Cotton v. Tennessee........................................... 940 County. See name of county. County Board of School Trustees; LaSalle National Bank v.. 936 Court of Appeal of California; Jackson v...................... 926 Court of Appeals. See U. S. Court of Appeals. Cowan; Brown v................................................ 940 Cozzetti v. Central Telephone Co.......................... 908 Crawford v. Security National Bank........................ 959 Crim v. United States......................................... 905 Crist; Quigg v................................................ 994 Cronk; Paquin v............................................... 972 Crosby v. Middendorf.......................................... 916 Crowley v. United States...................................... 995 Cuba; Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v........................ 682 Cuba v. Saks & Co............................................. 991 Cuba; Saks & Co. v............................................ 991 Curl v. International Business Machines Corp.................. 943 Currie v. United States....................................... 996 Curtis v. United States....................................... 939 Curtis Circulation Co. v. Sugar................................ 73 Daggett; Moody v.............................................. 932 Dallal v. United States....................................... 971 D’Ambrosio v. United States................................... 943 Dandar v. United States....................................... 978 D’Angelo v. Webb.............................................. 936 Dann; Jansen v................................................ 972 Dann v. Johnston.............................................. 219 Dann; Sears v................................................. 904 Danning v. Loeffler........................................... 936 Darden v. United States..................................... 973 Darks v. Transok Pipe Line Co................................. 951 Davis v. Board of School Comm’rs of Mobile County........... 944 Davis; Paul v................................................. 985 Davis v. United States........................................ 953 Dawn v. Sterling Drug, Inc................................ 942,945 Day; Trans World Airlines v................................... 989 DeBusk; Howell v.............................................. 955 XIV TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page De Castro; Mathews v........................................... 957 DeGuiseppe v. Board of Fire and Police Comm’rs................. 937 De la Cruz v. Estelle.......................................... 954 Delaney Corp. v. Bonne Bell, Inc............................... 907 Delaware University v. Keegan.................................. 945 Del Chemical Corp.; Reed v..................................... 941 DeLeo v. Warden................................................ 997 De los Santos v. United States................................. 905 Democratic Committee of Columbiana County v. Brown........... 975 DePaola v. United States....................................... 950 Department of Air Force v. Rose................................ 352 Department of Health Care; Paramount Conv. Center v.......... 992 Department of Health of Florida v. Thomas...................... 937 Department of Natural Resources; Omernick v.................... 941 Department of Public Works, Westchester County; Smith v.. 961 Department of Water & Power; Johnson v......................... 926 Detroit Board of Education; Abood v............................ 949 Dexter; Butler v............................................... 262 Diamond; Biddy v............................................... 950 Diamond M Drilling Co. v. Gueho................................ 976 Diamond National Corp, v State Bd. of Equalization.... 268,1000 Diaz-Martinez v. United States................................. 970 Dickinson v. United States..................................... 952 Dinsio v. U. S. Court of Appeals............................... 945 Director, Dept, of Alcoholic Beverage Control; Richter v..... 988 Director, Dept, of Children & Family Services; Youakim v.. 231 Director, Dept, of Fish and Game of Cal. v. Five Gill Nets.. 907 Director, Dept, of Public Welfare; Convalescent Care v..... 952 Director, Dept, of Revenue of Chicago; Head v.................. 993 Director, Dept, of Weights and Measures v. General Mills.... 933 Director, Dept, of Weights and Measures v. Rath Packing... 933 Director, Div. of Family Services of Utah v. T. H.............. 986 Director, Internal Revenue Service Center; O’Leary v......... 995 Director, N. Y. Bd. of Social Welfare v. Foster Families..... 988 Director of Environmental Protection; Canton v................. 956 Director of penal or correctional institution. See also name of director. Director, Patuxent Institution; Williams v..................... 976 Dirk v. American President Lines............................... 993 Dishner v. Moffett............................................. 915 District Court. See also U. S. District Court. District Court of 16th Jud. Dist. of Montana; Fisher v....... 926 District Judge. See U. S. District Judge. TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xv Page Diversified Medical Investments Corp.; Harman v.............. 951 Division of Vocational Rehabilitation v. Thomas.............. 937 Dixie Plywood Co. v. The Federal Lakes....................... 974 Doby v. Texas................................................ 976 Dodge; Mitsui Shintaku Ginko K. K., Tokyo v.................. 944 Doe v. Commonwealth’s Attorney for Richmond.............. 901,985 Donnelly v. Suffolk University............................... 955 Douglas v. Seacoast Products................................. 949 Douglas v. United States..................................... 977 Dows v. United States........................................ 978 Doyle; Mt. Healthy City School District Bd. of Ed. v........ 933 Drew Municipal Separate School District v. Andrews.......... 559 Driskell v. Edwards.......................................... 956 Duke Power Co.; Workmen v.................................. 928 Dumpson v. Organization of Foster Families................... 988 Duncan v. United States...................................... 917 Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba.................. 682 Dunne; Mulligan v............................................ 916 DuPage County School Trustees; LaSalle National Bank v.. 936 Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train............................ 933 East Cleveland; Moore v...................................... 949 East Texas Motor Freight System v. Rodriguez................. 990 Eaton Yale & Towne, Inc.; Ehret Co. v........................ 943 Eazor Express, Inc.; Teamsters v............................. 908 Ecological Science Corp.; Skydell v.......................... 912 Edgewater; Tri Terminal Corp, v.............................. 958 Edwards; Driskell v.......................................... 956 Edwards v. United States................................. 972,979 Ehret Co. v. Eaton Yale & Towne, Inc......................... 943 E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train................... 933 Eitel v. United States....................................... 979 E. J. Delaney Corp. v. Bonne Bell, Inc.................... 907 Electrical Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc................... 950 Eliopulos v. Hildyard........................................ 993 Elliott; Mathews v........................................... 987 Elrod v. Burns....................................... 909 Enomoto v. Clutchette................................... 308 Enslin v. North Carolina.............................. 903,985 Entrekin v. United States................................. 977 Environmental Protection Agency; Big Rivers Electric v.... 934 Environmental Protection Agency; E. I. du Pont & Co. v.... 933 Environmental Protection Agency; Kennecott Copper v.... 935 Environmental Protection Agency v. St. Joe Minerals Corp... 987 XVI TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Environmental Protection Agency; TVA v....................... 934 Equal Emp. Opp. Comm’n v. Jersey Central Power & Light.. 987 Equal Emp. Opp. Comm’n ; Jersey Central Power & Light v.. 998 Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder.............................. 185,986 Esposito v. United States.................................... 916 Esso Standard Eastern, Inc.; Meijer-Oosterink v.............. 941 Estelle; Carter v........................................... 979 Estelle; Castillo v............... ......................... 994 Estelle; Cook v............................................. 962 Estelle; De la Cruz v....................................... 954 Estelle v. Gamble............................................ 932 Estelle; Hunnicutt v........................................ 942 Estelle; Kizzee v........................................... 962 Estelle; Swanson v.......................................... 997 Estelle; Vickery v........................................... 991 Estelle v. Williams.......................................... 501 Esteva v. Boardman........................................... 967 Estremerà v. United States................................... 979 Etten v. Illinois.......................................... 994 Euclid v. Royal American Corp............................... 966 Evans v. Fromme............................................ 934 Evans v. United States................................. 905,914 Exchange National Bank of Chicago; Henican v................ 904 Fabritz v. Maryland.......................................k. 942 Fairchild v. United States................................... 942 Faircloth v. Old National Bank of Washington................. 986 Falco v. United States....................................... 979 Farmers Home Administration; McCormick v.............. 978 Federal Aviation Administration; Scanwell Labs. v............ 910 Federal Commerce & Navigation Co. v. The Marathonian... 975 Federal Com. Comm’n; Accuracy in Media, Inc. v............... 934 Federal Com. Comm’n; Radiotelephone Systems v............... 992 Federal Com. Comm’n; Star Broadcasting, Inc. v.............. 992 Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc......... 903 Federal Lakes, The; Dixie Plywood Co. v...................... 974 Federal Power Comm’n v. Conway Corp.......................... 957 Federal Power Comm’n; Gulf States Utilities Co. v........... 930 Federal Power Comm’n v. NAACP................................ 662 Federal Power Comm’n; NAACP v................................ 662 Federal Power Comm’n; Superior Oil Co. v..................... 971 Ferretti v. United States.................................... 952 Ferris v. Illinois........................................... 938 Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. USAFORM Hail Pool, Inc............ 950 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XVII Page Fire Comm’r of New York City; Kamerling w................... 942 First Boston Corp. v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc........... 910 First National Bank of Lawrence; Benschoter v.............. 928 First National Bank of Lincolnwood; Schaefer v.............. 943 First Railroad & Banking Co. of Georgia v. United States... 990 Firth; Smiley v............................................. 989 Fisher v. District Court of 16th Jud. Dist. of Montana.... 926 Fisher v. United States..................................... 391 Fitzgerald v. Porter Memorial Hospital...................... 916 Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer....................................... 902 Five Gill Nets; Arnett v.................................... 907 Flamm v. Ponderosa Acres.................................... 941 Flamm v. Real-BLT, Inc...................................... 941 Flanagan v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.......................... 911 Flemming; Mauch v........................................... 954 Fletcher v. Sweet........................................... 933 Flint Ridge Development Co. v. Scenic Rivers Assn........ 902 Flores v. United States..................................... 955 Florida; Roti v......................................... 902,915 Florida; Smith v........................................... 962 Florida; United States v............................... 791,931 Florida; Wheeler v........................................ 968 Florida; Williams v....................................... 977 Florida Attorney General; Standard Oil Co. v................ 930 Florida Dept, of Health v. Thomas........................... 937 Florida ex rel. Shevin; Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v.......... 930 Ford, Inc.; Ochenkowski v................................... 980 Ford Motor Co.; Automobile Workers v........................ 998 Ford Motor Co. v. Coleman................................... 927 Foremost International Tours; Qantas Airways v.............. 957 Foster v. Gallawa........................................... 989 Foster Lumber Co.; United States v.......................... 909 Fouke v. Texas.............................................. 974 Fox v. United States........................................ 953 Francis; Batterton v........................................ 969 Francis; Chamber of Commerce of the U. S. v................. 969 Francis v. Chrysler Corp.................................... 967 Francis v. Henderson........................................ 536 Franklin v. Wyrick.......................................... 962 Freedman v. United States................................. 992 Freeman v. Tennessee........................................ 980 Fresno County; United States v..................... 970 Fromme; Evans v............................................. 934 XVIII TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Fruehauf Corp.; Internal Revenue Service v.................. 909 Fry v. United States........................................ 948 Fulford v. Louisiana........................................ 954 Gabriel v. Levin..........................*.............913,1000 Gaertner v. United States................................... 902 Gaither v. United States.................................... 952 Gall v. United States..................................... 972 Gallagher; Ohio v........................................ 257 Gallawa; Foster v........................................ 989 Gamble; Estelle v........................................ 932 Game Co. v. Sterling Drug, Inc.......................... 942,945 Gandy v. Organization of Foster Families.................... 988 Garafola v. United States................................... 976 Garcia v. United States..................................... 995 Garrison v. United States................................... 961 Gary v. Arizona............................................. 916 Gary v. Texas............................................... 905 Gaskin v. Tennessee......................................... 901 Gatto v. Calumet Flexicore Corp............................. 936 Gause v. Arizona............................................ 915 Gautreaux; Hills v.......................................... 284 Gaynor; Bazakas v........................................... 941 Geders v. United States...................................... 80 General Corp.; Sweeton v.................................... 904 General Electric Co. v. Gilbert............................. 989 General Electric Co.; Gilbert v............................. 989 General Mills, Inc.; Jones v................................ 933 General Services Administration; Brown v................... 820 General Warehousemen; Bohack Corp, v.................. 966 Gentile v. United States.................................... 903 George v. Wake County Opportunities, Inc.................... 975 Georgia; Allanson v......................................... 937 Georgia; Ingram v........................................... 908 Georgia; Lemon v............................................ 906 Georgia; Nunnally v......................................... 959 Georgia; Pritchett v................................... 938,1000 Georgia; Sanders v...................................... 945,976 Georgia; Smith v............................................ 938 Georgia Comm’r of Human Resources v. J. L................... 909 Georgia Power Co. v. Cimarron Coal Corp.................. 952 Gerzof v. Gulotta........................................... 901 Gibbons v. United States*................................ 914 Gibson v. Virginia.......................................... 994 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xix Page Giese v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc..................... 945 Gigliotti v. United States................................. 935 Gilbert v. American Eagle Tanker Corp...................... 913 Gilbert v. General Electric Co............................. 989 Gilbert; General Electric Co. v............................ 989 Girard v. 94th Street & 5th Avenue Corp.................... 974 Glazers Wholesale Drug Co. v. Labor Board.................. 913 Glenos v. United States.................................... 994 Glinton v. New York........................................ 953 Goldbach v. McCarthy....................................... 933 Goldberg v. United States................................... 94 Gonzalez v. Texas......................................... 958 Gonzalez-Diaz v. United States............................. 977 Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. United States........................ 995 Goodie v. United States.................................. 905 Goodson; Quarles v....................................... 928 Gordon; Trimble v....................................... 949 Gostout v. Hale............................................ 928 Government Employees Insurance Co.; Pogue v.............915,966 Government of the Canal Zone; Ortega (Beltran) v......... 906 Government of the Virgin Islands; Archer v................. 906 Governor. See name of State or Governor. Graduate Enterprises v. United States...................... 998 Graham v. Wilson........................................... 993 Gravina v. Switzerland................................... 961 Gray; Cook v............................................ 980 Gray; Preston v......................................... 976 Gray; Rilla v............................................ 976 Great Coastal Express, Inc.;'Teamsters v................. 975 Green v. United States..................................... 950 G. R. H.; A. L. v.......................................... 936 Griffin v. Victor...................................... 986 Griffith; McNamara v....................................... 960 Guam; Olsen v.............................................. 960 Gueho; Diamond M Drilling Co. v............................ 976 Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n.......... 930 Gulotta; Gerzof v........................................ 901 Gulotta; Levin v........................................... 901 Gulotta; Mildner v......................................... 901 Gunn; Terry v.............................................. 941 Gurule v. United States................................ 976,982 Gustin v. Stegall.......................................... 974 Guy v. Robbins & Myers, Inc................................ 950 XX TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page H.; A. L. v.............................................. 936 H.; Jones v.............................................. 986 Haddad v. United States.................................. 974 Haga v. Washington....................................... 959 Hahn v. Sargent.......................................... 904 Hairston v. Virginia..................................... 937 Halbert; Llaca-Orbiz v................................... 970 Hale; Gostout v.......................................... 928 Hall v. Bostic........................................... 954 Halverson v. United States............................... 931 Hamilton County General Sessions Ct. Clerk; Maxwell v.... 927 Hampton v. United States............................... 484 Hansen v. United States................................ 979 Hansen v. Weyerhaeuser Co.............................. 907 Hardin; World Market Centers v......................... 958 Hardwick v. Anderson................................... 980 Hardy v. Ohio.......................................... 985 Harman v. Diversified Medical Investments Corp........... 951 Harmon v. Arizona...................................... 942 Harmon v. Hodge.......................................... 926 Harris v. Allegheny-Ludlum Industries.................... 944 Harris; California v................................... 934 Harris v. Columbus...................................... 947 Harrison v. Illinois................................... 980 Harrison; Transportation Union v........................ 958 Hartsell v. United States................................ 953 Hay v. United States..................................... 935 Hayes v. Louisiana....................................... 962 Head v. Korshak.......................................... 993 Henderson; Breaux v...................................... 915 Henderson; Clay v........................................ 995 Henderson; Francis v..................................... 536 Henderson; Mitchell v.................................... 962 Henderson; Newman v...................................... 967 Henderson; St. Andre v................................... 906 Henderson; Washington v.................................. 981 Henican v. Exchange National Bank of Chicago............. 904 Henny v. United States................................... 991 Henry v. Middendorf....................................... 25 Henry; Middendorf v....................................... 25 Henry v. United States................................... 939 Herrera; Teamsters v.......................;............. 990 Herrera; Yellow Freight System v......................... 991 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxi Page HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County....... 904 Hicks v. United States................................... 953 Hickton; Adams v......................................... 940 Hildyard; Eliopulos v.................................... 993 Hill v. Carpenters..................................... 969 Hill v. United States................................ 940,948 Hills v. Cooperative Services, Inc....................... 988 Hills v. Gautreaux....................................... 284 Hills v. Scenic Rivers Assn.............................. 902 Hilton v. United States.................................. 939 Hixson; Maxwell v........................................ 927 Hochfelder; Ernst & Ernst v.......................... 185,986 Hodas v. United States................................... 970 Hodge; Harmon v.......................................... 926 Hoff v. United States.................................... 902 Hoffman; Calley v...................................... 911 Hoffman v. Hoffman....................................... 958 Hogan; Weems v.......................................... 905 Hollowbreast; Northern Cheyenne Tribe v.................. 649 Holsey v. Murray......................................... 976 Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.; Giese v.................. 945 Holyoke Mutual Fire Insurance Co.; Ludwin v.............. 981 Hongisto; Mitchell v..................................... 903 Hopper v. Allen.......................................... 944 Hopper; Cameron v....................................... 915 Hopper; Kitchens v....................................... 993 Horsted v. Wainwright................................... 994 Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital........ 738 Hostrop v. Board of Junior College District No. 515...... 963 Hostrop; Board of Junior College District No. 515 v..... 963 House; Wallace v......................................... 947 Houston v. United States................................. 973 Howard v. Maggio......................................... 969 Howard v. Mississippi.................../................ 954 Howard v. United States.................................. 906 Howard University; Richardson v.......................... 959 Howe v. United States.................................. 953 Howell v. DeBusk......................................... 955 Howell v. Jones.......................................... 945 Howell v. Mississippi State Probation and Parole Board.. 988 Hughes v. United States.................................. 978 Humane Society of Austin v. Austin National Bank........ 976 Hunnicutt v. Estelle..................................... 942 XXII TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Hurley v. United States........................................ 940 Hurst v. Union Carbide Corp., Nuclear Division................. 954 Hurt v. Strickland............................................. 979 Huston v. California........................................... 945 Hy-Dynamic Co.; Johnson v...................................... 907 Hynes v. Mayor of Oradell...................................... 610 Idaho ex rel. Andrus v. Oregon................................. 957 Idaho Governor v. Oregon....................................... 957 Illinois; Brown v.............................................. 941 Illinois; Cooper v............................................. 994 Illinois; Etten v............................................. 994 Illinois; Ferris v............................................. 938 Illinois; Harrison v......................................... 980 Illinois; Lamb v............................................... 938 Illinois; McClellan v........................................ 950 Illinois; Parnell v............................................ 980 Illinois; Smith v.............................................. 940 Illinois; Sutherland v......................................... 947 Illinois Institute of Technology; Cohen v...................... 943 Immigration and Nat. Service; Rodriguez-Camacho v............ 996 Immigration and Nat. Service; Santiago v....................... 971 Indelicato v. New York State Board of Parole................... 936 Indiana; Sumpter v........................................... 952 Indiana Governor; Udall v.................................. 932,947 Ingraham v. Wright............................................. 990 Ingram v. Georgia.............................................. 908 In re. See name of party. Internal Revenue Service v. Fruehauf Corp...................... 909 Internal Revenue Service Center; O’Leary v..................... 995 International. For labor union, see name of trade. International Business Machines Corp.; Curl v.................. 943 International Harvester Co.; Waters v.......................... 997 Iowa; Maynard v................................................ 955 Ippolito-Lutz, Inc.; Cohoes Housing Authority v................ 913 Irby v. Missouri............................................... 997 Isaac v. United States......................................... 977 Jackson v. Court of Appeal of California....................... 926 Jackson v. Jackson............................................. 941 Jackson v. Office of U. S. Magistrate........................ 996 Jackson v. United States....................................... 914 Jansen v. Dann................................................. 972 Japan Airlines Co.; Cali v..................................... 951 J. C. Penney Co. v. Labor Board................................ 911 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXIII Page Jersey Central Power & Light v. Equal Emp. Opp. Comm’n.. 998 Jersey Central Power & Light; Equal Emp. Opp. Comm’n v.. 987 J. L.; Parham v.......................................... 909 John Buist Chester Hospital; Rayner v.................... 942 John Nuveen & Co. v. Sanders............................. 929 Johnson v. Department of Water & Power................... 926 Johnson v. Hy-Dynamic Co................................. 907 Johnson v. Johnson....................................... 997 Johnson; Kelley v........................................ 238 Johnson v. New York...................................... 960 Johnson v. United States................................. 961 Johnson v. Wainwright.................................... 961 Johnsrud v. Minnesota Dept, of Employment Services...... 928 Johnston; Dann v......................................... 219 Johnston; McNamara v..................................... 911 Jones v. Burgwyn......................................... 916 Jones v. General Mills, Inc.............................. 933 Jones v. Henderson....................................... 942 Jones; Henderson v....................................... 942 Jones; Howell v..:....................................... 945 Jones v. Meeks........................................... 916 Jones v. Rath Packing Co................................. 933 Jones v. T. H............................................ 986 Jones v. United States................................... 960 Jorden v. United States.................................. 906 Kadans v. State Bar of Nevada............................ 908 Kamerling v. O’Hagan..................................... 942 Kane; Aldens, Inc. v..................................... 943 Kane County; Rutland Environmental Protection Assn. v.. 913 Kansas; Boone v...................................... 915,985 Kansas v. McCorgary...................................... 931 Kaplan v. Continental Can Co............................. 981 Kasmir; United States v.............................. 391,989 Keegan; University of Delaware v......................... 945 Kehoe v. United States................................... 945 Kelley v. Johnson........................................ 238 Kelley v. United States.................................. 914 Kelly v. United States................................... 952 Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Train.......................... 935 Kent Nursing Home v. Office of Special State Prosecutor... 974 Kenton County Board of Election Comm’n; Thompson v... 926 Kentucky; Bonnell v...................................... 962 Kerr v. U. S. District Court............................. 949 XXIV TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Killian v. United States.................................... 935 Kinnard v. United States.................................... 914 Kirkman v. Virginia......................................... 996 Kirwan v. Romano............................................ 929 Kitchens v. Hopper.......................................... 993 Kizzee v. Estelle........................................... 962 Klein; Berger v............................................. 948 Kleppe; Burglin v........................................... 973 Kleppe v. Sierra Club....................................... 932 Kleppe; Susenkewa v......................................... 903 Kneip; Rosebud Sioux Tribe v............................ 989 Koehler v. Chism.......................................... 944 Korshak; Head v............................................. 993 Kraut v. Commissioner....................................... 973 Kresge Co. v. Baez.......................................... 904 Kritzman; Alexander v....................................... 952 L. v. G. R. H............................................... 936 L.; Parham v................................................ 909 Labor Board; Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v.................... 970 Labor Board; Glazers Wholesale Drug Co. v................. 913 Labor Board v. Operating Engineers.......................... 800 Labor Board v. Pipefitters.............................. 932,969 Labor Board; Prudential Insurance Co. v..................... 975 Labor Board; Regency Electronics, Inc. v.................... 907 Labor Board; Thrift Drug v.................................. 911 Labor Union. See name of trade. Lamb v. Illinois............................................ 938 Lansing School District; Park v........................... 904 LaSalle National Bank v. County Board of School Trustees.. 936 Lash v. Aikens............................................ 947 Lau v. Levi................................................. 992 Lea Associates, Inc. v. United States.................. 912,1000 League of United Latin American Citizens v. Lo-Vaca Co.... 959 Leal v. United States....................................... 979 Lee Way Motor Freight v. Resendis........................... 991 Leland v. United States..................................... 938 Lemon v. Georgia............................................ 906 Lennon v. Clark............................................. 985 Lentini; Sweeny v........................................... 993 Leonard v. United States.................................... 958 Levi; Lau v................................................. 992 Levin; Gabriel v....................................... 913,1000 Levin v. Gulotta............................................ 901 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxv Page Lewis v. United States................................. 938,981 Lewis v. White............................................. 933 Liles v. Oregon............................................ 963 Lindhorst; Stif el v....*.................................. 962 Lindsey v. United States................................... 953 Llaca-Orbiz v. Halbert..................................... 970 Lloyd v. United States..................................... 940 Local. For labor union, see name of trade. Lodge. For labor union, see name of trade. Loeffler; Danning v........................*............... 936 Long v. Texas.............................................. 937 Lopez-Lopez v. United States............................... 995 Los Angeles County Superior Court; HFH, Ltd. v........... 904 Louisiana; Berry v......................................* 954 Louisiana; Fulford v.....................*................. 954 Louisiana; Hayes v......................................... 962 Louisiana; Paciera v...................................... 912 Louisiana; Stewart v997 Louisiana Board of Pharmacy v. Webb........................ 936 Louisiana Governor; Driskell v............................. 956 Louisville Chief of Police v. Davis........................ 985 Lo-Vaca Gathering Co.; Latin American Citizens v......... 959 Lovelace v. Tennessee...................................... 929 Lucas; Weiner v............................................ 937 Ludwin v. Holyoke Mutual Fire Insurance Co................. 981 Lueck; Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v........... i.. 913 Lujan v. United States..................................... 976 Lunding; Bradley v......................................... 956 Lyon v. California......................................... 962 Machinists v. United Aircraft Corp......................... 973 Madison v. United States................................... 981 Madison Joint School Dist. v. Wisconsin Emp. Rei. Comm’n.. 969 Maggio; Howard v........................................... 969 Mahnke v. Massachusetts.................................. 959 Maine; New Hampshire v..................................... 931 Malloy v. United States.................................... 905 Mandujano; United States v..,.............................. 564 Manfredi v. Royal Insurance Co............................ 962 Manson v. Brathwaite....................................... 957 Mapp v. United States...................................... 978 Marathonian, The; Federal Commerce & Navigation Co. v... 975 Markert v. United States................................... 973 Marshall Field & Co. v. Shoup.............................. 981 XXVI TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Martinez v. California................................... 979 Martinez v. United States................................ 906 Martinez-Fuerte; United States v......................... 931 Maryland; Carter v................................... 981,997 Maryland; Fabritz v...................................... 942 Maryland Dept, of Human Resources v. Francis............. 969 Maschhoff v. Automobile Workers.................. 993 Masino v. United States.......................... 994 Massachusetts; Mahnke v.................................. 959 Masterson v. Ohio........................................ 928 Matheny v. Alabama....................................... 982 Mathews; Cash v.......................................... 967 Mathews; Celani v..................................... 961 Mathews v. De Castro................................... 957 Mathews v. Elliott....................................... 987 Mathews v. Mattem........................................ 987 Mathews; Mt. Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami v........... 935 Mathews; Szekely v....................................... 960 Mathews v. United States................................. 939 Mathewson v. United States............................... 935 Mattern; Mathews v....................................... 987 Matthews; Bitzer v....................................... 902 Mauch v. Flemming........................................ 954 Maxwell v. Hixson........................................ 927 Maynard v. Iowa.......................................... 955 Mayor of Oradell; Hynes v................................ 610 McBride v. Reed.......................................... 996 McCarthy; Goldbach v..................................... 933 McCartney; Moore v................................... 927,946 McClellan v. Illinois.................................... 950 McClellan; Melnick v..................................... 904 McCollin v. Britt........................................ 940 McCorgary; Kansas v...................................... 931 McCormick v. Farmers Home Administration................. 978 McDonald v. Tennessee.............................. 955,1000 McDonnell Douglas Corp.; Flanagan v...................... 911 McDougal v. West Virginia................................ 938 McGeehan v. Wainwright...............................4 997 McHale v. United States.................................. 958 McKeldin v. Tennessee.................................... 901 McKitty v. United States................................. 972 McMillen; St. Regis Paper Co. v.......................... 993 McNamara v. Griffith..................................... 960 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXVII Page McNamara v. Johnston........................................ 911 McNulty v. United States.................................... 972 McReynolds v. Zahradnick.................................... 980 Meeks; Jones v.............................................. 916 Meijer-Oosterink v. Esso Standard Eastern, Inc............. 941 Melnick v. McClellan........................................ 904 Melnik v. United States.................................... 911 Merrill v. Wilbee........................................... 960 Mescalero Apache Tribe v. United States.................... 911 Metro Bolt & Fastener Corp. v. Coats........................ 974 Metzger v. New York......................................... 911 Meyer v. United States...................................... 908 Mid-America Transportation Co. v. National Marine Serv.. 937 Middendorf; Crosby v....................................... 916 Middendorf v. Henry......................................... 25 Middendorf; Henry v......................................... 25 Mielke v. Singara Grotto, Inc............................... 974 Mildner v. Gulotta.......................................... 901 Miller v. Bombard........................................... 954 Miller v. United States..................................... 978 Miller; United States v..................................... 435 Miller; Youakim v........................................... 231 Mills v. U. S. District Court............................... 995 Minnesota Comm’r of Taxation; Associated Dry Goods v.... 999 Minnesota Dept, of Employment Services; Johnsrud v....... 928 Mishkin v. New York......................................... 904 Mississippi; Baberson v..................................... 962 Mississippi; Howard v....................................... 954 Mississippi State Probation and Parole Board; Brooks v... 988 Mississippi State Probation and Parole Board; Howell v... 988 Missouri; Irby v........................................ 997 Mitchell v. Henderson..................................... 962 Mitchell v. Hongisto...................................... 903 Mitchell v. United States................................. 953 Mitchell v. Zweibon....................................... 944 Mitchell; Zweibon v......................................... 944 Mitsui Shintaku Ginko K. K., Tokyo v. Dodge................ 944 M. J. D. M. Truck Rentals; Anastos v........................ 927 M. J. D. M. Truck Rentals v. O’Brien....................... 927 Mobile County Board of School Comm’rs; Davis v........... 944 Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes............. 463 Moe; Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v............. 463 Moffett; Dishner v......................................... 915 XXVIII TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Monongahela Appliance Co. v. Community Bank & Trust.... 960 Montana District Court, 16th Jud. Dist.; Fisher v......... 926 Montoya-Gonzales v. United States......................... 978 Moody v. Daggett.......................................... 932 Moore v. California....................................... 977 Moore v. East Cleveland................................... 949 Moore v. McCartney...................,................ 927,946 Moore v. Rumsfeld......................................... 958 Morgan v. California..................................... 938 Morgan v. United States.............................. 905,1000 Morrow v. United States................................... 977 Moses v. United States.................................... 940 Moss v. Central of Georgia R. Co......................... 907 Motorola, Inc.; Parker v.................................. 975 Mt. Healthy City School District Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle.... 933 Mt. Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami v. Mathews............ 935 Mullenax v. United States................................. 968 Mulligan v. Dunne......................................... 916 Municipal Court; Tams-Witmark Music Library v............. 913 Murphy v. United States................................... 940 Murray; Holsey v........................................ 976 Muscare; Quinn v....................................... 560 Najanick v. Pennsylvania.................................. 958 Natale v. United States.................................. 950 Natelli v. United States.................................. 934 NAACP v. Federal Power Comm’n............................. 662 NAACP; Federal Power Comm’n v........................ 662 National Assn, of Radiotelephone Systems v. FCC........... 992 National Bank of N. A. v. Associates of Obstetrics...... 460 National Labor Relations Board. See Labor Board. National Marine Service; Mid-America Transp. Co. v...... 937 National Organization for Women v. United States........ 944 National Socialist White People’s Party v. Walsh.......... 929 Nevada State Bar; Kadans v................................ 908 New Hampshire v. Maine.................................... 931 New Jersey v. Pace........................................ 943 New Jersey; Philadelphia v................................ 910 Newman v. Henderson....................................... 967 New Mexico; Arizona v.................................. 794 New York; Balay v......................................... 942 New York; Bogatin v....................................... 912 New York; Glinton v................................,...... 953 New York; Johnson v............................... j., 960 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXIX Page New York; Metzger v......................................... 911 New York; Mishkin v.................................... 904 New York; Williams v........................................ 914 New York; Wright v........................................ 996 New York Board of Social Welfare v. Foster Families.... 988 New York City; Chaneyfield v......*...................... 912 New York City Fire Comm’r; Kamerling v................... 942 New York City Human Res. Adm’r v. Foster Families...... 988 New York Civil Service Comm’n v. Snead................... 457 New York Comm’r of Social Services v. Aitchison.......... 930 New York Comm’r of Social Services v. Barton............. 985 New York Comm’r of Social Services v. Klein.............. 948 New York Governor v. Sugar........*..................... 73 New York News, Inc.; Bowen v............................ 936 New York News, Inc.; Suburbia News Delivery Service v... 936 New York Public Service Comm’n; Sun Oil Co. v........... 926 New York State Board of Parole; Indelicato v............. 936 New York State Police Supt. v. Romano....................... 929 Nicholson v. United States.................................. 972 Nielsen v. Utah............................................. 906 94th Street & 5th Avenue Corp.; Girard v.................... 974 Nivens v. Signal Oil & Gas Co............................. 912 Nolde Bros. v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers............... 970 Norfolk; White v.......................................... 1000 Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Rock............................ 934 North American Co. for Insurance v. Ann Arbor Trust Co.. 993 North Carolina; Caron v.................................... 971 North Carolina; Enslin v................................ 903,985 North Carolina; Pearson v................................... 938 North Dakota; Berger v...................................... 913 Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hollowbreast..................... 649 Northside Realty Associates v. United States................ 985 Nunnally v. Georgia......................................... 959 Nuveen & Co. v. Sanders..................................... 929 O’Brien; M. J. D. M. Truck Rentals v........................ 926 Ochenkowski v. A. Z. Ford, Inc............................ 980 O’Donnell v. United States.................................. 995 Office of Special State Prosecutor; Kent Nursing Home v... 974 Office of U. S. Magistrate; Jackson v....................... 996 Ogrod v. Ogrod..................*........................... 908 O’Hagan ; Kamerling v.................................. 942 Ohio v. Gallagher........................................... 257 Ohio; Hardy v............................................. 985 XXX TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Ohio; Masterson v.......................................... 928 Ohio Secretary of State; Democratic Committee v.......... 975 Ohio State Board of Education v. Bronson................... 934 Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers v. Continental Oil Co.... 936 Oklahoma; Bell v........................................... 906 Oklahoma; Phillips v....................................... 954 Oklahoma; Webb v........................................... 941 Olaf Pedersen’s Rederi; American Stevedores, Inc. v....... 951 Olden v. California........................................ 917 Old National Bank of Washington; Faircloth v............ 986 O’Leary v. Ruttie.......................................... 995 Olsen v. Guam.............................................. 960 Omemick v. Department of Natural Resources................. 941 Operating Engineers; Labor Board v......................... 800 Operating Engineers; South Prairie Construction Co. v..... 800 Opperman; South Dakota v................................... 909 Oradell Mayor; Hynes v..................................... 610 Oregon; Andrus v........................................... 957 Oregon; Idaho ex rel. Andrus v............................. 957 Oregon; Liles v............................................ 963 Organization of Foster Families; Dumpson v................. 988 Organization of Foster Families; Gandy v................. 988 Organization of Foster Families; Rodriguez v............... 988 Organization of Foster Families; Shapiro v................. 988 Orleans; United States v................................... 807 Ortega (Beltran) v. Government of the Canal Zone.......... 906 Owens v. Warden............................................ 915 Owensboro-Daviess County Hospital v. Usery................ 973 Pace; New Jersey v......................................... 943 Paciera v. Louisiana....................................... 912 Pacific Coast Agricultural Export Assn. v. Sunkist Growers... 959 Pacific Coast Agricultural Export Assn.; Sunkist Growers v.. 959 Pacific Gas & Electric Co.; Pitt River Tribe of Indians v.... 974 Paduano v. Commissioner................................... 992 Palm Beach Biltmore, Inc.; Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v.. 904 Palmigiano; Baxter v....................................... 308 Paquin v. Cronk............................................ 972 Paramount Convalescent Center v. Dept, of Health Care.... 992 Parham v. J. L............................................. 909 Park v. Lansing School District............................ 904 Parker v. Motorola, Inc.................................... 975 Parnell v. Illinois........................................ 980 Parrish v. Board of Comm’rs of Alabama State Bar.......... 944 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXXI Page Partenreederei MS Ravenna; Celia v............................. 975 Partin v. United States........................................ 904 Patterson v. Ricketts.......................................... 954 Patuxent Institution Director; Williams v...................... 976 Paul v. Davis.................................................. 985 Pauley v. Ziebart Process Corp................................. 951 Pearson v. North Carolina...................................... 938 Penney Co. v. Labor Board...................................... 911 Penn Security Life Insurance Co.; United States v........... 990 Pennsylvania; Najanick v....................................... 958 Pennsylvania Attorney General; Aldens, Inc. v.................. 943 Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co.; Schuppenhauer v.................. 937 Perkins v. Screen Extras Guild................................. 951 Perry v. United States..................................... 933,992 Petty v. United States......................................... 995 Philadelphia v. New Jersey..................................... 910 Phillips v. Oklahoma......................................... 954 Phillips v. United States...................................... 942 Phillips; Williams v........................................... 945 Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Church......................... 908,985 Pickette v. United States...................................... 935 Pierce County; Shouse v........................................ 929 Pipefitters; Labor Board v................................. 932,969 Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc........................... 910 Pitt River Tribe of Indians v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.... 974 Plastilite Corp. v. Airlite Plastics Co........................ 938 Pocono International Corp. v. United States.................... 971 Pogue v. Government Employees Insurance Co............... 915,966 Ponderosa Acres; Flamm v....................................... 941 Porter Memorial Hospital; Fitzgerald v......................... 916 Portland Retail Druggists Assn.; Abbott Laboratories v.... 1 Porzuczek v. Towner............................................ 941 Poster Exchange; Columbia Pictures Industries v................ 971 Preciado-Gomez v. United States................................ 953 President, Louisiana Board of Pharmacy v. Webb................. 936 President, Tennessee State University; Chapdelaine v........ 953 Preston v. Gray................................................ 976 Pritchett v. Georgia..................................... 938,1000 Prothro v. United States....................................... 991 Prudential Insurance Co. v. Labor Board........................ 975 Public Service Comm’n of New York; Sun Oil Co. v............ 926 Public Utilities Comm’n of California; Shade v........... 928,1000 Public Welfare Director; Convalescent Care, Inc. v.......... 952 XXXII TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Qantas Airways v. Foremost International Tours............. 957 Quarles v. Goodson......................................... 928 Quarles v. United States................................... 972 Quick Corp, of America v. United States.................... 912 Quigg v. Crist............................................. 994 Quinn v. Muscare........................................... 560 Quiroz v. Arizona........................................ 974 Raitport v. Commercial Banks Located Within This District.. 997 Ransom v. United States.................................... 945 Rarig; Wild v............................................. 945 Rath Packing Co.; Jones v.................................. 933 Rath Packing Co.; Wallace v................................ 933 Rawson v. Wilbee........................................... 960 Raygoza v. United States................................... 995 Rayner v. John Buist Chester Hospital...................... 942 Real-BLT, Inc.; Flamm v.................................... 941 Reale v. Virginia.......................................... 960 Redd v. Shell Oil Co....................................... 912 Reece; Richter v........................................... 988 Reed; Boruski v............................................ 949 Reed v. Del Chemical Corp.................................. 941 Reed; McBride v............................................ 996 Reed v. United States...................................... 926 Reese v. United States..................................... 972 Regan; Castro v............................................ 997 Regency Electronics, Inc. v. Labor Board................... 907 Reine; Sorrento Municipal Democratic Executive Com. v... 946 Republic of Cuba; Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v....... 682 Republic of Cuba v. Saks & Co.............................. 991 Republic of Cuba; Saks & Co. v............................. 991 Resendis ; Lee Way Motor Freight v........................ 991 Resendis; Teamsters v...................................... 990 Rex Hospital Trustees; Hospital Building Co. v............. 738 Reynolds v. United States.................................. 961 Rhoades v. Rochez Bros..................................... 993 Rhoten v. Virginia......................................... 981 Rich v. Bonner............................................. 915 Richardson v. Howard Universtiy............................ 959 Richerson v. Wolff....................................... 914 Richter v. Reece........................................... 988 Ricketts; Patterson v...................................... 954 Riddick v. United States................................... 960 Riggins v. United States................................... 956 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXXIII Page Rilla v. Gray............................................ 976 Rizzo v. United States.................................... 996 Robbins & Myers, Inc.; Electrical Workers v............... 950 Robbins & Myers, Inc.; Guy v.............................. 950 Roberson v. United States............................. 917,985 Roberts v. Civil Aeronautics Board........................ 966 Rocha-Lopez v. United States.............................. 977 Rochez Bros.; Rhoades v................................... 993 Rock; Norfolk & Western R. Co. v.......................... 934 Rock; Transportation Union v.............................. 934 Rodman & Renshaw v. Schaefer.............................. 943 Rodriguez; East Texas Motor Freight System v.............. 990 Rodriguez v. Organization of Foster Families.............. 988 Rodriguez; Teamsters v.................................... 990 Rodriguez v. United States................................ 999 Rodriguez-Camacho v. Immigration and Nat. Service........ 996 Romano; Kirwan v.......................................... 929 Rose; Department of Air Force v........................... 352 Rose v. United States..................................... 905 Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip.............................. 989 Roth; Wicker v............................................ 915 Roti v. Florida....................................... 902,915 Roudebush; Chandler v..................................... 840 Rousseve; Shape Spa for Health & Beauty, Inc. v.......... 911 Rowell v. United States................................... 935 Royal American Corp.; Euclid v........................ 966 Royal Insurance Co.; Manfredi v......................... 962 Rumsfeld; Baker v......................................... 966 Rumsfeld; Moore v......................................... 958 Rumsfeld; Thompson v...................................... 930 Russell; American Tobacco Co. v........................... 935 Russell; Tobacco Workers v.............................. 935 Russo v. United States.................................... 950 Rutland Environmental Protection Assn. v. Kane County.... 913 Ruttie; O’Leary v......................................... 995 Ruyle v. United States.................................. 934 Sacramento Municipal Court; Tams-Witmark Music Libr. v.. 913 St. Andre v. Henderson.................................... 906 St. Joe Minerals Corp.; Environmental Protection Agency v.. 987 St. Louis Circuit Court; Bonner v......................... 926 St. Regis Paper Co. v. McMillen........................... 993 Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc................................... 273 Saks & Co. v, Republic of Cuba............................ 991 XXXIV TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Pag© Saks & Co.; Republic of Cuba v.............................. 991 Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. Moe........................ 463 Salish and Kootenai Tribes; Moe v......................... 463 Salt Lake City; Savage v.................................. 915 Sanchez v. United States.................................... 939 Sanders v. Georgia...................................... 945,976 Sanders; John Nuveen & Co. v................................ 929 Sanders v. United States.................................... 982 San Mateo Bd. of Ed.; Citizens for Parental Rights v.... 908,1000 Santiago v. Immigration and Naturalization Service......... 971 Santiago v. United States.................................. 972 Sargent; Hahn v............................................ 904 Savage v. Salt Lake City................................... 915 Savage; Thomas v........................................... 945 Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Thomas...................... 910 Scardino v. United States.................................. 960 Scenic Rivers Assn, of Oklahoma; Flint Ridge Dev. Co. v.... 902 Scenic Rivers Assn, of Oklahoma; Hills v................... 902 Schaefer v. First National Bank of Lincolnwood.,........... 943 Schaefer; Rodman & Renshaw v............................... 943 Schlegel Mfg. Co.; USM Corp, v............................. 912 Schuppenhauer v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co............... 937 Schwartz; Spector Freight System of Illinois v............. 959 Scott v. United States..................................... 917 Screen Extras Guild; Perkins v............................. 951 Seaboard Allied Milling Corp.; Agger v..................... 937 Seacoast Products; Douglas v............................. 949 Seals; Carter v............................................ 989 Sears v. Dann.............................................. 904 Secretary, Dept, of Human Resources of Md. v. Francis...... 969 Secretary of Air Force; Boruski v.......................... 949 Secretary of Army; Calley vs s..... t...................... 911 Secretary of Commerce; Vymetalik v......................... 977 Secretary of Defense; Baker v.............................. 966 Secretary of Defense; Moore v.......................... 958 Secretary of Defense; Thompson v........................... 930 Secretary of HEW; Cash v................................... 967 Secretary of HEW; Celani v................................. 961 Secretary of HEW v. De Castro.............................. 957 Secretary of HEW v. Elliott................................ 987 Secretary of HEW v. Mattern................................ 987 Secretary of HEW; Mt. Sinai Hospital v................. 935 Secretary of HEW; Szekely v................................ 960 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXXV Page Secretary of HUD v. Cooperative Services, Inc................ 988 Secretary of HUD v. Gautreaux................................ 284 Secretary of HUD; Scenic Rivers Assn, v...................... 902 Secretary of Interior; Burglin v............................. 973 Secretary of Interior v. Sierra Club......................... 932 Secretary of Interior; Susenkewa v........................... 903 Secretary of Labor; Accu-Namics, Inc. v..................... 903 Secretary of Labor; Owensboro-Daviess County Hospital v... 973 Secretary of Labor; Winters Battery Mfg. Co. v............... 991 Secretary of Navy; Avrech v................................ 970 Secretary of Navy; Crosby v................................ 916 Secretary of Navy v. Henry................................. 25 Secretary of Navy; Henry v.................................. 25 Secretary of State of Ohio; Democratic Committee v........ 975 Secretary of Transportation; Ford Motor Co. v................ 927 Secretary of Treasury; Sexton v.............................. 973 Secretary of U. S. Senate; Buckley v......................... 946 Secretary of West Virginia; Moore v...................... 927,946 Security National Bank; Crawford v........................... 959 Sedgwick v. United States...............*.................... 966 Selikoff v. Commissioner of Correction of New York........ 951 Sellers v. United States..................................... 955 Seminara v. United States.........................*.......... 992 Senak v. United States. .................................... 907 Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States........ 903,904 Sexton v. Simon.............................................. 973 Shade v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California.......... 928,1000 Shape Spa for Health & Beauty, Inc. v. Rousseve.............. 911 Shapiro v. Organization of .Foster Families.................. 988 Sharp v. United States....................................... 972 Sharpe; Standard Oil Co. v................................. 947 Sheeley v. Texas............................................. 980 Shellman; United States Lines v.............................. 936 Shell Oil Co.; Abajo Petroleum v............................. 912 Shell Oil Co.; Redd v...................................... 912 Shevin; Standard Oil Co. of California v..................... 930 Shoup; Marshall Field & Co. v........................... 981 Shouse v. Pierce County..................................... 929 Shriver v. United States..................................... 978 Sierra Club; American Electric Power System v................ 932 Sierra Club; Kleppe v........................................ 932 Sifuentes v. United States................................... 931 Signal Oil & Gas Co.; Nivens v............................... 912 XXXVI TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Silverton v. California Adult Authority..................... 912 Simmons v. United States.................................... 939 Simms v. Connecticut........*............................... 954 Simms v. United States...................................... 939 Simon; Sexton v........................................ 973 Simons v. United States..................................... 938 Singara Grotto, Inc.; Mielke v........................... 974 Skydell v. Ecological Science Corp.......................... 912 Slepicoff v. United States.................................. 998 Slingerland v. United States................................ 985 Smiley v. Firth............................................. 989 Smith v. Arkansas........................................... 912 Smith; Barrett v............................................ 977 Smith; Bounds v..........................................910,968 Smith v. Department of Public Works, Westchester County.. 961 Smith, v. Florida.......................................... 962 Smith v. Georgia.......................................... 938 Smith v. Illinois......................................... 940 Smith v. United States.................................... 994 Smith v. Warne.........................,.................... 941 Snead; New York Civil Service Comm’n v...................... 457 Soliz v. United States....,................................. 953 Sorrento Municipal Democratic Executive Com. v. Reine.... 946 South Dakota v. Opperman.................................... 909 South Dakota Governor; Rosebud Sioux Tribe v................ 989 Southern Airways; Wells v.......'........................... 914 Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck................ 913 South Prairie Construction Co. v. Operating Engineers...... 800 Special State Prosecutor; Kent Nursing Home v............... 974 Spector Freight System of Illinois v. Schwartz.............. 959 S. S. Kresge Co. v. Baez.................................. 904 Standard Oil Co. v. Sharpe................................. 947 Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. Florida ex rel. Shevin.......... 930 Stanley v. United States.................................... 940 Star Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Com. Comm’n.............. 992 Starnes; American Motorists Insurance Co. v................. 637 State. See name of State. State Bar of California; Sullins v.......................... 937 State Bar of Nevada; Kadans v............................... 908 State Bd. of Equalization; Diamond National Corp. v.... 268,1000 Stead v. United States.................................... 953 Stegall; Gustin v........................................... 974 Steinberg v. United States.................................. 971 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXXVII Page Stengel; Belcher v............................................ 910 Sterling Drug, Inc.; Dawn v............................... 942,945 Sterling Drug, Inc.; Game Co. v.,......................... 942,945 Stewart v. Louisiana.......................................... 997 Stif el v. Lindhorst.......................................... 962 Stiger v. United States....................................... 938 Strickland; Hurt v............................................ 979 Suburbia News Delivery Service v. New York News, Inc.... 936 Suffolk County Police Comm’r v. Johnson....................... 238 Suffolk University; Donnelly v............................... 955 Sugar; Carey v................................................. 73 Sugar; Curtis Circulation Co. v............................. 73 Sullins v. State Bar of California............................ 937 Sumpter v. Indiana............................................. 952 Sunkist Growers v. Pacific Coast Agric. Export Assn......... 959 Sunkist Growers; Pacific Coast Agric. Export Assn, v........ 959 Sun Oil Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of New York............ 926 Superintendent, New York State Police v. Romano............. 929 Superintendent of penal or correctional institution. See name or state title of superintendent. Superior Court of California; Alexander v..................... 979 Superior Court of Los Angeles County; HFH, Ltd. v........... 904 Superior Oil Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n...................... 971 Susenkewa v. Kleppe........................................... 903 Sutherland v. Illinois...................................... 947 Swanson v. Estelle............................................ 997 Sweeny v. Lentini............................................. 993 Sweet; Fletcher v............................................. 933 Sweeton v. General Corp....................................... 904 Swenson; Tyler v.............................................. 979 Switzerland; Gravina v...................................... 961 Szekely v. Mathews.,.......................................... 960 Tams-Witmark Music Library v. Municipal Court............... 913 Tarbox, In re................................................ 968 Taylor v. Alabama........................................ 942,1000 Teamsters v. Eazor Express, Inc............................. 908 Teamsters v. Great Coastal Express, Inc...................... 975 Teamsters v. Herrera........................................ 990 Teamsters v. Resendis....................................... 990 Teamsters v. Rodriguez...................................... 990 Teamsters v. Teamsters....................................... 960 Teamsters v. United States.................................. 990 Tennessee; Combs v............................................ 954 xxxvni TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Tennessee; Cotton v...................................... 940 Tennessee; Freeman v.................................... 980 Tennessee; Gaskin v...................................... 901 Tennessee; Lovelace v.................................... 929 Tennessee; McDonald v................................ 955,1000 Tennessee; McKeldin v..................................... 901 Tennessee State University President; Chapdelaine v...... 953 Tennessee Valley Authority v. EPA........................ 934 Territory. See name of Territory. Terry v. Gunn............................................. 941 Testan; United States v................................... 957 Texas; Doby v............................................. 976 Texas; Fouke v............................................ 974 Texas; Gary v............................................. 905 Texas; Gonzalez v........................................ 958 Texas; Long v............................................ 937 Texas; Sheeley v.......................................... 980 Texas; Washington v....................................... 941 T. H.; Jones v............................................ 986 Thaler; Wolfer v.......................................... 975 Thomas v. California...................................... 954 Thomas; Division of Vocational Rehabilitation v.......... 937 Thomas v. Savage.......................................... 945 Thomas; Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v..................... 910 Thomas v. United States................................... 996 Thompson v. Kenton County Board of Election Comm’n.,.. 926 Thompson v. Rumsfeld...................................... 930 Thompson v. Zahradnick.................................... 980 Thrasher v. California Adult Authority.................... 945 Thrift Drug v. Labor Board................................ 911 Time, Inc. v. Virgil...................................... 998 T. I. M. E.-DC, Inc. v. United States..................... 990 Tobacco Workers v. Russell................................ 935 Torrence; Chapdelaine v................................. 953 Torrez v. Arizona......................................... 916 Town. See name of town. Towner; Porzuczek v....................................... 941 Townes v. United States................................... 939 Train; E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v................... 933 Train; Kennecott Copper Corp, v........................... 935 Trammell v. Alabama....................................... 980 Transok Pipe Line Co.; Darks v............................ 951 Transportation Union v. Harrison.......................... 958 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XXXIX Page Transportation Union v. Rock................................ 934 Trans World Airlines v. Day................................. 989 Tremarco v. Attorney General................................ 978 Trimble v. Gordon........................................... 949 Tri Terminal Corp. v. Edgewater............................. 958 Trotta v. United States......<.............................. 971 Trustees of Rex Hospital; Hospital Building Co. v........... 738 Tucker v. United States................................. 958,994 Tuolumne County; United States v............................ 970 Tyler v. Swenson........................................ 979 Tyler v. United States................................ 914,939 Tyler v. Wyrick....................................... 915,941 Udall v. Bowen....................................... 932,947 Union. For labor union, see name of trade. Union Carbide Corp., Nuclear Division; Hurst v.............. 954 Union Planters National Bank v. Aztec Properties....:....... 975 United. For labor union, see name of trade. United Aircraft Corp.; Machinists v......................... 973 United Continental Tuna Corp.; United States v.......... 164 United Latin American Citizens v. Lo-Vaca Gathering Co.... 959 United States; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v............ 973 United States; Alexander v.............................. 905 United States; Allen v................................. 985,1001 United States; Alvarez v................................ 995 United States; American Trucking Assns. v............... 955 United States; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v............ 992 United States; Aviles v................................... 961 United States; Barnes v................................... 952 United States; Bastone v................................... 973 United States; Batte v...................................... 961 United States; Beasley v................................... 956 United States; Beathune v.................................. 996 United States v. Beattie.................................... 967 United States; Beattie v................................... 970 United States; Beaver v........................*............ 905 United States; Beckwith v................................ 341 United States; Beer v.................................... 130 United States; Berard v.................................... 913 United States; Bermudez v.................................. 970 United States; Black v..................................... 939 United States; Blankenship v............................... 978 United States; Blanton v................................... 935 United States; Bobo v................................... 995 XL TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page United States; Bordeaux v................................. 950 United States; Bradford v................................. 914 United States; Bridgeman v................................. 961 United States; Brown v.................................... 905,996 United States; Bryant v.....,............................. 905,914 United States; Buchanon v................................. 950 United States ; Buffa v...................*................... 936 United States; Burgin v....................................... 961 United States; Burnett v...................................... 977 United States; Burnette v..................................... 939 United States; Burroughs v................................ 906 United States; Bush v....................................... 986 United States; Byers v...................................... 484 United States ; Cain v........................................ 939 United States; Canon v...................................... 991 United States; Capo v....................................... 971 United States; Carrillo v.................................... 952 United States; Carter v...................................... 961 United States; Cataldo v..................................... 969 United States; Caterine v.................................. 926 United States; Chaparro v..................................... 996 United States; Chatman v...................................... 945 United States; Chevoor v...................................... 935 United States; Choate v....................................... 971 United States; Clay v......................................... 914 United States; Coe v.......................................... 979 United States; Collier v...................................... 940 United States v. Consumer Life Insurance Co................... 990 United States; Cooper v....................................... 953 United States; Corbbins v....................*................ 961 United States; Corex Corp, v............................. 912 United States; Crim v......................................... 905 United States; Crowley v...................................... 995 United States; Currie v....................................... 996 United States; Curtis v....................................... 939 United States; Dallal v....................................... 971 United States; D’Ambrosio v................................... 943 United States ; Dandar v.................................... 978 United States; Darden v....................................... 973 United States; Davis v........................................ 953 United States; De los Santos v............................. 905 United States; DePaola v...................................... 950 United States; Diaz-Martinez v............................. 970 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XLT Page United States ; Dickinson v................................... 952 United States; Douglas v...................................... 977 United States; Dows v....................................... 978 United States; Duncan v....................................... 917 United States ; Edwards v................................. 972,979 United States; Eitel v...................................... 979 United States; Entrekin v................................... 977 United States; Esposito v................................... 916 United States; Estremera v.................................. 979 United States; Evans v.................................... 905,914 United States; Fairchild v.................................... 942 United States; Falco v........................................ 979 United States; Ferretti v..................................... 952 United States; First Railroad & Banking Co. of Georgia v.... 990 United States; Fisher v....................................... 391 United States ; Flores v...................................... 955 United States v. Florida.................................. 791,931 United States v. Foster Lumber Co............................. 909 United States ; Fox v......................................... 953 United States; Freedman v..................................... 992 United States v. Fresno County.............................. 970 United States; Fry v.......................................... 948 United States; Gaertner v..................................... 902 United States ; Gaither v..................................... 952 United States; Gall v......................................... 972 United States; Garafola v..................................... 976 United States; Garcia v....................................... 995 United States; Garrison v................................... 961 United States; Geders v...................................... 80 United States; Gentile v..................................... 903 United States; Gibbons v..................................... 914 United States ; Gigliotti v................................. 935 United States; Glenos v..................................... 994 United States; Goldberg v.................................... 94 United States; Gonzalez-Diaz v.............................. 977 United States; Gonzalez-Rodriguez v....................... 995 United States; Goodie v..................................... 905 United States; Graduate Enterprises v....................... 998 United States; Green v...................................... 950 United States; Gurule v................................. 976,982 United States; Haddad v..................................... 974 United States; Halverson v.................................... 931 United States; Hampton v...................................... 484 XLII TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page United States; Hansen v.......................................... 979 United States; Hartsell v........................................ 953 United States; Hay v............................................. 935 United States; Henny v........................................... 991 United States; Henry v........................................... 939 United States; Hicks v........................................... 953 United States; Hill v...................................... 940,948 United States; Hilton v........................................ 939 United States; Hodas v......................................... 970 United States; Hoff v............................................ 902 United States; Houston v...................................... 973 United States; Howard v..................................... 906 United States; Howe v.......................................... 953 United States; Hughes v..................................... 978 United States; Hurley v.......................................... 940 United States; Isaac v........................................ 977 United States; Jackson v......................................... 914 United States; Johnson v..................................... 961 United States; Jones v......................................... 960 United States; Jorden v......................................... 906 United States v. Kasmir..................................... 391,989 United States; Kehoe v......................................... 945 United States; Kelley v........................................ 914 United States; Kelly v........................................... 952 United States; Killian v....................................... 935 United States; Kinnard v....................................... 914 United States; Lea Associates, Inc. v......................912,1000 United States; Leal v.......................................... 979 United States; Leland v. i................................ 938 United States; Leonard v.................................... 958 United States; Lewis v....................................... 938,981 Untied States; Lindsey v........................................ 953 United States; Lloyd v...................................... 940 United States; Lopez-Lopez v........................... 995 United States; Lujan v......................................... 976 United States; Madison v....................................... 981 United States; Malloy v........................................ 905 United States v. Mandujano.................................. 564 United States; Mapp v......................................... 978 United States; Markert v...................................... 973 United States; Martinez v...................................... 906 United States v. Martinez-Fuerte................................. 931 United States; Masino v.......................................... 994 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xliii Page United States; Mathews v..................................... 939 United States; Mathewson v................................... 935 United States; McHale v...................................... 958 United States; McKitty v..................................... 972 United States; McNulty v..................................... 972 United States; Melnik v..................................... 911 United States; Mescalero Apache Tribe v...................... 911 United States; Meyer v....................................... 908 United States v. Miller...................................... 435 United States; Miller v...................................... 978 United States; Mitchell v..................................... 953 United States; Montoya-Gonzales v............................ 978 United States; Morgan v................................. 905,1000 United States; Morrow v.................................... 977 United States; Moses v....................................... 940 United States; Mullenax v.................................... 968 United States; Murphy v...................................... 940 United States; Natale v...................................... 950 United States; Natelli v..................................... 934 United States; National Organization for Women v........... 944 United States; Nicholson v..................................... 972 United States; Northside Realty Associates v................... 985 United States; O’Donnell v..................................... 995 United States v. Orleans....................................... 807 United States; Partin v.................................... 904 United States v. Penn Security Life Insurance Co............... 990 United States; Perry v................................... 933,992 United States; Petty v....................................... 995 United States; Phillips v.................................... 942 United States; Pickette v.................................... 935 United States; Pocono International Corp, v.................. 971 United States; Preciado-Gomez v........................... 953 United States; Prothro v..................................... 991 United States; Quarles v..................................... 972 United States; Quick Corp, of America v..................... 912 United States; Ransom v...................................... 945 United States; Raygoza v.................................... 995 United States; Reed v........................................ 926 United States; Reese v....................................... 972 United States; Reynolds v...................................... 961 United States; Riddick v.................................... 960 United States; Riggins v.................................... 956 United States; Rizzo v....................................... 996 XLIV TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page United States; Roberson v.................................. 917,985 United States; Rocha-Lopez v................................... 977 United States; Rodriguez v........*............................ 999 United States; Rose v........................................ 905 United States; Rowell v...................................... 935 United States; Russo v....................................... 950 United States: Ruyle v....................................... 934 United States; Sanchez v......................»................ 939 United States; Sanders v..................................... 982 United States; Santiago v.................................... 972 United States; Scardino v.................................... 960 United States; Scott v....................................... 917 United States; Sedgwick v.................................... 966 United States; Sellers v..................................... 955 United States; Seminara v.................................... 992 United States; Senak v....................................... 907 United States; Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma v......... 903,904 United States; Sharp v....................................... 972 United States; Shriver v.................................... 978 United States; Sifuentes v............*............*........... 931 United States; Simmons v..................................... 939 United States; Simms v....................................... 939 United States; Simons v...................................... 938 United States; Slepicoff v................................... 998 United States; Slingerland v................................. 985 United States; Smith v....................................... 994 United States; Soliz v....................................... 953 United States; Stanley v....................................... 940 United States; Stead v......................................... 953 United States; Steinberg v..................................... 971 United States; Stiger v........................................ 938 United States; Teamsters v..................................... 990 United States v. Testan........................................ 957 United States; Thomas v........................................ 996 United States; T. I. M. E.-DC, Inc. v........................ 990 United States; Townes v........................................ 939 United States; Trotta v........................................ 971 United States; Tucker v.................................... 958,994 United States v. Tuolumne County.............................. 970 United States; Tyler v..................................... 914,939 United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp.................. 164 United States; Utah v.......................................... 948 United States; Vecchiarello v................................. 939 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XLV Page United States; Velarde v.................................. 914 United States; Vigil v...................................... 927 United States; Walker v..................................... 917 United States; Ward v....................................... 985 United States; Watson v..................................... 971 United States; Watts v...................................... 996 United States; Wesley v..................................... 994 United States; Willis v..................................... 906 United States; Wolfish v.................................... 976 United States; Woodruff v................................... 971 United States; Worozbyt v..................................... 911 United States; Wright v....................................... 905 United States; W & W Fertilizer Corp, v....................... 974 United States; Young v........................................ 978 United States; Zammas v....................................... 973 United States; Zimmerman v............................... 926 United States; Zitzer v....................................... 978 U. S. Circuit Judge; Connor v................................. 675 U. S. Circuit Judges; Williams v.............................. 945 U. S. Court of Appeals; Chilembwe v........................... 957 U. S. Court of Appeals; Dinsio v.............................. 945 U. S. District Court; Kerr v.................................. 949 U. S. District Court; Mills v................................. 995 U. S. District Judge; Carter v.............................. 989 U. S. District Judge; Holsey v.............................. 976 U. S. District Judge; Llaca-Orbiz v........................... 970 U. S. District Judge; St. Regis Paper Co. v................. 993 U. S. District Judge; Smiley v.............................. 989 U. S. District Judge; Weiner v................................ 937 United States Lines v. Shellman............................... 936 U. S. Magistrate; Jackson v................................... 996 University of Delaware v. Keegan.............................. 945 USAFORM Hail Pool, Inc.; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v........... 950 Usery; Accu-Namics, Inc. v....................i......... 903 Usery; Owensboro-Daviess County Hospital v.................... 973 Usery; Winters Battery Mfg. Co. v............................. 991 USM Corp. v. Schlegel Mfg. Co................................. 912 Utah; Nielsen v............................................... 906 Utah v. United States......................................... 948 Utah Director of Family Services v. T. H...................... 986 Valeo; Buckley v....................i.;.................. 946 Vecchiarello v. United States................................. 939 Velarde v. United States.................................... 914 XLVI TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page Veterans’ Affairs Administrator; Chandler v................. 840 Vickery v. Estelle.......................................... 991 Victor; Griffin v .......................................... 986 Vigil v. United States...................................... 927 Village. See name of village. Virgil; Time, Inc. v........................................ 998 Virginia; Brooks v.......................................... 914 Virginia; Gibson v......................................... 994 Virginia; Hairston v................................... 937 Virginia; Kirkman v......................................... 996 Virginia; Reale v.......................................... 960 Virginia; Rhoten v.......................................... 981 Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council. 748 Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; Va. Bd. of Pharmacy v.. 748 Virginia Marine Resources Comm’n v. Seacoast Products... 949 Virgin Islands; Archer v.................................... 906 Vymetalik v. Secretary of Commerce........................ 977 Wainwright; Bishop v...................................... 980 Wainwright; Horsted v.................................... 994 Wainwright; Johnson v..................................... 961 Wainwright; McGeehan v.................................. 997 Wake County Opportunities, Inc.; George v................... 975 Walker v. United States..................................... 917 Wallace v. House............................................ 947 Wallace v. Rath Packing Co.................................. 933 Wallace Clark & Co. v. Acheson Industries................... 976 Walsh; National Socialist White People’s Party v............ 929 Walters v. California....................................... 967 Wamp v. Chattanooga Housing Authority....................... 992 Ward v. United States....................................... 985 Warden. See also name of warden. Warden; DeLeo v............................................. 997 Warden; Owens v............................................. 915 Warden; Young v............................................. 980 Warehousemen; Bohack Corp, v................................ 966 Warne; Smith v.............................................. 941 Washington; Haga v......................................... 959 Washington v. Henderson..................................... 981 Washington v. Texas......................................... 941 Washington Metro. Trans. Auth.; Anchorage Office Bldg, v.. 959 Waters; Bricklayers v....................................... 997 Waters v. Wisconsin Steel Works............................. 997 Watkins Motor Lines v. Zero Refrigerated Lines.............. 952 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED XLVII Page Watson v. United States.................................... 971 Watts v. United States..................................... 996 Webb; D’Angelo v........................................... 936 Webb v. Oklahoma........................................... 941 Weems v. Hogan............................................. 905 Weiner v. Lucas............................................ 937 Wells; Air Line Pilots Assn. v............................ 1000 Wells v. Southern Airways.................................. 914 Wesley v. United States.................................... 994 Westchester County Dept, of Public Works; Smith v........ 961 Western Grain Co. v. Alabama.............................. 1000 West Virginia; McDougal v.................................. 938 West Virginia Governor v. McCartney.................... 927,946 West Virginia Secretary; Moore v..................... 927,946 Weyerhaeuser Co.; Hansen v................................. 907 Wheeler v. Florida......................................... 968 White; Lewis v............................................. 933 White v. Norfolk.......................................... 1000 Whitman; Canton v.......................................... 956 Whitten v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc....................... 981 Wicker v. Roth............................................. 915 Wilbee; Merrill v.......................................... 960 Wilbee; Rawson v........................................... 960 Wild v. Rarig.............................................. 945 Williams v. American Airlines.............................. 951 Williams v. Director, Patuxent Institution................. 976 Williams; Estelle v........................................ 501 Williams v. Florida..................................... 977 Williams v. New York..................................... 914 Williams v. Phillips..................................... 945 Willis v. United States.................................... 906 Wilson v. Boggs............................................ 906 Wilson; Graham v...................................... 993 Winters Battery Mfg. Co. v. Usery.......................... 991 Wisconsin Emp. Rei. Comm’n; Madison School Dist. v....... 969 Wisconsin Steel Works; Waters v......................... 997 Witt v. California......................................... 916 Wolfer v. Thaler........................................... 975 Wolff; Richerson v......................................... 914 Wolfish v. United States................................... 976 Wong v. Board of Trustees, California State University... 986 Woodruff v. United States.................................. 971 Workmen v. Duke Power Co................................... 928 XL VIII TABLE OF CASES REPORTED Page World Market Centers v. Hardin............................ 958 Worozbyt v. United States................................. 911 Wright; Ingraham v........................................ 990 Wright v. New York........................................ 996 Wright v. United States................................... 905 W & W Fertilizer Corp. v. United States................... 974 Wyrick; Bibbs v......................................... 981 Wyrick; Franklin v.................................... 962 Wyrick; Tyler v..................................... 915,941 Yee v. Chun........*...................................... 913 Yellow Freight System v. Herrera......................... 991 Youakim v. Miller......................................... 231 Young v. United States.................................... 978 Young v. Warden........................................... 980 Zahradnick; McReynolds v.................................. 980 Zahradnick; Thompson v.................................... 980 Zammas v. United States................................... 973 Zero Refrigerated Lines; Watkins Motor Lines v............ 952 Ziebart Auto Truck Rustproofirg v. Ziebart Process Corp... 951 Ziebart Process Corp.; Pauley v........................... 951 Ziebart Process Corp.; Ziebart Auto Truck Rustproofing v.. 951 Zimmerman v. United States................................ 926 Zitzer v. United States................................... 978 Zweibon; Barrett v...................................... 944 Zweibon v. Mitchell....................................... 944 Zweibon; Mitchell v....................................... 944 TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 149 Abrams v. Johnson, 534 F. 2d 1226 843 Acker v. United States, 298 U. S. 426 666 Ackerly v. Ley, 137 U. S. App. D. C. 133 373,380,388 Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46 319,338 Addison v. Holly Hill Products, 322 U. S. 607 199 Administration des Chemins de Fer Iraniens v. Société Levant Express Transport, 73 Revue Générale de Droit Int’l Public 883 702 ADM Milling Co. v. Republic of Bolivia, Civ. Action No. 75-946 (DC Aug. 8, 1975) 703 Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U. S. 128 196,198,200,217 Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20 399,407,421 Aiderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165 456 Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 833, 835-837, 844, 845, 863 Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U. S. 625 546 Aliotti v. United States, 221 F. 2d 598 175,177 Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U. S. 544 133, 145,149,156 Allied Stores of Ohio v. Bowers, 358 U. S. 522 645 Alyeska Pipeline Serv. v. Wilderness Soc., 421 U. S. 240 211 Page Amell v. United States, 384 U. S. 158 169, 170, 178, 179, 183, 184 American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382 789 American Commuters Assn. v. Levitt, 405 F. 2d 1148 475 AFL v. Swing, 312 U. S. 321 762 American Oil v. Neill, 380 U. S. 451 269 American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello, 330 U. S. 446 170 Anderson v. Martin, 375 U. S. 399 159 Anderson v. Simpson, Nos. CA62-18 and 63-58 (ED Tenn., Oct. 17, 1972) 818 Anderson v. Watt, 475 F. 2d 881 508,521 Anderson’s-Black Rock v. Pavement Co., 396 U. S. 57 282 Andrews v. Mississippi R. Co., 14 Ind. 169 404 Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500 250 Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 34,36, 41-44, 48, 49, 51, 53, 56, 60, 66, 89, 522, 608 Arnold v. North Carolina, 376 U. S. 773 546 Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes v. Nordwick, 378 F. 2d 426 660 Associates of Obstetrics v. Apollo Productions, 542 P. 2d 1079 461 Atlantic Rfg. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 360 U. S. 378 670 Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31 266 XLIX L TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Bain Peanut Co. v. Pinson, 282 U. S. 499 645,647 Baird v. Koerner, 279 F. 2d 623 403 Baldwin v. Commissioner, 125 F. 2d 812 403 Baldwin v. New York, 399 U. S. 66 56 Ballman v. Fagin, 200 U. S. 186 419 Banco Nacional de Cuba v. First Nat. City Bank, 442 F. 2d 530 734 Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U. S. 398 686, 697, 704, 706, 716, 719, 724-730 Bank of the United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat. 904 695,696 Banzhaf v. FCC, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 14 772 Barber v. State, 477 S. W. 2d 868 508,521 Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514 515,521-523,549 Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U. S. 308 454 Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89 259 Beeler v. United States, 224 F. Supp. 973 177 Beer v. United States, 419 U. S. 822 678,679 Bellis v. United States, 417 U. S. 85 408,409,412,413, 419, 425, 426, 430, 431 Benson v. GSA, 289 F. Supp. 590 364 Bentley v. Crist, 469 F. 2d 854 506,509 Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41 400,408,410,422 Berizzi Bros. Co. v. S. S. Pesaro, 271 U. S. 562 699, 700,703 Bernstein v. N. V. Neder-landsche - Amerikaansche, 210 F. 2d 375 724 Betonie v. Sizemore, 496 F. 2d 1001 33 Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U. S. 809 759, 760, 762, 764, 776, 780 Page Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U. S. 149 319,336 Birnbaum v. Newport Steel Corp., 193 F. 2d 461 196 Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U. S. 199 588 Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273 590 Bland v. McHann, 463 F. 2d 21 475 Blaze v. Moon, 440 F. 2d 1348 827 Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723 196, 197, 206, 211, 213-215 Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 244 Boehning v. Indiana Employees Assn., 423 U. S. 6 78 Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 250,825,826 Bouschor v. United States, 316 F. 2d 451 402 Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 405-407,414,416, 419-421, 431, 439, 440 Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U. S. 454 234 Brader v. James, 246 U. S. 88 656 Bradley v. Milliken, 484 F. 2d 215 293 Bradley v. Milliken, 345 F. Supp. 914 293 Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742 47 Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532 333,586 Bransford, Ex parte, 310 U. S. 354 266,458 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U. S. 665 571,572 Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622 758,759,788 Breen v. Kahl, 419 F. 2d 1034 252 Brennan v. Midwestern Life Ins. Co., 259 F. Supp. 673 192 Bristol-Myers Co. v. FTC, 138 U. S. App. D. C. 22 374 TABLE OF CASES CITED LI Page British-American Oil Co. v. Board of Equalization, 299 U. S. 159 660 Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601 245, 620,621,633,634 Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 515 Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U. S. 605 91 Brooks v. Texas, 381 F. 2d 619 504,511 Brotherhood. For labor union, see name of trade. Brown v. United States, 245 F. 2d 549 582-583,609 Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591 433,574,575 Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294 263 Bryson v. United States, 396 U. S. 64 577,585,609 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 444. 620,626, 627, 629, 630,' 761, 771 Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U. S. 753 169 Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465 397,400 Burke v. Ford, 389 U. S. 320 744 Bums v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73 142 Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137 43 Burrows v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. 3d 238 445,447-454 Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 761 Bushey & Sons v. United States, 398 F. 2d 167 184 Butler v. Dexter, 425 U. S. 262 929 Butler v. State, 493 S. W. 2d 190 339 Bynum v. United States, 423 U.S. 952 917,918 Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886 247 Caldwell, In re, 311 F. Supp. 358 607 California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33 260 Page California v. Taylor, 353 U. S. 553 234,696 California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21 397,439-447, 452, 455, 456, 475 Calmar S. S. Corp. v. United States, 345 U. S. 446 173, 174,177,179,181 Cammarano v. United States, 358 U. S. 498 759,776 Camp v. Arkansas, 404 U. S. 69 522,528,543,546 Campbell v. United States, 365 U. S. 85 99,104,107-109, 111, 115, 119, 123-127 Campbell v. United States, 373 U. S. 487 108, 109,111, 119,125 Canadian Aviator, Ltd. v. United States, 324 U. S. 215 170 Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 617-619,622, 629, 631, 761, 771, 780 Capitol Broadcasting Co. v. Acting Attorney General, 405 U. S. 1000 773 Capitol Broadcasting Co. v. Mitchell, 333 F. Supp. 582 773 Cargill v. United States, 381 F. 2d 849 583 Caro v. Schultz, 521 F. 2d 1084 843 Carpenters v. United States, 330 U. S. 395 234 Carried Lumber Co. v. United States (Ct. App. Manila, Sept. 24, 1974) 702 Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426 198 Casey v. Adams, 102 U. S. 66 461,462 Casey v. United States, 276 U. S. 413 500 Cassidy v. Glossip, 12 Ohio St. 2d 17 259 Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U. S. 840 836 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 622, 762,776 LII TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 506-507 Charlotte Nat. Bank v. Morgan, 132 U. S. 141 461 Chase v. United States, 256 U. S. 1 656 Chicago Joint Bd. v. Chicago Tribune Co., 435 F. 2d 470 764 Chippewa Indians v. United States, 307 U. S. 1 656 Christensen, In re, 478 F. 2d 1392 225 Cincinnati St. R. Co. v. Snell, 193 U. S. 30 645-647 Cities Serv. Gas Co. v. FPC, 424 F. 2d 411 666 City. See name of city. CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548 245,254,623,634 Clancy v. United States, 365 U. S. 312 111 Clary v. Basalt Rock Co., 99 Cal. App. 2d 458 270 Clegg v. Conk, 507 F. 2d 1351 194 Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 * U. S. 611 622 Coffin v. United States, 156 U. S. 432 503,517 Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U. S. 117 774 Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1 604,605 Collingswood v. Ringgold, 66 N. J. 350 615 Collision with Foreign Government-Owned Car, [1961] 40 Int’l L. Rep. 73 702 Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104 71,622 Colton v. United States, 306 F. 2d 633 402-404 Columbia Broadcasting v. Democratic Comm., 412 U. S. 94 236 Commercial Ins. Co. v. Adams, 366 S. W. 2d 801 640, 641,647 Commonwealth v. Keeler, 216 Pa. Super. 193 504 Page Commonwealth v. Triplett, 462 Pa. 244 339 Commonwealth v. Werner, 206 Pa. Super. 498 89 Compañía Espanola de Navegación Maritima v. Navemar, 303 U. S. 68 723 Concord v. Ambrose, 333 F. Supp. 958 364 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41 746 Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U. S. 385 620 Connelly v. United States, 249 F. 2d 576 690,692 Consolo v. FMC, 383 U. S. 697 846,861,862 Consumers Union of United States v. Veterans Admin., 301 F. Supp. 796 364 Continental Gas Co. v. United States, 140 Ct. Cl. 500 177,180 Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359 571, 573,590 Couch v. United States, 409 U. S. 322 396-399,401,409, 412, 414, 416, 419, 424, 425, 431, 442, 443, 447 Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 433, 573,574,590,602 County. See name of coun- ty. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 622 Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U. S. 568 588,589 Cuneo v. Laird, 338 F. Supp. 504 364 Curcio v. United States, 354 U. S. 118 410,413,430 Daigle v. Warner, 490 F. 2d 358 30,31,33,46,66 Dalehite v. United States, 346 U. S. 15 814 Dann v. Johnston, 425 U. S. 219 279,282,283 Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U. S. 737 348 Davis v. School Comm’rs of Mobile County, 402 U. S. 33 297 TABLE OF CASES CITED LIII Page Davis v. United States, 328 U. S. 582 399,409,419,431 Davis v. United States, 411 U. S. 233 537-542, 547, 548, 551-553, 556 Day-Brite Lighting v. Missouri, 342 U. S. 421 247 De Bardeleben Marine Corp. v. United States, 451 F. 2d 140 176,184 Debs, In re, 158 U. S. 564 474 DeLong v. Hampton, 422 F. 2d 21 827 Dennis v. Dees, 278 F. Supp. 354 509 Dennis v. United States, 384 U. S. 855 577 Department of Employment v. United States, 385 U. S. 355 470,471,474,475 Deutch v. United States, 367 U. S. 456 517 Dixon v. United States, 381 U. S. 68 214 Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 760 Doe v. Commonwealth’s Atty., 426 U. S. 901 455 Donaldson v. Read Magazine, 333 U. S. 178 772 Donaldson v. United States, 400 U. S. 517 444 Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 608 Douglas v. Jeanette, 319 U. S. 157 619 Dreier v. United States, 221 U. S. 394 412, 413 Drew & Co. v. FTC, 235 F. 2d 735 772 Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162 503 Duignan v. United States, 274 U. S. 195 234 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Grove, 404 U. S. 898 759, 765,772,776 Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 34,53 Dwen v. Barry, 483 F. 2d 1126 241 Eaddy v. People, 115 Colo. 488 504 Page East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 422 U. S. 1055 678 East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U. S. 636 947 Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org. v. Simon, 165 U. S. App. D. C. 239 11,13 Eastern States Petroleum Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp., 28 F. Supp. 279 719 Eastern S. S. Lines v. United States, 187 F. 2d 956 175, 177,180 Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U. S. 491 444 E. F. Drew & Co. v. FTC, 235 F. 2d 735 772 Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 244 Empire of Iran, In re [1963], 45 Int’l L. Rep. 57 702 EPAv. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 360, 361,379,382,386 Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185 929 Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205 771,776 Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 603 Escott v. Barchris Constr. Corp., 283 F. Supp. 643 208 Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 546,551,553 Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532 504 Et Ve Balik Kurumu v. B. N. S. Int’l Sales Corp., 25 Mise. 2d 299 703 Eubanks v. Louisiana, 356 U. S. 584 546 Ex parte. See name of party. Falgout Boats, Inc. v. United States, 361 F. Supp. 838 176 Falsone v. United States, 205 F. 2d 734 404 Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 522 LIV TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391 515, 522, 524, 525, 527, 528, 539, 542-546, 548-551, 553, 555, 556 F. D. Rich Co. v. Industrial Lumber Co., 417 U. S. 116 211 FAA Administrator v. Robertson, 422 U. S. 255 386 FCC v. Pottsville Broadcast- ing Co., 309 U. S. 134 806 FMC v. Seatrain Lines, 411 U. S. 726 12 FPC v. Hope Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591 670 FPC v. Idaho Power Co., 344 U. S. 17 806 FPC v. Tennessee Gas Co., 371 U. S. 145 670 Federal Radio Comm’n v. Nelson Bros. Co., 289 U. S. 266 669 FTC v. Broch & Co., 363 U. S. 166 12 FTC v. Bunte Bros., 312 U. S. 349 197 FTC v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 390 U. S. 341 12 FTC v. Procter & Gamble Co., 386 U. S. 568 765 FTC v. Standard Education Society, 302 U. S. 112 772 FTC v. Sun Oil Co., 371 U. S. 505 12 Federated People’s Republic of Yugoslavia v. Kafr El- Zayat Cotton Co. [1951], 18 Int’l L. Rep. 225 702 Feit v. Leasco Equipment Corp., 332 F. Supp. 544 208 Feldman v. United States, 322 U. S. 487 415 Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726 784 First Agricultural Nat. Bank v. Tax Comm’n, 392 U. S. 339 268,270 First Nat. Bank of Mobile v. United States, 267 U. S. 576 444 Page First Nat. City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba, 406 U. S. 759 689, 715, 724-726, 728, 730, 732-734,736 Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., 188 F. 2d 783 210 Fisher v. United States, 425 U. S. 391 440,443,447 Flint v. Mullen, 499 F. 2d 100 338 Florida Bd. of Pharmacy v. Webb’s City, Inc., 219 So. 2d 681 755 Florida Lime Growers v. Jacobsen, 362 U. S. 73 265 Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Provident Securities, 423 U. S. 232 203,209 Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U. S. 41 78 Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U. S. 433 142 Foster, Application of, 58 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1001 223 Fourco Glass Co. v. Trans-mirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222 835 Fowler v. Vincent, 366 F. Supp. 1224 336 F. Palicio y Compania, S. A. v. Brush, 256 F. Supp. 481 685,686,716, 731 Francis v. Henderson, 425 U. S. 536 522, 523,527,528,533 Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U. S. 731 348 French v. Banco Nacional de Cuba, 23 N. Y. 2d 46 720 Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67 77 Fur Information & Fashion Council v. E. F. Timme & Son, 364 F. Supp. 16 764 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 30,35,37,38,42, 43, 45, 47, 54-56, 314 Gaito v. Brierly, 485 F. 2d 86 504 TABLE OF CASES CITED LV Page Gammon-Layton v. Secretary of State, U. S. A., P. L. D. 1965 (W. P.) Karachi 425 702 Garcia v. Beto, 452 F. 2d 655 508,520 Garcia v. State, 429 S. W. 2d 468 511 Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U. S. 273 316,329,331 Garner v. United States, 424 U. S. 648 326, 334, 516, 593, 597, 606 Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 248,316,318, 328, 331-333, 340, 588 Gastelum-Quinones v. Kennedy, 374 U. S. 469 319,338 Gault, In re, 387 U. S. 1 35, 37, 38, 46, 47, 56, 61, 62, 69 Geders v. United States, 425 U. S. 80 533 Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S. 526 133, 139,145,147,156 Gerstle v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 478 F. 2d 1281 209,214 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 771,777,780 Getman v. NLRB, 146 U. S. App. D. C. 209 372,378 Gfell v. Rickelman, 441 F. 2d 444 252 Gianatasio v. Whyte, 426 F. 2d 908 241 Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 41,48, 52, 54, 89, 522, 608 Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263 408,409,419,429 Gillum v. Industrial Comm’n, 141 Ohio St. 373 815 Glanzer v. Shepard, 233 N. Y. 236 192 Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60 87,533 Glickstein v. United States, 222 U. S. 139 577, 578,585,609 Gnotta v. United States, 415 F. 2d 1271 826,827 Page Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U. S. 773 12, 745,746,774 Goldsby v. United States, 160 U. S. 70 86 Gollaher v. United States, 419 F. 2d 520 601 Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 142, 148,149,153,156 Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 U. S. 90 267,929 Goosby v. Osser, 409 U. S. 512 481 Gordon v. United States, 344 U. S. 414 111 Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 250 Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U. S. 63 220,224,225 Goudy v. Meath, 203 U. S. 146 477 Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 298 399, 400, 407, 409, 417, 421 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U. S. 1 226,230,279,280 Grant v. United States, 227 U. S. 74 404 Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U. S. 104 622, 628,629,771,776 Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U. S. 147 230,280-283 Great Lakes Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293 470 Greene v. United States, 454 F. 2d 783 493,498 Greenwald v. Frank, 40 App. Div. 2d 717 241 Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 317,319,329,332 Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 506,608,645 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 244,251,416,757 Gritts v. Fisher, 224 U. S. 640 656 Groban, In re, 352 U. S. 330 580,581,603,605 LVI TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 418 Grossman, Ex parte, 267 U. S. 87 . 418 Grosso v. United States, 390 U. S. 62 410,593 Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391 319, 327, 337, 338, 594, 595 “Gul Djemal,” 264 U. S. 90 693 Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Pav- ing Co., 419 U. S. 186 743 Gulf States Utilities Co. v. FPC, 411 U. S. 747 670 Gurley v. Rhoden, 421 U. S. 200 271 Hackley v. Johnson, 360 F. Supp. 1247 842, 843, 846; 848, 869, 861 Hackley v. Roudebush, 171 U. S. App. D. C. 376 843, 847,848,858 Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528 236,458 Haire v. Calloway, 526 F. 2d 246 843 Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 398,407,572,598 Hall v. Cox, 324 F. Supp. 786 504 Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U. S. 524 495 Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87 . 87 Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U. S. 528 78 Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250 506 Harris, In re, 221 U. S. 274 411-413 Harris v. Nelson, 394 U. S. 286 30 Harris v. New York, 401 U. S. 222 339,583 Harris v. United States, 382 U. S. 162 606 Harris & Co. Advtg. v. Republic of Cuba, 127 So. 2d 687 703 Hartford v. Hills, 408 F. Supp. 889 305 Hawkes v. IRS, 467 F. 2d 787 364 Page Head v. New Mexico Bd., 374 U. S. 424 756,769 Heckman v. United States, 224 U. S. 413 473,474 Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483 965 Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U. S. 443 515,522,543,549 Hensley v. United States, 406 F. 2d 481 342 Hernandez v. Beto, 443 F. 2d 634 503,504,506,508, 509, 513,529,530,534 Herron v. Southern Pacific Co., 283 U. S. 91 533 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U. S. 495 106 Hines v. Cenla Community Action Comm., 474 F. 2d 1052 818 Hochfelder v. Midwest Stock Exchange, 503 F. 2d 364 189,191,193 Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293 400,440,443 Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479 575,598 Holder v. United States, 150 U. S. 91 87 Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392 210 Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245 397,408 Home Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398 53 Hooley v. United States, 209 F. 2d 234 595 Horowitz, In re, 482 F. 2d 72 401,403 Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248 225,279,282 Howard v. United States, 377 U. S. 953 218 Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U. S. 507 415,547,776 Hughes v. United States, 383 F. Supp. 1071 818 Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516 545 Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337 505,517 Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U. S. 91 796,797 TABLE OF CASES CITED LVII Page Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 490 Indianapolis School Comm’rs v. Jacobs, 420 U. S. 128 237,311,325 In re. See name of party. ICC v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25 419 Investment Co. Inst. v. Camp, 401 U. S. 617 236 Ira S. Bushey & Sons v. United States, 398 F. 2d 167 184 Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F. 2d 571 340 Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S. 345 816 Jacobs v. United States, 404 U. S. 958 601 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 247 Jamison v. Texas, 318 U. S. 413 759,761 Jankovich v. Toll Road Comm’n, 379 U. S. 487 260 Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657 104 J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426 198 Johansen v. United States, 343 U. S. 427 170,834 Johnson v. Manhattan R. Co., 289 U. S. 479 735 Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S. 454 833, 835,837 Johnson v. United States, 228 U. S. 457 397,399 Johnson v. U. S. Shipping Bd., 280 U. S. 320 172 Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 40,56,508,512,515, 516, 521-524, 597, 605 Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409 834 Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 761 Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 69 F. Supp. 512 196 Kastigar v. United States, 406 U. S. 441 335,400, 571-574,591 Page Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 400, 408, 410, 416, 422, 442 Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641 149 Kaufman v. United States, 394 U. S. 217 528,542,546 Kay v. United States, 303 U. S. 1 577 Kelly, In re, 350 F. Supp. 1198 596,599,600 Kelly v. Johnson, 425 U. S. 238 455,562,929 Kennerly v. District Court of Montana, 400 U. S. 423 479 Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116 253 Kern County Land Co. v. Occidental Petroleum, 411 U. S. 582 209 Keystone Driller Co. v. Northwest Engineering, 294 U. S. 42 225 King v. Cornelius, 93 Eng. Rep. 1133 419 King v. Heydon, 96 Eng. Rep. 195 419 King v. Purnell, 95 Eng. Rep. 595 419 King v. Saddleback Jr. Col- lege Dist., 445 F. 2d 932 252 King v. Worsenham, 91 Eng. Rep. 1370 419 Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U. S. 682 581,602 Kitchell v. United States, 354 F. 2d 715 600,602,607 Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753 757,782,783 Kohler v. Kohler Co., 319 F. 2d 634 194 Kohn v. American Metal Climax, 458 F. 2d 255 194, 197,209 Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U. S. 36 771 Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750 111 Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 771 Krull v. United States, 240 F. 2d 122 89 Lake Monroe, The, 250 U. S. 246 170 LVin TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301 756, 757,782,783 Lanza v. Drexel & Co., 479 F. 2d 1277 194,214 Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451 620 LaRoque v. United States, 239 U. S. 62 660 Lawn v. United States, 355 U. S. 339 234,594 Law Students Research Council v. Wadmond, 401 U. S. 154 623 Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U. S. 283 525,542,543 Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U. S. 70 316, 318, 327, 328, 330-333, 335, 340, 576, 588 Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 U. S. 298 759,776 Levine v. United States, 362 U. S. 610 607 Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206 443 Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219 328 Lithograph Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 11 Cal. 2d 156 269 Livingston Rock Co. v. De- Salvo, 136 Cal. App. 2d 156 270 Logan Lanes v. Brunswick Corp., 378 F. 2d 212 6,18,19 Logue v. United States, 412 U. S. 521 814-816 Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427 443 Louisiana v. United States, 380 U. S. 145 160 Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 617,622 Lykes Bros. S. S. Co. v. United States, 129 Ct. Cl. 455 175,176 Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364 848 Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U. S. 538 475 Page Lvnn v. State, 505 P. 2d 1337 500 Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667 584 Macon County v. Shores, 97 U. S. 272 87 Maitrejean v. Levon Properties, 45 App. Div. 2d 1020 78 Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 248,326,329,333, 338,575,586-588 Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219 740,743 Maness v. Meyers, 419 U. S. 449 326-328, 333. 336, 417, 517, 604 Manhattan Equipment Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U. S. 129 214 Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 399 Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39 410,593 Marron v. United States, 275 U. S. 192 408 Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U. S. 501 757 Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141 617- 619, 623, 624. 628, 629, 631, 757, 758 Martin Enterprises v. M. S. Kaplan Co., 45 App. Div. 2d 883 78 Maryland v. United States, 381 U. S. 41 815 Maryland Bd. of Pharmacy v. Sav-A-Lot, Inc., 270 Md. 103 755 Masinia v. United States, 296 F. 2d 871 582 Massachusetts v. Missouri, 308 U. S.1 797,799 Mathis v. United States, 391 U. S. 1 315,345-347 Mattox v. Carson, 295 F. Supp. 1054 599 Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U. S. 481 479 McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419 225 TABLE OF CASES CITED LIX Page McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164 468, 469, 471, 474-477, 479, 481 M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 481 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S.792 844,845 McFalls v. Peyton, 270 F. Supp. 577 504 McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183 48 McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420 148 McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U. S. 528 56 McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759 515,533,553 Mental Hygiene Dept. v. Kirchner, 380 U. S. 194 260 Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Langdeau, 371 U. S. 555 461, 642 Meridian v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel., 358 U. S. 639 78 Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145 471, 474-476,481,483 Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brownell, 294 U. S. 580 645 Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U. S. 30 699,700,703,706 Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 244,250 Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 772 Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U. S. 91 537,538,541 Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U. S. 96 339,454,581 Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433 598 Michigan Nat. Bank v. Robertson, 372 U. S. 591 461,462 Midland Investment Co., Ltd. v. Bank of Communications, [1956] 40 H. K. L. Rep. 42 702 Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 964,965 Miller v. State, 249 Ark. 3 504 Page Milligan, Ex parte, 4 Wall. 2 33 Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717 291-301,306,307 Mills v. Alabama, 384 U. S. 214 778 Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551 260 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 257, 315, 339, 342, 344r-350, 416, 566, 569, 579-581, 583, 587, 588, 593, 599, 600, 603, 608, 609 Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600 77 Modern Woodmen of America v. Watkins, 132 F. 2d 352 403 Moody v. Flowers, 387 U. S. 97 267 Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163 816 Morris v. Travisono, 310 F. Supp. 857 313,317,331 Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 54,55 Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535 169, 480,656,836,841 Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 522 Murchison, In re, 349 U. S. 133 504 Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105 759,761 Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n, 378 U. S. 52 326, 399,416,574 Musgrave, Application of, 57 C. C. P. A. (Pat.) 1352 223 Myzel v. Fields, 386 F. 2d 718 193 NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449 401,630 NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415 620,631,761 National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190 669 National City Bank v. Republic of China, 348 U. S. 356 734 LX TABLE OF CASES CITED Page National Ice Co. v. Pacific Fruit Express, 11 Cal. 2d 283 269 NLRB v. Food Store Employees, 417 U. S. 1 806 NLRB v. Fruit Packers, 377 U. S. 58 204 NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U. S. 575 762, 763, 778, 779, 785 NLRB v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 380 U. S. 438 805 NLRB v. Pittsburgh S. S. Co., 340 U. S. 498 803,804 NLRB v. Realist, Inc., 328 F. 2d 840 786 NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U. S. 132 386 NLRB v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 314 U. $. 469 762, 778,779 Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502 784 Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 531 Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U. S. 165 462 Nelson v. United States, 415 F. 2d 483 . 86 New Haven Inclusion Cases, 399 U. S. 392 669 New York v. United States, 326 U. S. 572 696 New York Auction Co. v. Belt, 81 Mise. 2d 1032 78 New York Central Securities Corp. v. United States, 287 U. S. 12 669 New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Heffner Constr. Co., 9 Ohio App. 2d 174 815 New York Dept, of Soc. Serv. v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405 235 New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 758, 761, 765, 772, 777, 787 New York Times v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 67,772 Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268 616 Page Norman v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 414 F. 2d 73 845 North Carolina Bd. of Ed. v. Swann, 402 U. S. 43 297 North Georgia Finishing v. Di-Chem, 419 U. S. 601 77 O’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U. S. 258 53,61 Ocean Transport Co. v. Government of Republic of Ivory Coast, 269 F. Supp. 703 703 Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U. S. 297 694, 719,720 Ogden v. United States, 303 F. 2d 724 109 Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U. S. 360 696 Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U. S. 493 798 Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186 401, 407,445,446 Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Texas Co., 336 U. S. 342 471 Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. United States, 319 U. S. 598 471 Oliver, In re, 333 U. S. 257 606 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438 251, 253,427,500 Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U. S. 236 247,784 On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747 508 Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U. S. 83 367,383 Orozco v. Texas, 394 U. S. 324 346 Osborn v. United States, 385 U. S. 323 400, 408,410,422,443 O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 490 Packard Motor Car Co. v. NLRB, 330 U. S. 485 201,805 Palatini v. Sarian, 15 N. J. Super. 34 404 TABLE OF CASES CITED LXI Page Palermo v. United States, 360 U. S. 343 lO^r- lO?, 109, 112, 113, 116, 119, 122-124, 127 Palicio y Compañía, S. A. v. Brush, 256 F. Supp. 481 685,686,716,731 Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S. 217 148,149 Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156 622 Papaevangelou v. United States Government (Ath- . ens First Instance Ct., Apr. 23, I960) 702 Parder» v. Terminal R. Co., 377 U. S. 184 696 Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49 963,965 Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U. S. 34 52 Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341 770 Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733 32,38,49,50,63, 67, 368, 383, 386, 623 Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U. S. 790 538 Patterson v. United States, 359 U. S. 495 834 Patterson Drug Co. v. King- ery, 305 F. Supp. 821 753,755 Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693 389, 455 Pearson v. Yoder, 39 Okla. 105 404 Pell v. Procunier, 417 U. S. 817 776 Pendergraft v. State, 191 So. 2d 830 89 Pennsylvania Power Co. v. FPC, 343 U. S. 414 670 Pennsylvania State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Pastor, 441 Pa. 186 755,766 Penthouse Studios Inc. v. Republic of Venezuela, [1970] 8 D. L. R. 3d 686 702 People v. Defore, 242 N. Y. 13 413 People v. Disbrow, 16 Cal. 3d 101 339 Page People v. Noble, 42 Ill. 2d 425 89 People v. Prevost, 219 Mich. 233 89 People v. Roman, 35 N. Y. 2d 978 507,509 People v. Shaw, 381 Mich. 467 504,509 People v. Turner, 390 Mich. 7 500 People v. Zapata, 220 Cal. App. 2d 903 504 Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379 145,156 Perkins v. Standard Oil Co., 395 U. S. 642 12 Perlman v. United States, 247 U. S. 7 397,424,425 Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U. S. 747 670 Perrone v. United States, 416 F. 2d 464 607 Peru, Ex parte, 318 U. S. 578 699,703 Peters v. Kiff, 407 U. S. 493 546,552 Petrol Shipping Corp. v. Kingdom of Greece, 360 F. 2d 103 703 Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54 12 Philippine Admiral v. Wallern Shipping, [1976] 1 All E. R. 78 702 Phillips v. United States, 312 U.S. 246 266,458 Piccirillo v. New York, 400 U. S. 548 335,589 Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 563 245 Piemonte v. United States, 367 U. S. 556 575 Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 250 Pillo, In re, 11 N. J. 8 339 Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Comm’n, 413 U. S. 376 756,759, 761, 762, 771, 772, 776 Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497 249,250 Police Dept, of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92 776 LXII TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Pollard v. United States, 352 U. S. 354 234 Poller v. Columbia Broad- casting, 368 U. S. 464 746 Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 52,62,63,89,522 Powell v. United States, 96 U. S. App. D. C. 367 599 Power Mfg. Co. v. Saunders, 274 U. S. 490 645,647 Prater v. United States, 357 F. Supp. 1044 818 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475 833-835 Premier S. S. Co. v. Em- bassy of Algeria, 336 F. Supp. 507 703 Prichard v. United States, 181 F. 2d 326 403 Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 ' 247 Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U. S. 396 757,782,783 Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75 247 Queen v. Mead, 92 Eng. Rep. 119 419 Quercia v. United States, 289 U. S. 466 86 Quinn, Ex parte, 317 U. S. 1 34 Raderman v. Kaine, 411 F. 2d 1102 241 Radio Union v. Broadcast Service, 380 U. S. 255 802,805 Raffel v. United States, 271 U. S. 494 319,338 Railroad Comm’n v. Pull- man Co., 312 U. S. 496 77-79 Ratner v. United States, 423 U. S. 898 964 Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367 757 Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U. S. 82 78 Regional Rail Reorg. Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102 168 Regnell v. Page, 82 Mise. 2d 506 78 Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1 33 Renegotiation Bd. v. Ban- nercraft Clothing, 415 U. S. 1 363,386 Page Renegotiation Bd. v. Grumman Aircraft, 421 U. S. 168 386 Republic Gear Co. v. Borg-Warner Corp., 381 F. 2d 551 402 Republic of Iraq v. First Nat. City Bank, 353 F. 2d 47 687 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 142,150,156 Rhode Island Nat. Bank v. Swartz, 455 F. 2d 847 192 Rigaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U. S. 304 694,719 Richards v. Thurston, 424 F. 2d 1281 252 Richardson v. Wright, 405 U. S. 208 237 Rich Co. v. Industrial Lumber Co., 417 U. S. 116 211 Richman v. Richman, 41 App. Div. 2d 993 78 Richmond v. United States, 422 U. S. 358 139,141, 144, 148, 153, 154, 163 Ring v. State, 450 S. W. 2d 85 511,512 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362 • 293,294,551 Roberts v. United States, 498 F. 2d 520 176 Robles v. EPA, 484 F. 2d 843 377,378,387 Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 489-491,495 Rodgers v. United States, 185 U. S. 83 169 Roe v. Harvey, 98 Eng. Rep. 302 419 Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 244,250,251,760 Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U. S. 534 348,587 Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367 433,572 Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 422 U. S. 49 218 Rosenberg v. Globe Aircraft Corp., 80 F. Supp. 123 211 Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U. S. 367 111, 126 TABLE OF CASES CITED LXIII Page Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 762 Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728 620 Rural Housing Alliance v. U. S. Dept, of Agriculture, 162 U. S. App. D. C. 122 371,374,377,380 Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. United States, 175 F. 2d 490 176 Safe Harbor Water Power Corp. v. FPC, 179 F. 2d 179 666 Saia v. New York, 334 U. S. 558 771 Salone v. United States, 511 F. 2d 902 843 Sandquist v. California, 423 U. S. 900 964 Sands v. Wainwright, 357 F. Supp.1062 336 Sanitation Men v. Sanitation Comm’r, 392 U. S. 280 316, 329,331,334 Saunders v. United States, 114 U. S. App. D-. C. 345 106, 108 Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738 29,49,50,66 Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 397,407- 409, 412, 417-419, 431 Schneekloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 346,523, 549, 553, 587, 597, 605 Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 617,622 Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers, 341 U. S. 384 204 Schwimmer v. United States, 232 F. 2d 855 403 Scotland, The, 118 U. S. 507 183 SEC v. Capital Gains Res. Bur., 375 U. S. 180 194, 198,200,217 SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194 668 SEC v. First Securities Co., 463 F. 2d 981 190 SEC v. Management Dynamics, 515 F. 2d 801 217 Page SEC v. National Securities, Inc,, 393 U. S. 453 206 SEC v. Spectrum, Ltd., 489 F. 2d 535 217 SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur, 401 F. 2d 833 197, 211,213,214,217 Semler v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 294 U. S. 608 756,769,774 Seymour v. Superintendent, 368 U. S. 351 478 Sharp v. Stamping Co., 103 U. S. 250 225 Sheridan v. Garrison, 273 F. Supp. 673 604 Sherman v. United States, 356 U. S. 369 488, 489,491,493-496 Shewan & Sons v. United States, 266 U. S. 108 177 Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U. S. 341 540 Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U. S. 341 169 Sims v. Georgia, 389 U. S. 404 546 Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263 517 Sinclair Rfg. Co. v. United States, 129 Ct. Cl. 474 177 Sizemore v. Brady, 235 U. S. 441 656 Sloan Shipyards v. United States Fleet Corp., 258 U. S. 549 696 Slochower v. Board of Edu- cation, 350 U. S. 551 327 Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co., 489 F. 2d 579 194 Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147 620,761 Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S. 566 622 Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128 546 Smith v. United States, 337 U. S. 137 586 Smith-Johnson S. S. Corp. v. United States, 135 Ct. Cl. 866 175 Snyder v. Pitts, 241 S. W. 136 638 LXIV TABLE OF CASES CITED Page Society for Savings v. Bowers, 349 U. S. 143 269 “Socobel” v. Greek State, [1951] 18 Int’l L. Rep. 3 702 Sorrels v. United States, 287 U. S. 435 488, 489, 493, 495, 496, 499 Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393 29,237 Soucie v. David, 145 U. S. App. D. C. 144 361,374 South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301 133,140, 145, 147, 148, 151, 155 South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437 696 Souza v. Travisono, 498 F. 2d 1120 313 Sovereign Camp, W. 0. W. v. Reed, 208 Ala. 457 404 Sperling v. United States, 515 F. 2d 465 843,858,859 Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S. 511 326,328,329,331 Stahl v. Henderson, 472 F. 2d 556 507,509 Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557 251 757 Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645 244 Stanley v. United States, 245 F. 2d 427 599 State v. Chianelli, 226 La. 552 537 State v. Johnson, 68 N. J. 349 454 State v. Miller, 67 N. J. 229 339 State v. Mullen, 216 N. W. 2d 375 500 State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254 339 State v. Wilson, 204 La. 24 537 State ex rel. Sowers v. 01-well, 64 Wash. 2d 828 404 States Marine Corp. v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 585 175,176 Staub v. Baxley, 355 U. S. 313 618,622 Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445 656 Page Stern v. Richardson, 367 F. Supp.1316 364 Stokes v. Brennan, 476 F. 2d 699 364 Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., 315 U. S. 561 835 Stradley v. Andersen, 478 F. 2d 188 241 Strang v. United States, 395 U. S. 906 602 Students Book Co. v. Washington Law Book Co., 98 U. S. App. D. C. 49 19 Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 404 U. S. 6 196,198,217 Supermarkets Gen. Corp. v. Sills, 93 N. J. Super. 326 755 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, 402 U. S. 1 293,297 Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U. S. Ill 481 Sword Line v. United States, 228 F. 2d 344 175 Taglianetti v. 'United States, 398 F. 2d 558 342 Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60 625,626,628,629 Tankrederiet Gefion A/S v. United States, 241 F. Supp. 83 176 Tate v. Short, 401 U. S. 395 608 Taylor v. McKeithen, 499 F. 2d 893 142 Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U. S. 332 12,200 Tebbs v. Baker-Whitely Towing Co., 227 F. Supp. 656 177 Tehan v. Shott, 382 U. S. 406 399,416 Terry v. California State Bd. of Pharmacy, 395 F. Supp. 94 755 Thai-Europe Tapioca Service v. Government of Pakistan, [1975] 1 W. L. R. 1485 702 Thomas v. Beto, 474 F. 2d 981 506 TABLE OF CASES CITED LXV Page Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516 616,628,629,757,759 Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264 483 Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 762,763,775 Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 386 U. S. 670 237 Tietze v. Richardson, 342 F. Supp. 610 364 Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 251,254 T. J. Falgout Boats v. United States, 361 F. Supp. 838 176 Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S. 258 553 Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 46 Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282 234 Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 466 505 Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78 319,338 Udall v. FPC, 387 U. S. 428 670 Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422 340,417, 575, 576, 588, 589, 601 Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N. Y. 170 192,215 Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U. S. 250 691, 694, 706, 716, 719, 720 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Bots-ford, 141 U. S. 250 253 United. For labor union, see name of trade. United Church of Christ Communication Office v. FCC, 123 U. S. App. D. C. 328 670 United Jewish Org. of Wil-liamsburgh v. Carey, 423 U. S. 945 678,679 United Philippine Lines v. The Daniel Boone, 475 F. 2d 478 184 United States v. Aiderman, 22 U. S. C. M. A. 298 36, 43,44,66,67 United States v. Archer, 486 F. 2d 670 493 United States v. Arlington County, 326 F. 2d 929 474 Page United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U. S. 365 20 United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U. S. 567 859 United States v. Aviles, 315 F. 2d 186 108 United States v. Beattie, 522 F. 2d 267 405,412,432,434 United States v. Benjamin, 328 F. 2d 854 218 United States v. Bennett, 409 F. 2d 888 401,410 United States v. Blue, 384 U. S. 251 576 United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188 169 United States v. Browney, 421 F. 2d 48 342 United States v. Bueno, 447 F. 2d 903 496,498,499 United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 38 572,590 United States v. Caiello, 420 F. 2d 471 346 United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338 419,558,571, 572, 589, 594, 600, 601, 606 United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175 696 United States v. Capaldo, 402 F. 2d 821 605,607 United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U. S. 709 861,862 United States v. Chitwood, 457 F. 2d 676 108 United States v. Chrzanow- ski, 502 F. 2d 573 86 United States v. Corallo, 413 F. 2d 1306 601,607 United States v. Cross, 170 F. Supp. 303 582 United States v. Crutcher, 405 F. 2d 239 89 United States v. Culp, 14 U. S. C. M. A. 199 44 United States v. Daniels, 461 F. 2d 1076 601,607 United States v. Deaton, 468 F. 2d 541 259 204-199 0 - 77 -5 LXVI TABLE OF CASES CITED Page United States v. Demko, 385 U. S. 149 834 United States v. DeSapio. 299 F. Supp. 436 600, 602,607 United States v. Dickerson, 413 F. 2d 1111 342,350 United States v. DiGiovanni, 397 F. 2d 409 583 United States v. DiGrazia, 213 F. Supp. 232 599 United States v. DiMichele, 375 F. 2d 959 583,602,607 United States v. Dionisio, 410 U. S. 1 397, 44 6, 574, 584, 594, 601 United States v. Donovan, 424 U. S. 907 926 United States v. Eastwood, 489 F. 2d 818 87 United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1 743 United States v. Ellman, 9 U. S. C. M. A. 549 384 United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn., 347 U. S. 186 743,745 United States v. Fink, 502 F. 2d 1 86 United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358 825 United States v. Friedman, 445 F. 2d 1076 601 United States v. Fruchtman, 282 F. Supp. 534 599 United States v. Games, 156 F. Supp. 467 595 United States v. George, 444 F. 2d 310 606 United States v. Goldfarb, 328 F. 2d 280 403 United States v. Goodwin, 5 U. S. C. M. A. 647 383 United States v. Grossman, 154 F. Supp. 813 598,599 United States v. Grunewald, 233 F. 2d 556 338,599,600 United States v. Grunewald, 164 F. Supp. 640 602,607 United States v. Haim, 218 F. Supp. 922 599,602 United States v. Hale, 422 U. S. 171 319,337,338 Page United States v. Hilbrich, 341 F. 2d 555 108 United States v. Hoffa, 156 F. Supp. 495 602, 607 United States v. Hunter, 459 F. 2d 205 772,773 United States v. Icardi, 140 F. Supp. 383 582 United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F. 2d 276 508,514 United States v. Irwin, 354 F. 2d 192 602,607 United States v. Isaacs, 347 F. Supp.743 607 United States v. Jackson, 280 U. S. 183 660 United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570 48,71,332 United States v. Jacoby, 11 U. S. C; M. A. 428 44 United States v. Jaskiewicz, 433 F. 2d 415 342 United States v. Jim, 409 U. S. 80 656 United States v. Jordan, 20 U. S. C. M. A. 614 339 United States v. Judson, 322 F. 2d 460 404 United States v. Kahn, 415 U. S. 143 925,926 United States v. Kane, 243 F. Supp. 746 607 United States v. Kapp, 302 U. S. 214 577 United States v. Karathanos, 531 F. 2d 26 335 United States v. Keig, 320 F. 2d 634 109 United States v. Knox, 396 U. S. 77 577,585,609 United States v. Kreps, 349 F. Supp. 1049 599 United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S.452 399,407,417,421 United States v. Leighton, 386 F. 2d 822 86 United States v. Leighton, 265 F. Supp. 27 602,607 United States v. Levinson, 405 F. 2d 971 601,602 United States v. Lockyer, 448 F. 2d 417 342 TABLE OF CASES CITED LXVII Page United States v. Luxenberg, 374 F. 2d 241 599 United States v. Mackiewicz, 401 F. 2d 219 342 United States v. MacLeod, 436 F. 2d 947 342 United States v. Mara, 410 U. S. 19 580,595 United States v. Martinez- Villanueva, 463 F. 2d 1336 86 United States v. Mazurie, 419 U. S. 544 478 United States v. McGowan, 302 U. S. 535 483 United States v. McGrath, 468 F. 2d 1027 499 United States v. McGrath, 494 F. 2d 562 499 United States v. McKesson & Robbins, 351 U. S. 305 11, 745 United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 414 United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258 204 United States v. Mingoia, 424 F. 2d 710 601 United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm’n, 421 U. S. 599 270 United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424 572,574, 585-587, 590^592, 597 United States v. Moore, 5 U. S. C. M. A. 687 57 United States v. Mosley, 496 F. 2d 1012 499 United States v. Murdock, 284 U. S. 141 572 United States v. National Assn. Securities Dealers, 422 U. S. 694 12 United States v. Nickels, 502 F. 2d 1173 582,600,601,607 United States v. 95 Barrels of Vinegar, 265 U. S. 438 772, 779 United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683 572,594 United States v. Nobles, 422 U. S. 225 87,105,106,401 428 Page United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367 148,149,771 United States v. Oliver, 505 F. 2d 301 350,351 United States v. Oquendo, 490 F. 2d 161 499 United States v. Oregon, 366 U. S. 643 201 United States v. Oregon Medical Soc., 343 U. S. 326 747,774 United States v. Orta, 253 F. 2d 312 570,571,599 United States v. Pepe, 367 F. Supp. 1365 595, 599,605,606 United States v. Perez, 491 F. 2d 167 86 United States v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank, 374 U. S. 321 12 United States v. Pommerening, 500 F. 2d 92 584 United States v. Priest, 21 U. S. C. M. A. 564 67 United States v. Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021 342 United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432 473,474 United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258 67 United States v. Robinson, 502 F. 2d 894 87 United States v. Robson, 477 F. 2d 13 342 United States v. Rowell, 243 U. S. 464 656 United States v. Russell, 411 U. S. 423 488-500 United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U. S. 273 474 United States v. Schrimsher, 493 F. 2d 848 89 United States v. Shamel, 22 U. S. C. M. A. 361 64 United States v. Smaldone, 484 F. 2d 311 108 United States v. Soc. I. R. S. A., 86 U Foro Italiano Part I, 1405 702 United States v. Stribling, 437 F. 2d 765 342 United States v. Thayer, 214 F. Supp. 929 582 LXVIII TABLE OF CASES CITED Page United States v. Tramunti, 343 F. 2d 548 607 United States v. U. S. District Court, 407 U. S. 297 446 United States v. Venuto, 182 F. 2d 519 86,89 United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 408,409,419,604 United States v. Washington, 328 A. 2d 98 599 United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411 455 United States v. Weinberg, 439 F. 2d 743 607 United States v. West, 511 F. 2d 1083 496,498,499 United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694 408,412,413, 419, 420, 430, 431, 571 United States v. White, 401 U. S. 745 443 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76 184 United States v. Winter, 348 F. 2d 204 582,602 United States v. Women’s Sportswear Assn., 336 U. S. 460 743 United States v. Wrightwood Dairy, 315 U. S. 110 204 United States v. Zirpolo, 288 F. Supp. 993 602 U. S. ex reL See name of real party in interest. Universal Amusement Co. v. Vance, 404 F. Supp. 33 264 Urowsky v. Board of Regents, 38 N. Y. 2d 364 755 Utzinger v. United States, 246 F. Supp. 1022 176 Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103 586,591 Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U. S. 52 755, 758-760,776 Vanasco v. Schwartz, 401 F. Supp. 87 778 Vaughn v. Rosen, 157 U. S. App. D. C. 340 361,371,374 Vaughn v. Rosen, 173 U. S. App. D. C. 187 361,365,370 Page Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Monteith, 158 S. W. 2d 63 638,643 Victory Transport. Inc. v. Comisaria General, 336 F. 2d 354 703,728 Vincent v. United States, 383 F. Supp. 471 813,818 Walder v JJnited States, 347 U. S. 62 583 Walker V. United States, 425 U. S. 917 923 Warden v. Hayden. 387 U. S. 294 407,422,442 Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 380 U. S. 685 482 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490 469 Washington v. General Motors Corp., 406 U. S. 109 797 Watt v. Page, 452 F. 2d 1174 506,508,520 Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49 588,597 Wessel, Duval & Co. v. United States, 129 Ct. Cl. 464 173 Wheeler v. United States, 226 U. S. 478 408,419,431 Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124 137,142,157,158 White v. Abrams, 495 F. 2d 724 193 White v. Regester, 412 U. 8. 755 143,155,157,158 Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 545 546 Wilkinson v. State, 423 S. W. 2d 311 512 Williams v. Beto, 364 F. Supp.335 511 Williams v. Illinois, 399 U. S. 235 608,645 Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217 483 Williams v. State, 477 S. W. 2d 24 526 Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483 248, 756,769,784 TABLE OF CASES CITED LXIX Page Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361 408,410,412, 413, 419, 424, 427, 431 Wine Hobby USA v. 1RS, 502 F. 2d 133 371,373,377 Winship, In re, 397 U. S. 358 503,517,518 Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539 43,310,312, 314, 315, 320-325, 340 Wood v. United States, 75 U. S. App. D. C. 274 592, 595,603 Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U. S. 52 142,148,156 Wulfsohn v. Russian Socialist Republic, 234 N. Y. 372 78 Page Wyman v. James, 400 U. S. 309 674 Xanthull v. Beto, 307 F. Supp. 903 512 Xanthull v. State, 403 S. W. 2d 807 512 Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S. 231 325 Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 468,542,551,633 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579 826 Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U. S. 291 469 Zarko v. Office of Int’l Trade Fairs, U.S. Dept, of Commerce (Dist. Ct. Zagreb, June 10, 1966) 702 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPBEME COUBT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 1975 ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al. v. PORTLAND RETAIL DRUGGISTS ASSN., INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 74-1274. Argued December 16, 1975—Decided March 24, 1976 Respondent, as assignee of more than 60 commercial pharmacies, brought this antitrust action against petitioner manufacturers, charging that by selling drugs to certain hospitals, each of which has a pharmacy, at prices lower than those charged to respondent’s assignors, petitioners violated the Robinson-Patman Act, which makes it unlawful for one engaged in commerce to discriminate in price between different purchasers of like commodities where “the effect . . . may be substantially to lessen competition.” 15 U. S. C. § 13 (a). Petitioners claimed that the challenged sales were exempt under the Nonprofit Institutions Act, which, inter alia, excludes from the application of the Robinson-Patman Act nonprofit hospitals’ “purchases of their supplies for their own use.” § 13c. The District Court ruled on the basis of the evidence adduced that the hospitals involved were nonprofit and that their drug purchases were “for their own use” within the meaning of § 13c, and granted summary judgment in favor of petitioners. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. While agreeing that the designated hospitals were nonprofit, that court concluded that a hospital’s drugs are purchased for its “own use” only where the hospital can be said to be the consumer, i. e., 1 2 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Syllabus 425 U. S. where dispensations are to inpatients and emergency facility patients. Held: 1. Section 13c does not exempt all of a nonprofit hospital’s drug purchases from the Robinson-Patman Act but the exempting language must be construed as applying to what reasonably may be regarded as use by the hospital in the sense that such use is part of and promotes the hospital’s intended institutional operation in the care of its patients. Pp. 8-14. 2. Applying the foregoing rule, drug purchases by a nonprofit hospital are exempt as being for the hospital’s “own use” if the drugs are dispensed: (a) To the inpatient for use in his treatment at the hospital; to the patient admitted to the hospital’s emergency facility for use in his treatment there; or to the outpatient for personal use on the hospital premises. Such dispensations are part of the hospital’s basic function. P. 14. (b) To the inpatient, or to the emergency facility patient, upon his discharge, and to the outpatient, all for off-premises personal use, provided these take-home dispensations are for a limited and reasonable time, as a continuation of, or supplement to, hospital treatment. Pp. 14-15. (c) To the hospital employee or student for personal use, or for the use of his dependent. Each is a member of the hospital family and dispensation to him furthers the hospital’s functions. P. 16. (d) To the physician staff member for his personal use or the use of his dependent. Here the considerations are similar to those in (c), supra. Pp. 16-17. 3. Purchases for the following types of dispensation are not exempt since they are not for the hospital’s “own use”: (a) To the former patient, by way of a renewal of a prescription given when he was an inpatient, an emergency facility patient, or an outpatient. The purpose of the exemption has been exceeded where the connection with the hospital has reached the refill stage. Pp. 15-16. (b) To nondependents of those covered in fl 2 (c) and (d), supra. These relationships are too attenuated for the statutory benefit. Pp. 16, 17. (c) To the walk-in customer, who has no present connection with the hospital or its pharmacy (except in the occasional emergency situation, which can be viewed as de minimis'). Pp. 17-18. ABBOTT LABS. v. PORTLAND RETAIL DRUGGISTS 3 1 Opinion of the Court 4. Under these standards the hospital can either put all the drugs it purchases to its “own use” exclusively, or can keep separate records for the drugs put to its “own use” and for those otherwise dispensed, making accounting submissions to the supplier for price adjustments. The supplier is protected from antitrust liability if he reasonably and noncollusively relies upon the hospital’s certification as to its dispensation of drugs purchased from the supplier. Pp. 19-21. 510 F. 2d 486, vacated and remanded. Blackmun, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and White, Marshall, Powell, and Rehnquist, JJ., joined. Marshall, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 21. Stewart, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan, J., joined, post, p. 23. Stevens, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. James H. Clarke argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were William B. Crow, Garry P. McMurry, R. R. Bullivant, Walter J. Cosgrave, Jack L. Kennedy, Thomas M. Triplett, Robert R. Carney, and Barnes H. Ellis. Roger Tilbury argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs was Henry Kane* Mr. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. The Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act (Robinson-Patman), adopted in 1936, 49 Stat. 1526, amending § 2 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, in general makes it unlawful for one engaged in commerce to dis- ^Richard J. Wertheimer and Cary H. Sherman filed a brief for the American Hospital Assn, as amicus curiae urging reversal. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by H. R. Burnham and James Allen Main for the Alabama Pharmaceutical Assn, et al.; and by Arthur B. Hanson, W. Frank Stickle, Jr., and Sidney Waller for the American Pharmaceutical Assn, et al. 4 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425U.S. criminate in price between different purchasers of like commodities where, among other things, “the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition.” 15 U. S. C. § 13 (a). The Nonprofit Institutions Act, adopted only two years later, in 1938, c. 283, 52 Stat. 446, exempts from the application of Robinson-Patman “purchases of their supplies for their own use by schools . . . hospitals, and charitable institutions not operated for profit.” 15 U. S. C. § 13c.1 This case concerns nonprofit hospitals’ purchases of products at favored prices from pharmaceutical companies. The issue is the proper construction of the phrase “purchases of their supplies for their own use,” as it appears in the Nonprofit Institutions Act, and the consequent extent the hospitals’ purchases are exempt from the proscription of Robinson-Patman. I Petitioners are 12 manufacturers of pharmaceutical products. Respondent, an Oregon nonprofit corporation and assignee of more than 60 commercial pharmacies doing business in the metropolitan Portland, Ore., area, instituted this action against petitioners in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon for violations of the federal antitrust laws. Treble damages and injunctive relief were sought. The amended complaint asserted five causes of action. Only one of the five (the second) is presently before us.2 1 “Nothing in sections 13 to 13b and 21a of this title, shall apply to purchases of their supplies for their own use by schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions not operated for profit.” 2 Causes of action based on discrimination in sales to city, county, and state governments, and to the Federal Government (the third and fourth causes of action asserted in the amended complaint, Record 61-62) were dismissed for failure to state a claim. App. 292. A cause of action based on discrimination in sales to proprietary ABBOTT LABS. v. PORTLAND RETAIL DRUGGISTS 5 1 Opinion of the Court In this claim the respondent alleged that in selling pharmaceutical products petitioners discriminated between nonprofit hospitals, on the one hand, and commercial pharmacies (regular drugstores), including respondent’s assignors, on the other. As an affirmative defense, petitioners pleaded that their sales of pharmaceutical products to nonprofit hospitals were exempt from Robinson-Patman under the Nonprofit Institutions Act. The parties engaged in discovery as to the nonprofit status and drug-dispensing practices of 14 designated metropolitan Portland area institutions that operate as nonprofit hospitals. Affidavits were obtained and filed. Petitioners, as defendants, pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56 (b), then moved for summary judgment on the amended complaint’s second cause of action. App. 68. The District Court, by an opinion delivered orally, ruled that all the designated institutions were nonprofit hospitals, and that their purchases of pharmaceutical products from petitioners were purchases of supplies “for their own use,” within the language of 15 U. S. C. § 13c, and thus were exempt from the restrictions of Robinson-Patman. The court concluded, accordingly, that there was no issue as to any material fact with respect to the hospitals’ nonprofit status or their use of the pharmaceutical products they purchased, and granted summary judgment in favor of the petitioners on the respondent’s second cause of action. App. 278-288, 290-292. The District Court, id., at 292, certified its judgment under 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b), and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit permitted the interlocutory appeal to be taken. The Court of Appeals, while hospitals and commercial entities, and one that the alleged discriminations were the product of a conspiracy (the amended complaint’s first and fifth causes of action, Record 52-61, 62-63), remain pending. 6 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. rejecting respondent’s contentions that the designated hospitals did not qualify for exemption under § 13c,3 nevertheless vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. 510 F. 2d 486 (1974). Because of the importance of the issue in the context of the modern nonprofit hospital, with its expanding service to the community, as compared with hospital operations of some years ago, and because of the obvious need for a definitive construction of language in the Nonprofit Institutions Act,4 we granted certiorari. 422 U. S. 1040 (1975). II The pertinent facts are not really in dispute. The petitioners, admittedly, sell their pharmaceutical products to the designated Portland hospitals at prices less than those that govern petitioners’ sales of like products to the respondent’s assignors who are commercial pharmacists in Portland. The respective hospitals in turn dispense the pharmaceutical products they have so purchased from the petitioners. The application of Robinson-Patman to this situation is conceded except to the extent the exemption provision of the Nonprofit Institutions Act applies. The controversy, thus, comes into clear focus. 3 The sole exception was Bess Kaiser Hospital. As to this institution, the Court of Appeals concluded that certain factors “appear to present disputed issues of fact,” and that the “proper legal standard” for determining whether that hospital was “ 'not operated for profit’ ” could not be developed “on the limited record” before the court. The issue, therefore, was to be resolved on remand. 510 F. 2d 486, 488 (1974). No review of this aspect of the Court of Appeals’ judgment has been sought, and that detail is not before us. Neither are we confronted here with an issue as to the nonprofit status, within § 13c, of the other 13 hospitals. 4 See the same Court of Appeals’ decision in Logan Lanes, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 378 F. 2d 212, cert, denied, 389 U. S. 898 (1967). ABBOTT LABS. v. PORTLAND RETAIL DRUGGISTS 7 1 Opinion of the Court Each of the designated hospitals has a pharmacy. It is a separate department of the hospital. Its operation produces revenue in excess of costs. The net accrues to the hospital’s benefit, is utilized for the institution’s general purposes, and thus supports other activities of the hospital. The District Court, App. 283-285, and the Court of Appeals, 510 F. 2d, at 489, each perceived various categories of dispensations by the hospital pharmacies of the pharmaceutical products purchased from petitioners. But the District Court, in sustaining petitioners’ motion for summary judgment, observed that “the vast majority” of the products purchased (85% to 95%), namely, those for the bed patient and for the patient receiving treatment in the hospitals’ emergency facilities, were “clearly” for the hospitals’ use, within the meaning of the Nonprofit Institutions Act, App. 283; that “out-patient treatment,” whether “initial or repeated,” was not outside that Act merely because there has been a “change in the distribution of health care” whereby the percentage of outpatient treatment increased since the statute was passed in 1938, id., at 284; that “take-home drugs” were within the “clear meaning” of the statute, ibid.; that drugs furnished to employees, staff physicians, and other members of the staff, while presenting “some mild degree of question,” nevertheless were “for the use of the hospital,” id., at 285; and that the situation with respect to walk-in patients was insufficient in amount to “justify withdrawing” the statute’s exemption, ibid. The Court of Appeals agreed that the inpatient and emergency facility situations “cover by far the greater part of hospital distribution,” and that “such dispensing of drugs in the course of treatment in the hospital is the hospitals’ [sic] own use.” 510 F. 2d, at 489. The court recited petitioners’ asserted justifications for the other types of sales “as proper hospital functions”: the need 8 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. of the departing inpatient for take-home drugs; the continuation at home of the patient’s treatment begun earlier in the hospital; the sales to employees as being pursuant to collective-bargaining agreements; the sales to students as being aspects of the hospital’s educational programs; the sales to physicians as being perquisites of hospital staff membership; the limitation of walk-in sales to instances where, at the time, the needed drugs could not be obtained elsewhere; the hospital’s position “as a center for the provision of a full range of health services”; and “a decent regard for the needs of the community.” Ibid. But, conceding that “distribution by the hospitals can be justified as a proper and useful community service and thus can be regarded as a proper hospital function,” the Court of Appeals concluded that this was not necessarily “the hospitals’ 'own use.’ ” Instead, said the court, hospital use under § 13c was limited to cases where the hospital can be said to be the consumer, that is, to those cases where the dispensations of drugs were to inpatients and emergency facility patients. The concept could not apply “to cases of resale by the hospital to a private consumer.” Accordingly, as to such sales, the hospital may not acquire the pharmaceutical products “at an acquisition price that discriminates against local retail druggists.” Ibid. Ill We, too, find it convenient to view the hospitals’ sales and dispensations of the pharmaceutical products purchased from petitioners as falling into several categories.5 We divide them as follows: 5 The record does not show that each of the designated hospitals made dispensations in each category. It does indicate that dispensations in each category were made by the hospitals considered as a group. Some hospitals refused to make certain types of dispensations. It would serve no useful purpose for us to describe ABBOTT LABS. v. PORTLAND RETAIL DRUGGISTS 9 1 Opinion of the Court 1. To the inpatient for use in his treatment at the hospital. For present purposes, we define an inpatient as one admitted to the hospital for at least overnight bed occupancy.6 2. To the patient admitted to the hospital’s emergency facility for use in the patient’s treatment there. A patient in this category may or may not become an inpatient, as defined in the preceding paragraph. 3. To the outpatient for personal use on the hospital premises. For present purposes, we define an outpatient as one (other than an inpatient or a patient admitted to the emergency facility) who receives treatment or consultation on the premises. 4. To the inpatient, or to the emergency facility patient, upon his discharge and for his personal use away from the premises. 5. To the outpatient for personal use away from the premises. 6. To the former patient, by way of a renewal of a prescription given when he was an inpatient, an emergency facility patient, or an outpatient. 7. To the hospital’s employee or student for personal use or for the use of his dependent.7 the extent to which each individual hospital made dispensations in the several categories. 6 A patient admitted for overnight bed occupancy, in the estimation of the several affiants whose affidavits appear in the record, clearly is an “inpatient.” Some would carry the description further to include a patient admitted only for day surgery, or one who remains 12 hours or more, irrespective of overnight bed occupancy. In view of our disposition of the case, these distinctions are of no consequence here. 7 The record seemingly contains no reference to a dispensation to a special duty nurse, chaplain, or similar nonemployee professional, on duty at the hospital. We place any dispensation of this type in the same category as one to the hospital’s employee or student. 10 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425U.S. 8. To the physician who is a member of the hospital’s staff, but who is not its employee, for personal use or for the use of his dependent. 9. To the physician, who is a member of the hospital’s staff, for dispensation in the course of the physician’s private practice away from the hospital. 10. To the walk-in customer who is not a patient of the hospital.8 This division into categories reveals, of course, that we are concerned with linedrawing. The demarcation is somewhat simplified, on this record, by a concession on the part of the respondent. The respondent agrees with the Court of Appeals that the dispensing of drugs “ ‘in the course of treatment in the hospital is the hospitals’ [sic] own use,’ ” regardless of whether the patient is technically described as an outpatient or as an inpatient. It does not matter, the respondent says, “whether the patient is occupying a bed or not”; thus, a “day surgery patient receiving medication while being treated in the hospital would be covered [that is, the sale to him would be exempt] whether in bed or not, as would one receiving a shot or pill while standing upright or otherwise in the outpatient clinic.” Brief for Respondent 11. See also Tr. of Oral Arg. 29. This concession, then, covers the above-listed categories 1, 2, and 3. We hasten to add, however, that if the respondent had made no concession as to these three categories, we would have reached the same result, for it seems to us to be very clear that a hospital’s purchase of pharmaceutical products that are dispensed to and consumed by a patient on the hospital premises, whether that patient is bedded, or is seen in the emergency 8 This division into 10 categories may not be exhaustive. It appears to cover, however, the several types of dispensations indicated by the record. ABBOTT LABS. v. PORTLAND RETAIL DRUGGISTS 11 1 Opinion of the Court facility, or is only an outpatient, is a purchase of supplies for the hospital’s “own use,” within § 13c. In our view, as the respondent’s concession indicates, this is so clear that it needs no further explication. Before we turn to the remaining categories, we should state that we recognize, as the parties do, that the concept of the nonprofit hospital and its appropriate and necessary activity has vastly changed and developed since the enactment of the Nonprofit Institutions Act in 1938. The intervening decades have seen the hospital assume a larger community character. Some hospitals, indeed, truly have become centers for the “delivery” of health care. The nonprofit hospital no longer is a receiving facility only for the bedridden, the surgical patient, and the critical emergency. It has become a place where the community is readily inclined to turn, and—because of increasing costs, physician specialization, shortage of general practitioners, and other factors—is often compelled to turn, whenever a medical problem of import presents itself. The emergency room has become a facility for all who need it and it no longer is restricted to cases previously authorized by members of the staff. And patients that not long ago required bed care are often now treated on an ambulatory and outpatient basis. See Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization n. Simon, 165 U. S. App. D. C. 239, 249, 506 F. 2d 1278, 1288 (1974), cert, granted, 421 U. S. 975 (1975); Brodie & Graber, Institutional Pharmacy Practice in the 1970’s, 28 Am. J. Hosp. Pharm. 240, 241 (1971). IV It has been said, of course, that the antitrust laws, and Robinson-Patman in particular, are to be construed liberally, and that the exceptions from their application are to be construed strictly. United States v. McKesson 12 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. & Robbins, 351 U. S. 305, 316 (1956); FMC v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., 411 U. S. 726, 733 (1973) ; Perkins v. Standard Oil Co., 395 U. S. 642, 646-647 (1969). The Court has recognized, also, that Robinson-Patman “was enacted in 1936 to curb and prohibit all devices by which large buyers gained discriminatory preferences over smaller ones by virtue of their greater purchasing power.” FTC v. Broch de Co., 363 U. S. 166, 168 (I960); FTC v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 390 U. S. 341, 349 (1968). Because the Act is remedial, it is to be construed broadly to effectuate its purposes. See Tcherepnin n. Knight, 389 U. S. 332, 336 (1967) ; Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54, 65 (1968). Implied antitrust immunity is not favored. United States v. National Assn. Securities Dealers, 422 U. S. 694, 719 (1975). “[O]ur cases have repeatedly established that there is a heavy presumption against implicit [antitrust] exemptions.” Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U. S. 773, 787 (1975) ; United States v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 350-351 (1963). And the focus of Robinson-Patman is on competition “at the same functional level.” FTC v. Sun Oil Co., 371 U. S. 505, 520 (1963). But the legislative history of the Nonprofit Institutions Act indicates clearly that that Act was concerned with the suspicion that Robinson-Patman, at the time just recently enacted, actually might operate to outlaw price favors that sellers would wish to grant to eleemosynary institutions. S. Rep. No. 1769, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 1 (1938); H. R. Rep. No. 2161, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 1 (1938). The parties here seek to utilize this legislative history in opposite ways. The respondent asserts that the statutory assurance of exemption “was never intended to countenance a mass invasion of the retail drug sale market by hospitals,” Brief for Respondent 34, and that what Congress had in mind was “the role traditionally occupied by hospitals,” id., at 35. The petitioners assert ABBOTT LABS. v. PORTLAND RETAIL DRUGGISTS 13 1 Opinion of the Court that the 1938 statute “was written to assist a wide range of nonprofit institutions to operate at the lowest possible cost in the public interest,” Brief for Petitioners 17, and that the focus was on the character of the institution, not on the particular features of its program, and not only on those institutions that operated at a loss, id., at 17-18. We are not fully persuaded by either view. The modern American hospital developed from an institution originally intended for the sick poor. See Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization v. Simon, 165 U. S. App. D. C., at 249, 506 F. 2d, at 1288; E. Fisch, D. Freed, & E. Schachter, Charities and Charitable Foundations § 322 (1974); Bromberg, The Charitable Hospital, 20 Cath. U. L. Rev. 237, 238-240 (1970). Language in the bill which became the 1938 Act, that would have exempted only sales to nonprofit institutions “supported in whole or in part by public subscriptions,” was deleted, 83 Cong. Rec. 6065 (1938), and the Act’s exemption provision was not so restricted and confined. We thus do not relate the exemption to what might be described as the nonprofit hospital’s original or “traditional” status. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Act that indicates that its exemption provision is to be applied and expanded automatically to whatever new venture the nonprofit hospital finds attractive in these changing days. The Congress surely did not intend to give the hospital a blank check. Had it so intended, it would not have qualified purchases by nonprofit institutions in the way it did in § 13c. See H. R. Rep. No. 1983, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 78-79 (1968). We are concerned, after all, with an exemption from an antitrust statute, and the accepted general principles, hereinabove set forth, do have application even in the nonprofit hospital context. 14 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. We therefore conclude that the exemption provision of the Nonprofit Institutions Act is a limited one; that just because it is a nonprofit hospital that is purchasing pharmaceutical products does not mean that all its purchases are exempt from Robinson-Patman; that the test is the obvious one inherent in the language of the statute, namely, “purchases of their supplies for their own use”; and that “their own use” is what reasonably may be regarded as use by the hospital in the sense that such use is a part of and promotes the hospital’s intended institutional operation in the care of persons who are its patients. This implies the limitation and it turns the measure naturally from the purchase to the use, as § 13c requires. In this focus we consider the several categories listed above. V 1 , 2, and 3. As to these three categories, we reiterate our conclusions already enunciated in the light of the concession by the respondent. Dispensation to the bedoccupying inpatient and to the patient at the hospital’s emergency facility, in either case for use on the hospital premises, is a part of the institution’s basic function, and is dispensation for the hospital’s “own use.” That it is the patient rather than the hospital that consumes is not determinative, and, indeed, the respondent here does not contend otherwise. A like result follows with respect to dispensation to the hospital’s outpatient when that patient uses the pharmaceutical product on the hospital’s premises. 4 and 5. The take-home prescription, usually a continuance of, or supplement to, what has been prescrip-tively administered at the hospital while the recipient was an inpatient, emergency facility patient, or outpatient, takes us, to be sure, one small step beyond and outside the hospital’s door. The patient is released from ABBOTT LABS. v. PORTLAND RETAIL DRUGGISTS 15 1 Opinion of the Court care to continue his treatment and recuperation under something less than the hospital’s emergency or routine intensive, regular, or, even, more casual care (if it offers that type), and less than its consultative service at its outpatient facility. The release from the hospital environment into the home is the next step in the chain of treatment on the patient’s way to his resumption of normal activity completely free of treatment. The medical supervision and the hospital’s participation in it to this point, at least, although approaching an end, are continuous and real, and are distinct parts of the transition from hospital care to home care. We therefore conclude that the genuine take-home prescription, intended, for a limited and reasonable time, as a continuation of, or supplement to, the treatment that was administered at the hospital to the patient who needed, and now continues to need, that treatment, is for the hospital’s “own use.” We therefore disagree with the Court of Appeals as to categories 4 and 5. We feel that a contrary ruling on our part would unduly and undeservedly emphasize the doorsill of the hospital, and that to draw a line at that threshold would be arbitrary and not consistent with congressional intent. In these instances, the hospital’s “own use” of the pharmaceutical products extends realistically and not inappropriately somewhat beyond that threshold. 6 . We conclude, however, that the refill for the hospital’s former patient is on the other side of the line that divides that which is in the hospital’s “own use” from that which is not. Inevitably, in accord with the test above set forth, there comes a point where the dispensation of pharmaceutical products is not for the institution’s “own use.” That point, we feel, is positioned short of the refill. Continuation of a drug’s use for some time after initial prescription at the hospital may well be indicated for the particular patient, but, except for the lim 16 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. ited take-home prescription referred to above, it is not the hospital’s “own use,” and it certainly is not for its “own use” forever just because it originated under hospital auspices. We conclude that the statute’s limitation has been exceeded when the connection with the hospital has become as attenuated as it is at the refill stage. 7 . Dispensation to the hospital’s employee or to its student for the purchaser’s personal use or for the use of his dependent poses a somewhat different problem. A hospital is an organization populated by persons rendering essential services of various kinds. The hospital’s employees enable it to function. The hospital pharmacy is but a part of the whole; the employee and his services are other parts. And to the extent the institution has students on the medical and hospital scene— interns, persons in the hospital’s nursing, practical nursing, and nurse’s aide programs, those in paramedical, chaplaincy, and administrative fields, and the like—the connection with the hospital’s purposes and its activities is obvious and institutionally intimate. We conclude, therefore, that dispensation by the pharmacy to the hospital’s employee or student, each of whom, literally, is a member of the hospital family, for his own use or for the use of his dependent, enhances the hospital function and qualifies as being in the hospital’s “own use,” within the meaning of § 13c.9 But we draw the line between dispensation for the employee’s or the student’s personal use, or for the use of his dependent, on the one hand, and that for the use of another, even a nondependent family member, on the other. 8 and 9. What we have said in the preceding paragraph applies with equal force to dispensation to a 8 The fact that, with respect to employees, the availability of the hospital pharmacy might be the compelled subject of a collective-bargaining agreement, in our view, cannot be controlling ABBOTT LABS. v. PORTLAND RETAIL DRUGGISTS 17 1 Opinion of the Court physician member of the staff for his personal use or for the personal use of his dependent. The physician staff member, though not an employee in the technical sense of being full time in the hospital’s service and on its payroll, nevertheless is vital to its existence. It is he who supplies the patient and who engages, perhaps directly and at least to some extent through the staff organization, in the formulation of the hospital’s professional and operative policies. His activity at the hospital is in the hospital’s use—its very purpose for existence—and dispensation to the physician and his dependent, we think, is for the hospital’s “own use,” within § 13c. We again draw the line, however, when the physician’s acquisition from the hospital pharmacy is not for his personal use or that of his dependent, or is not for the hospital. To the extent that the physician utilizes his proximity to the hospital pharmacy, and it permits him so to do, for other persons or other uses—even, as this record occasionally intimates, for dispensation in that portion of his private practice unconnected with the hospital—the requirement of the hospital’s “own use” is not fulfilled. Here again the relationship is too attenuated for the statutory benefit, and we hold that § 13c definitely is not satisfied. 10. The walk-in prescription buyer for the most part affords little difficulty for us in the context of § 13c. Even though one acknowledges the full weight of the argument that the modern hospital is a different institution from what it was when the Nonprofit Institutions Act was adopted in 1938, and that increasingly it has become a focus of health care in the community, the extension of § 13c to the walk-in customer, who has no present connection with the hospital and its pharmacy other than as a place to have his prescription filled, would 18 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U.S. make the commercially advantaged hospital pharmacy just another community drug store open to all comers for prescription services and devastatingly positioned with respect to competing commercial pharmacies. This would extend the hospital’s “own use” concept beyond that contemplated by Congress in § 13c. We therefore hold that the walk-in buyer generally is not within the statute’s exemption. We recognize, however, that there may be an occasion when the hospital pharmacy is the only one available in the community to meet a particular emergency situation. The respondent seeks to counter this possibility with a telephone book yellow-page reference to the providing of 24-hour service, and of some emergency or delivery service, by certain metropolitan Portland retail pharmacies. Brief for Respondent 56. That may be. We are content, however, to conclude that the occasional emergency is de minimis, in any event, and that its presence solitarily would not trigger litigation of the present kind. So long as the hospital pharmacy holds the emergency situation within bounds, and entertains it only as a humanitarian gesture, we shall not condemn the hospital and its suppliers to a Robinson-Patman violation because of the presence of the occasional walk-in dispensation of that type.10 10 We referred above, in n. 4, to Logan Lanes, Inc. n. Brunswick Corp. The parties, in their respective ways, seek to make as much as possible of that decision. Logan Lanes was a treble-damages suit centering in the sale by Brunswick, to a Utah State Board, of bowling lanes and related equipment at prices lower than Brunswick charged Logan for similar equipment. The items purchased by the board were installed in a state university’s student union building, and, while they were “primarily for the use of students, faculty and staff of the University,” were also used by members of the public. 378 F. 2d, at 214. The public use during the 20 months following installation, according to affidavits presented by Brunswick, amounted to 2,934 lines bowled out of a total of 128,349. The trial court ABBOTT LABS. v. PORTLAND RETAIL DRUGGISTS 19 1 Opinion of the Court VI The petitioners suggest that a decision holding some dispensations by the nonprofit hospital not to be exempt establishes an objectionable and unworkable standard for hospitals and their suppliers because it “requires a segregation of drugs or accounting of their use granted Brunswick’s motion for summary judgment. One ground for this ruling was that the purchase was exempt under § 13c. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. It refused to restrict the statute’s use of the term “supplies” to consumables and noncapital items and, instead, held that the term embraced anything required to meet the qualified institution’s needs. It concluded that the exact amount of public use was immaterial and that, even assuming “the public made substantial use of the University bowling facilities,” 378 F. 2d, at 217, the purchases in question were made by the nonprofit university for its own use. The situation presented by Students Book Co. v. Washington Law Book Co., 98 U. S. App. D. C. 49, 232 F. 2d 49 (1955), cert, denied, 350 U. S. 988 (1956), also cited by the parties here, was distinguished. The latter case concerned sales of lawbooks to self-sustaining campus bookstores for resale at a profit. The Court of Appeals held, 98 U. S. App. D. C., at 50-51, n. 5, 232 F. 2d, at 50-51, n. 5, that these were not sales to universities “for their own use,” within the meaning of § 13c. The defendant, however, prevailed on another ground. We agree with the court in the Students Book Co. case that the purchases challenged there were not purchases by a nonprofit institution of the type to which § 13c relates. Those in Logan Lanes, in contrast, were. The Ninth Circuit apparently would distinguish Logan Lanes from the present case on the ground that “[p]lant equipment acquired for a university’s own use cannot be segregated from that acquired for use by others, since the same equipment serves both uses.” 510 F. 2d, at 490. It went on to say that the situation “of supplies acquired for consumption ... is otherwise.” Ibid. The court regarded the present case as factually similar to Students Book Co. As we have just stated, however, we are in accord with the District of Columbia Circuit’s characterization of the bookstore purchases as not being transactions with the universities at all, but with the campus bookstores for resale at the latter’s profit. 20 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425U.S. that can be achieved only through the institution of clumsy and expensive dual supply or tracing systems to regulate and account for the use of drugs.” Brief for Petitioners 28. They suggest the undesirability of a supplier’s “controlling the disposition of merchandise in the hands of a purchaser,” citing United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U. S. 365, 379 (1967), and they speak of the supplier’s “retroactive exposure to claims.” Brief for Petitioners 29. Petitioners’ concern is understandable, but we feel that it is overstated. Looking at the problem from the point of view of the purchasing hospital, two alternatives, and perhaps more,11 are presented. The first, and easier, is for the hospital pharmacy not to dispense in any way hereinabove held to be outside the exemption of § 13c. The second is for the pharmacy to do exactly what the petitioners deplore, namely to establish a recordkeeping procedure that segregates the nonexempt use from the exempt use. This would be supplemented by the hospital’s submission to its supplier of an appropriate accounting followed by the price adjustment that is indicated. This, to be sure, is cumbersome, but it obviously is the price the Congress has exacted for the benefits bestowed by the controlling legislation, and it should be no more cumbersome than the accounting demands that are made on commercial enterprises of all kinds in our complex society of today. The supplier, on the other hand, properly may expect to be protected from antitrust liability for reasonable and noncollusive reliance upon its hospital customer’s certification as to its dispensation of the products it purchases 11 Our reference to two alternatives is not meant to be exclusive. Imaginative suppliers and purchasers may well come up with other and better means to alleviate whatever routine recordkeeping details and burdens may exist. ABBOTT LABS. v. PORTLAND RETAIL DRUGGISTS 21 1 Marshall, J., concurring from the supplier. But it is not unreasonable to expect the supplier to assume the burden of obtaining the certification when it seeks to enjoy, with the institutional purchaser, the benefits provided by § 13c. It clearly does this with respect to responsibility for identification of its purchaser under that statute’s standard, and little additional burden is imposed if it is required to take the small second step of routinely obtaining a representation from its hospital customer as to the use of the products purchased. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs are allowed to petitioners to the extent of 50%. It is so ordered. Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Mr. Justice Marshall, concurring. While I join the Court’s opinion, I wish to add a word about the applicability of the exemption provided by the Nonprofit Institutions Act. To my mind, the key to the Act is that it exempts from the Robinson-Patman Act not only an itemized list of institutions, but also all “charitable institutions not operated for profit.” 15 U. S. C. § 13c. This suggests to me that the named institutions—schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, and hospitals—were not intended to be limited to their traditional activities in qualifying for the exemption, but may expand those activities and still qualify so long as any new activities for which exempted supplies are purchased are charitable and not operated for profit. I agree with the Court that the exemption is not “to be applied and expanded automatically to whatever new 22 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Marshall, J., concurring 425U.S. venture the nonprofit hospital finds attractive in these changing days.” Ante, at 13. But I believe the exemption is applicable to any new venture the hospital finds attractive and that is both charitable and not operated for profit. There is no suggestion—nor could one be made—that the activities the Court today finds outside the exemption fall within this category,* so there is no need to address this problem here. But I write to emphasize that I do not read the Court’s opinion as foreclosing hospitals—or other exempted institutions—from expanding their charitable activities in highly untraditional ways and still qualifying for the exemption. Likewise, I agree with the Court that the proper inquiry in this case is whether each kind of drug sale by the hospital “is a part of and promotes the hospital’s intended institutional operation in the care of persons who are its patients.” Ante, at 14. However, when a nonprofit institution makes sales for profit, as here, analysis is furthered, I suggest, by recognition of the purpose of the “own use” limitation. Since all charitable institutions are covered by the Act, the purpose quite obviously is not to freeze a particular charitable institution into a particular kind of charity. Rather, as I understand it, the purpose of the limitation is generally to preclude the institution from taking advantage of its antitrust exemption by buying low-cost supplies solely for the purpose of reselling them at a profit. That is, Congress was primarily interested in directly aiding nonprofit institutions by lowering their operating expenses, but not interested in indirectly aiding *This case would be much more difficult for me if the hospitals involved did not all make profits on the sale of drugs to outsiders. Ante, at 7. If they did not, we would have to determine in each case whether such sales, even if not within the hospital’s institutional function, nonetheless constituted a “charitable” venture of their own. ABBOTT LABS. v. PORTLAND RETAIL DRUGGISTS 23 1 Stewart, J., dissenting such institutions by providing them with the means of raising additional money—particularly when such resales of supplies would put the institution in competition with retail businesses not eligible for the exemption. While I do not believe Congress meant to preclude profitmaking sales in the course of the institution’s charitable activities—and so I agree that the Court’s inquiry is the correct one—I suggest that the nexus between particular sales and those activities should be particularly closely scrutinized when a profit is made to assure that the sales are not made primarily for moneymaking purposes. Thus, sales only arguably within the scope of the institution’s charitable activities might be exempted when made on a nonprofit basis and not exempted when made for profit. After analysis with this balancing factor in mind, I agree with the lines drawn by the Court and concur in its opinion. Mr. Justice Stewart, with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins, dissenting. It is common ground in this case that the dispensation of pharmaceutical products for consumption by a hospital’s patients upon the hospital’s premises constitutes the hospital’s “own use” of the products within the meaning of 15 U. S. C. § 13c. The controversy concerns the various other “uses” of these products catalogued in the Court’s opinion. Ante, at 8-10. As to those uses the Court of Appeals expressed its views as follows: “We may concede that in these respects distribution by the hospitals can be justified as a proper and useful community service and thus can be regarded as a proper hospital function. It is not, however, the hospitals’ ‘own use.’ . . . The purpose for which these supplies are purchased—the use to which they are to be put—is their consumption. Section 13c 24 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Stewart, J., dissenting 425 U. S. can apply here only to cases in which a hospital can be said to be the consumer. It cannot apply to cases of resale by the hospital to a private consumer. “The hospitals here are (quite properly) accommodating patients, staff and strangers with means whereby they can conveniently purchase for their use. The question is not whether the hospitals can continue to provide this useful community service. The question is whether in providing it they may acquire the drugs for such resale at an acquisition price that discriminates against local retail druggists. We hold that they may not.” 510 F. 2d 486, 489. I agree with the Court of Appeals and would affirm its judgment. MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 25 Syllabus MIDDENDORF, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, et al. v. HENRY et al. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 74-175. Argued January 22, 1975—Reargued November 5, 1975—Decided March 24, 1976* The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) provides four methods of disposing of cases involving servicemen’s offenses: general, special, and summary courts-martial, and disciplinary punishment pursuant to Art. 15 of the UCMJ. General courts-martial and special courts-martial, which may impose substantial penalties, resemble judicial proceedings, nearly always presided over by lawyer judges, with lawyer counsel for both sides. Article 15 punishment, conducted personally by the accused’s commanding officer, is an administrative method of dealing with most minor offenses. A summary court-martial, lying in between the informal Art. 15 procedure and the judicial procedures of general and special courts-martial, is designed “to exercise justice promptly for relatively minor offenses” in an informal proceeding conducted by a single commissioned officer, acting as judge, factfinder, prosecutor, and defense counsel (with jurisdiction only over noncommissioned officers and other enlisted personnel), who can impose as maximum sentences: 30 days’ confinement at hard labor or 45 days’ hard labor without confinement; two months’ restriction to specified limits; reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade; and forfeiture of two-thirds pay for one month. If the accused does not consent to trial by summary court-martial, the case will either be referred to a special or general court-martial, or be dismissed. Various enlisted members of the Marine Corps (hereinafter plaintiffs) charged for the most part with “unauthorized absences” brought this class action in District Court challenging the authority of the military to try them at summary courts-martial without providing them with counsel. All the plaintiffs had con *Together with No. 74-5176, Henry et al. v. Middendorj, Secretary of the Navy, et al., also on certiorari to the same court. 26 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Syllabus 425 U. S. sented in writing to be tried by summary court-martial, without counsel, after having been advised that they could be tried by special court-martial with counsel provided and having been apprised of the maximum sentences imposable under the two procedures. The District Court entered a judgment for the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in the light of its opinion in Daigle v. Warner, 490 F. 2d 358, wherein it had held that there is no right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment in summary courts-martial and no absolute Fifth Amendment due process right in every case in which a military defendant might be imprisoned, but that, in line with Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778, counsel is required where the accused makes a request based on a timely and colorable claim (1) that he has a defense and (2) that there are mitigating circumstances, and the assistance of counsel is necessary in order adequately to present his defense. Held: 1. There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a summary court-martial, since that proceeding is not a “criminal prosecution” as that term is used in the Amendment. Pp. 33-42. (a) Even in a civilian context the fact that a proceeding will result in the loss of liberty does not ipso facto mean that the proceeding is a “criminal prosecution” for Sixth Amendment purposes, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, at 788-789; In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 30; and when it is taken into account that a summary court-martial occurs in the military rather than a civilian community the considerations supporting the conclusion that it is not a “criminal prosecution” are at least as strong as the factors that were held dispositive in those cases. The charges against most of the plaintiffs here have no common-law counterpart and carry little popular opprobrium; nor are the penalties comparable to civilian sanctions. Pp. 34—40. (b) A summary court-martial, unlike a criminal trial, is not an adversary proceeding. Pp. 40-42. 2. Nor does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that counsel be provided the accused in a summary court-martial proceeding. Pp. 42-48. (a) Though the loss of liberty which may result from a summary court-martial implicates due process, the question whether that embodies a right to counsel depends upon an analysis of the interests of the accused and those of the regime to which he is subject, and in making that analysis deference must be MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 27 25 Syllabus given to Congress’ determination under Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution, that counsel should not be provided in that type of proceeding. P. 43. (b) Supporting Congress’ decision is the fact that the presence of counsel would convert a brief, informal hearing, which may be readily convened and concluded, into an attenuated proceeding, pre-empting the time of military personnel and thus consuming military resources to an unwarranted degree. See 17. 8. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 17. Pp. 45-46. (c) The accused who feels that counsel is essential in the situation envisaged by the Court of Appeals in reliance on Daigle v. Warner, supra, may elect trial, with counsel provided, in a special court-martial proceeding, and though he would thus expose himself to the possibility of greater penalties, a decision involving that kind of choice, which often occurs in civilian crim-inal cases, is not constitutionally decisive. Pp. 46-48. 493 F. 2d 1231, reversed. Rehnquist, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and White, Blackmun, and Powell, JJ., joined. Powell, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Blackmun, J., joined, post, p. 49. Stewart, J., filed a dissenting statement, post, p. 49. Marshall, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan, J., joined, post, p. 51. Stevens, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases. Harvey M. Stone argued the cause pro hac vice for petitioners in No. 74-175 and respondents in No. 74-5176 on the reargument. Deputy Solicitor General Frey argued the cause for those parties on the original argument. With Mr. Stone on the brief were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Petersen, Harriet S. Shapiro, Sidney M. Glazer, Merlin H. Staring, H. B. Robertson, Jr., and Max G. Halliday. Nathan R. Zahm reargued the cause for petitioners in No. 74-5176 and respondents in No. 74-175. With him on the briefs were A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand, David F. Addlestone, and Thomas M. Geisler, Jr. 28 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. Mr. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. In February 1973 plaintiffs1—then enlisted members of the United States Marine Corps—brought this class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California challenging the authority of the military to try them at summary courts-martial without providing them with counsel. Five plaintiffs2 had been charged with “unauthorized absences” 3 in violation of Art. 86, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 886, convicted at summary courts-martial, and sentenced, inter alia, to periods of confinement ranging from 20 to 30 days at hard labor. The other three plaintiffs, two of whom were charged, inter alia, with unauthorized absence and one with assault, Art. 128, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §928, had been ordered to stand trial at summary courts-martial which had not been convened. Those who were convicted had not been provided counsel—those who were awaiting trial had been informed that counsel would not be provided. All convicted plaintiffs were informed prior to trial that they would not be afforded counsel and that they could refuse trial by summary court-martial if they so desired. In the event of such refusal their cases would be referred to special courts-martial at which counsel would be provided. All plaintiffs consented in writing to proceed to trial by summary court-martial, without 1Both parties have petitioned from the judgment of the court below. For simplicity we refer to the servicemen as “plaintiffs” and the federal parties as “defendants.” 2 Including two who were not among the original six plaintiffs but later intervened. 3 One of these plaintiffs was also charged with several other offenses, including assault on a superior noncommissioned officer, Art. 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §891. MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 29 25 Opinion of the Court counsel.4 Plaintiffs’ court-martial records were reviewed and approved5 by the Staff Judge Advocate pursuant to Art. 65 (c), UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 865 (c). Plaintiffs did not file a petition for review with the Judge Advocate General of the Navy pursuant to Art. 69, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 869.6 In the District Court, plaintiffs brought a class action seeking habeas corpus (release from confinement), an 4 Plaintiffs were so informed and consented pursuant to the terms of (Navy) Staff Judge Advocate Memorandum 10-72 which was in force at El Toro Marine Corps Air Station where all plaintiffs were stationed. Record 18. For example, as to plaintiff Henry, the following entry appears in the record of his court-martial: “The accused was advised that, if tried by Summary Court-Martial, he would not be represented by appointed military counsel; that instead, that Summary Court-Martial Officer would thoroughly and impartially inquire into both sides of the matter, and would assure that the interests of both the Government and the accused are safeguarded; that, if his case were that referred to a Special Courts-Martial [sic], he would be provided counsel. In addition, the accused, after being informed of the maximum punishment imposable in his case both by a Summary Courts-Martial [sic] and Special Courts-Martial [sic], he would be foregoing his statutory rights to counsel at a Special Courts-Martials [sic].” Id., at 114. 5 At least one plaintiff, McLean, was found not guilty as to certain charges at the summary court-martial. Upon review at the supervisory authority level, guilty findings on certain other charges upon which he had been convicted were reversed. 6 These plaintiffs arguably failed to exhaust their military remedies. However, the defendants urge that exhaustion not be required here because the practice of the Judge Advocate General has been to defer consideration of any petitions on the right-to-counsel issue pending the completion of litigation on this issue in the federal courts. Since the exhaustion requirement is designed to protect the military from undue interference by the federal courts, Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 758 (1975), the military can waive that requirement where it feels that review in the federal courts is necessary. See Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 396-397, n. 3 (1975). 30 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. injunction against future confinement resulting from uncounseled summary court-martial convictions, and an order vacating the convictions of those previously convicted. The District Court allowed the suit to proceed as a class action, expunged all of plaintiffs’ convictions, released all plaintiffs and all other members of their class7 from confinement, and issued a worldwide injunction against summary courts-martial without counsel. Because of our disposition of this case on the merits, we have no occasion to reach the question of whether Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23, providing for class actions, is applicable to petitions for habeas corpus, see Harris v. Nelson, 394 U. S. 286 (1969), or whether the District Court properly determined that its remedial order was entitled to be enforced outside of the territorial limits of the district in which the court sat. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the District Court, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Daigle v. Warner, 490 F. 2d 358 (CA9 1973). Daigle had held that there was no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in summary courts-martial, and likewise held that there was no absolute Fifth Amendment due process right to counsel in every case in which a military defendant might be imprisoned. However, citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973), it did hold that counsel was required where the “accused makes a request based on a timely and colorable claim (1) that he has a defense, or (2) that there are mitigating circumstances, and the assistance of counsel is necessary in order adequately to 7 The class included all members of the Navy and Marine Corps who “were or are now or will be required after (the date of the order) to stand trial by summary courts-martial” and who had not been afforded counsel. 357 F. Supp. 495, 499 (1973). MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 31 25 Opinion of the Court present the defense or mitigating circumstances.” Daigle made an exception from this general rule for cases in which counsel “is not reasonably available,” in which instance it would not be required. 490 F. 2d, at 365. We granted certiorari. 419 U. S. 895 (1974). I The UCMJ provides four methods for disposing of cases involving offenses committed by servicemen: the general, special, and summary courts-martial, and disciplinary punishment administered by the commanding officer pursuant to Art. 15, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 815. General and special courts-martial resemble judicial proceedings, nearly always presided over by lawyer judges with lawyer counsel for both the prosecution and the defense.8 General courts-martial are authorized to award any lawful sentence, including death. Art. 18, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 818. Special courts-martial may award a bad-conduct discharge, up to six months’ confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for six months, and in the case of an enlisted member, reduction to the lowest pay grade, Art. 19, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 819. Article 15 punishment, conducted personally by the accused’s commanding officer, is an admin 8 These features are mandatory for general courts-martial.' Special courts-martial may be, but seldom are, convened without a military judge; in such cases, the senior member of the court presides. Appointed defense counsel at a special court-martial is required to be an attorney, unless an attorney cannot be obtained because of physical conditions or military exigencies. In addition to the ap- pointed counsel at a general or special court-martial, the accused may retain civilian counsel at his own expense, or he may be represented by a military lawyer of his own selection, if such lawyer is "reasonably available.” Arts. 16, 25, 27 (b), 27 (c), 38 (b), UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §§ 816, 825, 827 (b), 827 (c), 838 (b). 32 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. istrative method of dealing with the most minor offenses. Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 750 (1974).9 The summary court-martial occupies a position between informal nonjudicial disposition under Art. 15 and the courtroom-type procedure of the general and special courts-martial. Its purpose, “is to exercise justice promptly for relatively minor offenses under a simple form of procedure.” Manual for Courts-Martial T 79a (1969) (MCM). It is an informal proceeding conducted by a single commissioned officer with jurisdiction only over noncommissioned officers and other enlisted personnel. Art. 20, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 820. The presiding officer acts as judge, factfinder, prosecutor, and defense counsel. The presiding officer must inform the accused of the charges and the name of the accuser and call all witnesses whom he or the accused desires to call.10 MCM 179d (1). The accused must consent to trial 9 The maximum punishments which may be imposed under Art. 15 are: 30 days’ correctional custody; 60 days’ restriction to specified limits; 45 days’ extra duties; forfeiture of one-half of one month’s pay per month for two months; detention of one-half of one month’s pay per month for three months; reduction in grade. Enlisted members attached to or embarked on a vessel may be sentenced to three days’ confinement on bread and water or diminished rations. Correctional custody is not necessarily the same as confinement. It is intended to be served in a way which allows normal performance of duty, together with intensive counseling. Persons serving correctional custody, however, may be confined. Art. 15 (b). See Department of the Navy, SECNAV Inst. 1640.9, Corrections Manual, c. 7, June 1972; Department of the Army, Pamphlet No. 27-4, Correctional Custody, 1 June 1972; Department of the Air Force, Reg. 125-35, Correctional Custody, 7 Oct. 1970. 10 Additionally, the officer must inform the accused of his right to remain silent and allow him to cross-examine witnesses or have the summary court officer cross-examine them for him. The accused may testify and present evidence in his own behalf. If the MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 33' 25 Opinion of the Court by summary court-martial; if he does not do so, trial may be ordered by special or general court-martial. The maximum sentence elements which may be imposed by summary courts-martial are: one month’s confinement at hard labor; 45 days’ hard labor without confinement; two months’ restriction to specified limits; reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade; and forfeiture of two-thirds pay for one month. Art. 20, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 820.11 * II The question of whether an accused in a court-martial has a constitutional right to counsel has been much debated 12 and never squarely resolved. See Reid N. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 37 (1957). Dicta in Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 123 (1866), said that “the framers of the Constitution, doubtless, meant to limit the right of trial by accused is found guilty he may make a statement, sworn or unsworn, in extenuation or mitigation. MCM If 79d. The record of the trial is then reviewed by the convening officer, Art. 60, UCMJ, 10 U. 8. C. § 860, and thereafter by a judge advocate. Art. 65 (c), UCMJ, 10-U. S. C. §865 (c). 11 Not all these sentence elements may be imposed in one sentence, and enlisted persons above the fourth enlisted pay grade may not be sentenced to confinement or hard labor by summary courts-martial, or reduced except to the next inferior grade. MCM fl 166 and 127c. 12 Compare, Wiener, Courts-Martial and the Bill of Rights: The Original Practice, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (1958), which finds that there is no historic precedent for application of the right to counsel to courts-martial, with Henderson, Courts-Martial and the Constitution: The Original Understanding, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 293 (1957), which concludes that the original intent of the Framers was to apply the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the military. Compare Daigle v. Warner, 490 F. 2d 358 (CA9 1973), with Betonie v. Sizemore, 496 F. 2d 1001 (CA5 1974). 34 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. jury, in the sixth amendment, to those persons who were subject to indictment or presentment in the fifth.” In Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1, 40 (1942), it was said that “ ‘cases arising in the land or naval forces’ . . . are expressly excepted from the Fifth Amendment, and are deemed excepted by implication from the Sixth.” We find it unnecessary in this case to finally resolve the broader aspects of this question, since we conclude that even were the Sixth Amendment to be held applicable to court-martial proceedings, the summary court-martial provided for in these cases wras not a “criminal prosecution” within the meaning of that Amendment.13 This conclusion, of course, does not answer the ultimate question of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to counsel at a summary court-martial proceeding, but it does shift the frame of reference from the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel “[i]n all criminal prosecutions” to the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against the deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972), held that the Sixth Amendment’s provision for the assistance of counsel extended to misdemeanor prosecutions in civilian courts if conviction would result in imprisonment. A 13 Since under our Brother Marshall’s analysis the Sixth Amendment applies to the military, it would appear that not only the right to counsel but the right to jury trial, which is likewise guaranteed by that Amendment, would come with it. While under Duncan N. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968), such a right would presumably not obtain in cases of summary courts-martial because of the short periods of confinement which they may impose, it would surely apply to special and general courts-martial, which are empowered to im-pose sentences far in excess of those held in Duncan to be the maxi-mum which could be imposed without a jury. Whatever may be the merits of “selective incorporation” under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment makes absolutely no distinction between the right to jury trial and the right to counsel. MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 35 25 Opinion of the Court summary court-martial may impose 30 days’ confinement at hard labor, which is doubtless the military equivalent of imprisonment. Yet the fact that the outcome of a proceeding may result in loss of liberty does not by itself, even in civilian life, mean that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is applicable. In Gagnon n. Scar-pelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973), the respondent faced the prospect of being sent to prison as a result of the revocation of his probation, but we held that the revocation proceeding was nonetheless not a “criminal proceeding.” We took pains in that case to observe: “[T]here are critical differences between criminal trials and probation or parole revocation hearings, and both society and the probationer or parolee have stakes in preserving these differences. “In a criminal trial, the State is represented by a prosecutor; formal rules of evidence are in force; a defendant enjoys a number of procedural rights which may be lost if not timely raised; and, in a jury trial, a defendant must make a presentation understandable to untrained jurors. In short, a criminal trial under our system is an adversary proceeding with its own unique characteristics. In a revocation hearing, on the other hand, the State is represented, not by a prosecutor, but by a parole officer with the orientation described above; formal procedures and rules of evidence are not employed; and the members of the hearing body are familiar with the problems and practice of probation or parole.” Id., at 788-789. In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967), involved a proceeding in which a juvenile was threatened with confinement. The Court,. although holding counsel was required, went on to say: “ ‘We do not mean ... to indicate that the hearing 36 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. to be held must conform with all of the requirements of a criminal trial or even of the usual administrative hearing; but we do hold that the hearing must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment.’ ” Id., at 30. The Court’s distinction between various civilian proceedings, and its conclusion that, notwithstanding the potential loss of liberty, neither juvenile hearings nor probation revocation hearings are “criminal proceedings,” are equally relevant in assessing the role of the summary court-martial in the military. The summary court-martial is, as noted above, one of four types of proceedings by which the military imposes discipline or punishment. If we were to remove the holding of Argersinger from its civilian context and apply it to require counsel before a summary court-martial proceeding simply because loss of liberty may result from such a proceeding, it would seem all but inescapable that counsel would likewise be required for the lowest level of military proceeding for dealing with the most minor offenses. For even the so-called Art. 15 “nonjudicial punishment,” which may be imposed administratively by the commanding officer, may result in the imposition upon an enlisted man of “correctional custody” with hard labor for not more than 30 consecutive days.14 10 U. S. C. § 815 (b).15 But we think that 14 Chief Judge Darden, dissenting in United States v. Alderman, 22 U. 8. C. M. A. 298, 46 C. M. R. 298 (1973), made a similar observation: “While it may be argued that counsel should be required for summary courts-martial since they constitute criminal convictions and not for Article 15 proceedings as they are nonjudicial and corrective in nature, the effect of confinement under the former and correctional custody under the latter is difficult to distinguish. See In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967). Consequently, I would have difficulty in sus-[Footnote 15 is on p. 37] MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 37 25 Opinion of the Court the analysis made in cases such as Gagnon and Gault, as well as considerations peculiar to the military, counsel against such a mechanical application of Argersinger. Admittedly Gagnon is distinguishable in that there the defendant had been earlier sentenced at the close of an orthodox criminal prosecution. But Gault is not so distinguishable: there the juvenile faced possible initial confinement as a result of the proceeding in question, but the Court nevertheless based its conclusion that counsel was required on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than on any determination that the hearing was a “criminal prosecution” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment. It seems to us indisputably clear, therefore, that even in a civilian context the fact that a proceeding will result in loss of liberty does not ipso facto mean that the proceeding is a “criminal prosecution” for purposes of the Sixth Amendment. Nor does the fact that confinement will be imposed in the first instance as a result of that proceeding make it a “criminal prosecution.” When we consider in addition the fact that a summary court-martial occurs in the military community, rather than the civilian community, we believe that the considerations supporting the conclusion that it is not a “criminal prosecution” are at least as strong as those which were held dispositive in Gagnon and Gault. The dissent points out, post, at 56-57, n. 6, that in taining the position that while counsel must be provided before summary courts-martial, they may be dispensed with in Article 15 proceedings that may result in correctional custody.” Id., at 308 n. 1, 46 C. M. R., at 308 n. 1. 15 This section provides that a commanding officer (of the grade of major or lieutenant commander or above) may impose, inter cilia, not more than 30 consecutive days of “correctional custody,” § 815 (b)(2)(H)(ii), during duty or non-duty hours and may include “hard labor.” § 815 (b). 38 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. Gault the Court gave weight to the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile proceedings there involved, and that no such factor is present in summary courts-martial. Undoubtedly both Gault and Gagnon are factually distinguishable from the summary court-martial proceeding here. But together they surely stand for the proposition that even in the civilian community a proceeding which may result in deprivation of liberty is nonetheless not a “criminal proceeding” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment if there are elements about it which sufficiently distinguish it from a traditional civilian criminal trial. The summary court-martial proceeding here is likewise different from a traditional trial in many respects, the most important of which is that it occurs within the military community. This latter factor, under a long line of decisions of this Court, is every bit as significant, and every bit as entitled to be given controlling weight, as the fact in Gagnon that the defendant had been previously sentenced, or the fact in Gault that the proceeding had a rehabilitative purpose. We have only recently noted the difference between the diverse civilian community and the much more tightly regimented military community in Parker n. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 749 (1974). We said there that the UCMJ “cannot be equated to a civilian criminal code. It, and the various versions of the Articles of War which have preceded it, regulate aspects of the conduct of members of the military which in the civilian sphere are left unregulated. While a civilian criminal code carves out a relatively small segment of potential conduct and declares it criminal, the Uniform Code of Military Justice essays more varied regulation of a much larger segment of the activities of the more tightly knit military community.” Ibid. Much of the conduct proscribed by the military is not “criminal” conduct in the civilian sense of the word. Id., at 749-751. MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 39 25 Opinion of the Court Here, for example, most of the plaintiffs were charged solely with “unauthorized absence,” an offense which has no common-law counterpart and which carries little popular opprobrium. Conviction of such an offense would likely have no consequences for the accused beyond the immediate punishment meted out by the military, unlike conviction for such civilian misdemeanors as vagrancy or larceny which could carry a stamp of “bad character” with conviction.16 16 Our Brother Marshall argues, post, at 57-58, and nn. 8 and 9, that the military considers a summary court-martial conviction as “criminal.” But Admiral Hearn, the Navy Judge Advocate General, did not describe the convictions as “criminal”; he did state that a commanding officer’s decision to utilize a summary court-martial, as opposed to an Art. 15 administrative punishment, might turn on his judgment that it was “in the best interests of the service to begin to put on record [the] infractions” of a serviceman who had accumulated several Art. 15 punishments for the same type of offense. Joint Hearings on Military Justice before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and a Special Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 34 (1966) (1966 Hearings). The Army Assistant Judge Advocate General then pointed out that one advantage a summary court-martial held for the accused, over an Art. 15 proceeding, was that the latter was adjudged by the company commander, the “nominal accuser,” whereas “the summary court knows nothing about the case at all.” Ibid. The dissent also refers us to the Army’s acknowledgment of “collateral consequences” flowing from a summary court-martial conviction. Post, at 58-59. But that which is quoted in the text is a portion of the Army’s written response in 1962 to the following question: “What are the effects on a serviceman’s career of conviction by summary or special court-martial?” The disjunctive in the question makes it impossible to tell whether the portion quoted is addressed to special or summary court-martial, or both. Finally, whatever conclusions may have been drawn by the author of the article in 39 Ya. L. Rev. 319 cited by the dissent, post, at 59 n. 11, as to the “impact of a summary court-martial conviction,” are of little aid to present considerations. The article was written at 40 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. By the same token, the penalties which may be meted out in summary courts-martial are limited to one month’s confinement at hard labor, 45 days’ hard labor without confinement, or two months’ restriction to specified limits.17 Sanctions which may be imposed affecting a property interest are limited to reduction in grade with attendant loss of pay, or forfeiture or detention of a portion of one month’s pay. Finally, a summary court-martial is procedurally quite different from a criminal trial. In the first place, it is not an adversary proceeding. Yet the adversary nature of civilian criminal proceedings is one of the touchstones of the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel18 which we the inception of the UCMJ, then in operation for a year, and discusses sentencing in terms of the interaction between the Code and the corresponding 1951 Manual for Courts-Martial. Both, of course, have undergone substantial revision in the intervening 23 years. It should not be lightly assumed that the author’s conclusions drawn at that time are valid with respect to the present UCMJ and MCM, or the manner in which they are currently implemented by the various services. 17 Our Brother Marshall notes, post, at 57, that technically even the most serious noncapital UCMJ offenses may be tried before a summary court-martial. But that is of little practical effect upon the serviceman accused, given the ceilings on punishments imposed by Art. 20. It would seem inconceivable that a serious charge such as striking a commissioned officer, Art. 90 (1), UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 890 (1)—for which a general court-martial could impose a 10-year sentence—would ever be prosecuted before a court which could impose maximum confinement at hard labor for only one month. But if that occurred, an accused so charged before a summary court-martial would no doubt be delighted at his good fortune. The fact is, as the dissent notes, post, at 57-58, n. 8, that only 14% of the summary courts-martial conducted by the Navy are for “nonmilitary” offenses. We do not regard this figure as “substantial” in the sense that the dissent apparently does. 18 As we held in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 462-463 (1938): “The Sixth Amendment . . . embodies a realistic recognition of the obvious truth that the average defendant does not have the MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 41 25 Opinion of the Court extended to petty offenses in Ar q er sin q er n. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972). Argersinger relied on Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), where we held: “[I]n our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court . . . cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both state and federal, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public’s interest in an orderly society. ...” Id., at 344. The function of the presiding officer is quite different from that of any participant in a civilian trial. He is guided by the admonition in T 79a of the MCM: “The function of a summary court-martial is to exercise justice promptly for relatively minor offenses under a simple form of procedure. The summary court will thoroughly and impartially inquire into both sides of the matter and will assure that the interests of both the Government and the accused are safeguarded.” The presiding officer is more specifically enjoined to attend to the interests of the accused by these provisions of the same paragraph: “The accused will be extended the right to cross-examine these witnesses. The summary court will aid the accused in the cross-examination, and, if the accused desires, will ask questions suggested by the accused. On behalf of the accused, the court will obtain the attendance of witnesses, administer the oath and examine them, and obtain such other evi professional legal skill to protect himself when brought before a tribunal with power to take his life or liberty, wherein the prosecution is presented by experienced and learned counsel.” 42 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. dence as may tend to disprove or negative guilt of the charges, explain the acts or omissions charged, show extenuating circumstances, or establish grounds for mitigation. Before determining the findings, he will explain to the accused his right to testify on the merits or to remain silent and will give the accused full opportunity to exercise his election.” MCM 1i79d (3). We believe there are significant parallels between the Court’s description of probation and parole revocation proceedings in Gagnon and the summary court-martial, which parallels tend to distinguish both of these proceedings from the civilian misdemeanor prosecution upon which Ar ger sing er focused. When we consider in addition that the court-martial proceeding takes place not in civilian society, as does the parole revocation proceeding, but in the military community with all of its distinctive qualities, we conclude that a summary court-martial is not a “criminal prosecution” for purposes of the Sixth Amendment.19 Ill The Court of Appeals likewise concluded that there was no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in summary court-martial proceedings such as this, but applying the due process standards of the Fifth Amendment adopted a standard from Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973), which would have made the right to counsel depend upon the nature of the serviceman’s defense. We 19 No one of the factors discussed above—the nature of the proceedings, of the offenses, and of the punishments—is necessarily dispositive. Rather, all three combine with the distinctive nature of military life and discipline to lead to our conclusion. The dissent, by discussing these factors independently and attempting to demonstrate that each factor cannot stand by its own force does not come to grips with this analysis. MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 43 25 Opinion of the Court are unable to agree that the Court of Appeals properly applied Gagnon in this military context. We recognize that plaintiffs, who have either been convicted or are due to appear before a summary court-martial, may be subjected to loss of liberty or property, and consequently are entitled to the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. However, whether this process embodies a right to counsel depends upon an analysis of the interests of the individual and those of the regime to which he is subject. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 556 (1974). In making such an analysis we must give particular deference to the determination of Congress, made under its authority to regulate the land and naval forces, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, that counsel should not be provided in summary courts-martial. As we held in Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137, 140 (1953): u[T]he rights of men in the armed forces must perforce be conditioned to meet certain overriding demands of discipline and duty, and the civil courts are not the agencies which must determine the precise balance to be struck in this adjustment. The Framers especially entrusted that task to Congress.” (Footnote omitted.) The United States Court of Military Appeals has held that Argersinger is applicable to the military and requires counsel at summary courts-martial. United States v. Aiderman, 22 U. S. C. M. A. 298, 46 C. M. R. 298 (1973). Dealing with areas of law peculiar to the military branches, the Court of Military Appeals’ judgments are normally entitled to great deference. But the 2-to-l decision, in which the majority itself was sharply divided in theory, does not reject the claim of military necessity. Judge Quinn was of the opinion that Argersinger’s expansion of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was 204-199 0 - 77 -8 44 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. binding on military tribunals equally with civilian courts.20 Alderman, supra, at 300, 46 C. M. R., at 300. Judge Duncan, concurring in part, disagreed, reasoning that decisions such as Argersinger were not binding precedent if “there is demonstrated a military necessity demanding nonapplicability.” Id., at 303, 46 C. M. R., at 303. He found no convincing evidence of military necessity which would preclude application of Argersinger. Chief Judge Darden, dissenting, disagreed with Judge Quinn, and pointed to that court’s decisions recognizing “the need for balancing the application of the constitutional protection against military needs.” Id., at 307, 46 C. M. R., at 307. Taking issue as well with Judge Duncan, he stated his belief that the Court of Military Appeals “possesses no special competence to evaluate the effect of a particular procedure on morale and discipline and to require its implementation over and above the balance struck by Congress.” Id., at 308, 46 C. M. R., at 308. Given that only one member of the Court of Military Appeals took issue with the claim of military necessity, and taking the latter of Chief Judge Darden’s statements as applying with at least equal force to the Members of this Court, we are left with Congress’ previous determination that counsel is not required. We thus need only decide whether the factors militating in favor of counsel at summary courts-martial are so extraordinarily weighty as to overcome the balance struck by Congress.21 20 Judge Quinn’s broad view of the applicability of the Bill of Rights to members of the military is well established. Concurring in United States v. Culp, 14 U. S. C. M. A. 199, 216-217, 33 C. M. R. 411, 428-429 (1963), he stated that its protections run to the Armed Forces “ ‘unless excluded directly or by necessary imph-cation, by the provisions of the Constitution itself.’” See also United States v. Jacoby, 11 U. S. C. M. A. 428, 530-431, 29 C. M. R. 244,246-247 (1960). 21 Prior to the enactment of the UCMJ into positive law in MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 45 25 Opinion of the Court We first consider the effect of providing counsel at summary courts-martial. As we observed in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, at 787: “The introduction of counsel into a . . . proceeding will alter significantly the nature of the proceeding. If counsel is provided for the [accused], the State in turn will normally provide its own counsel; lawyers, by training and disposition, are advocates and bound by professional duty to present all available evidence and arguments in support of their clients’ positions and to contest with vigor all adverse evidence and views.” In short, presence of counsel will turn a brief, informal hearing which may be quickly convened and rapidly concluded into an attenuated proceeding which consumes the resources of the military to a degree which Congress could properly have felt to be beyond what is warranted by the relative insignificance of the offenses being tried. Such a lengthy proceeding is a particular burden to the Armed Forces because virtually all the participants, including the defendant and his counsel, are members of 1956 it was suggested that summary courts-martial be abolished. Congress rejected this suggestion and instead provided that no person could be tried by summary court-martial if he objected thereto (unless he had previously refused Art, 15 punishment). 70A Stat. 43. Prior to the 1968 amendments to the Code the elimination of summary courts-martial was again proposed and rejected. E. g., Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., Summary—Report of Hearings on Constitutional Rights of Military Personnel, 34r-36 (1963). Instead, the Art. 15 exception to the right tn refuse was eliminated as a compromise between those favoring retention of summary courts-martial and those who would abolish them. S. Rep. No. 1601, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1968). It is thus apparent that Congress has considered the matter in some depth. 46 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. the military whose time may be better spent than in possibly protracted disputes over the imposition of discipline.22 As we observed in U. S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U. S. 11, 17 (1955): “[I]t is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise. But trial of soldiers to maintain discipline is merely incidental to an army’s primary fighting function. To the extent that those responsible for performance of this primary function are diverted from it by the necessity of trying cases, the basic fighting purpose of armies is not served. . . . [M]ilitary tribunals have not been and probably never can be constituted in such way that they can have the same kind of qualifications that the Constitution has deemed essential to fair trials of civilians in federal courts.” However, the Court of Appeals did not find counsel necessary in all proceedings but only, pursuant to Daigle v. Warner, where the accused makes “a timely and colorable claim (1) that he has a defense, or (2) that there are mitigating circumstances, and the assistance of counsel is necessary in order adequately to present the defense or mitigating circumstances.” 490 F. 2d, at 365. But if the accused has such a claim, if he feels that in order to properly air his views and vindicate his rights, 22 The one-month period of confinement which may be imposed by a summary court-martial stands in marked contrast with the period of confinement for a minimum of three years which could have been imposed in a juvenile proceeding in In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 37 n. 60 (1967), MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 47 25 Opinion of the Court a formal, counseled proceeding is necessary he may simply refuse trial by summary court-martial and proceed to trial by special or general court-martial at which he may have counsel.23 Thus, he stands in a considerably more favorable position than the probationer in Gagnon who, though subject to the possibility of longer periods of incarceration, had no such absolute right to counsel.24 It is true that by exercising this option the accused subjects himself to greater possible penalties imposed in the special court-martial proceeding. However, we do not find that possible detriment to be constitutionally decisive. We have frequently approved the much more difficult decision, daily faced by civilian criminal defendants, to plead guilty to a lesser included offense. E. g., Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 749-750 (1970). In such a case the defendant gives up not only his right to counsel but his right to any trial at all. Furthermore, 23 Article 20 UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 820, provides in pertinent part that “[n]o person with respect to whom summary courts-martial have jurisdiction may be brought to trial before a summary court-martial if he objects thereto. . . .” Article 38(b) UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. §838 (b), provides: “The accused has the right to be represented in his defense before a general or special court-martial by civilian counsel if provided by him, or by military counsel of his own selection if reasonably available, or by the defense counsel detailed under section 827 of this title.” 24 The dissent criticizes our failure to discuss Gault, supra, as to this point. Gault is inapposite. Contrary to the assertion of the dissent, post, at 69 n. 22, Gault, had he been tried in the adult courts, would have been subject to a maximum sentence of two months rather than the six years he actually received. 387 U. S., at 29. We cannot speculate what the result in Gault would have been if there had been a waiver available and if the adult sentence had been greater rather than less than the juvenile. 48 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Opinion of the Court 425 U. S. if he elects to exercise his right to trial he stands to be convicted of a more serious offense which will likely bear increased penalties.25 Such choices are a necessary part of the criminal justice system: “The criminal process, like the rest of the legal system, is replete with situations requiring ‘the making of difficult judgments’ as to which course to follow. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. 8., at 769. Although a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the Constitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose.” McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183, 213 (1971). We therefore agree with the defendants that neither the Sixth nor the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution empowers us to overturn the congressional determination that counsel is not required in summary courts-martial. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore Reversed. Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases. 25 It by no means follows, as the dissent suggests, post, at 71-72, that the same result would obtain with such a two-tier system in the civilian context, where Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), and Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972), have held the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel applicable. In such a context, the reasoning of United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570 (1968), that one cannot be penalized for exercising a constitutional right would come into play. Here, however, we have held that there is no constitutional right to counsel at summary court-martial, so the issue of being penalized for the exercise of such a right is not presented. MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 49 25 Powell, J., concurring Mr. Justice Stewart dissents, believing that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that a defendant be accorded the assistance of counsel in a summary court-martial proceeding. Mr. Justice Powell, with whom Mr. Justice Black-mun joins, concurring. As I agree with the substance and holding of the Court’s opinion, I join it. I write separately to emphasize the factor which, in my view, distinguishes this case from Arger singer v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25 (1972). One sentence expresses the fundamental basis for the distinction: “This Court has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society.” Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 743 (1974). In Parker, the Court went on to say that we also have recognized that “the military has, again by necessity, developed laws and traditions of its own during its long history.” Ibid. Only last Term in Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 757 (1975), we said: “The laws and traditions governing [military] discipline have a long history; ... they are founded on unique military exigencies as powerful now as in the past. Their contemporary vitality repeatedly has been recognized by Congress.” The Constitution expressly authorized the Congress to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Art. I, § 8. Court-martial proceedings, as a primary means for the regulation and discipline of the Armed Forces, were well known to the Founding Fathers. The procedures in such courts were 50 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Powell, J., concurring 425 U. S. never deemed analogous to, or required to conform with, procedures in civilian courts. One must ignore history, tradition, and practice for two centuries to read into the Constitution, at this late date, a requirement for counsel in the discipline of minor violations of military law.1 I recognize, of course, that one’s constitutional rights are not surrendered upon entering the Armed Services. But the rights are applied, as this Court often has held, in light of the “unique military exigencies” that necessarily govern many aspects of military service. See Parker n. Levy, supra, at 758. In recognition of this, since the founding of the Republic Congress has enacted special legislation applicable only to the Armed Services,2 including the current provisions in the Uniform Code of 1 As noted in the Court’s opinion, the relatively petty offenses that customarily come before summary courts-martial most often involve military offenses unknown in civilian society. In this case, for example, most of the plaintiffs were charged only with “unauthorized absence.” To be sure, such courts also try some offenses that would be violations of civilian criminal law. But these are typically petty offenses and are committed by defendants subject to military discipline. The Court has no occasion in this case to address whether the Constitution requires the providing of counsel in special and general court-martial proceedings where serious, civil felonies are often charged. Indeed, all of the Armed Services now are required by statute to provide counsel in such cases. Art. 27, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 827. 2 In Schlesinger v. Councilman, referring to the Uniform Code, the Court said: “Congress attempted to balance these military necessities [governing discipline] against the equally significant interest of ensuring fairness to servicemen charged with military offenses, and to formulate a mechanism by which these often competing interests can be adjusted. As a result, Congress created an integrated system of military courts and review procedures . . . .” 420 U. S. 738, 757-758 (1975). MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 51 25 Marshall, J., dissenting Military Justice for summary courts-martial. Art. 16 (3), UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 816 (3). I find no basis for holding now that the Constitution compels the equating, for purposes of requiring that counsel be provided, of military summary courts with civilian criminal courts. Mr. Justice Marshall, with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joins, dissenting. We only recently held that, absent a waiver, “no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.” Argersinger n. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, 37 (1972). Today the Court refuses to apply Argersinger’s holding to defendants in summary court-martial proceedings. Assuming for purposes of its opinion that the Sixth Amendment applies to courts-martial in general, the Court holds that, because of their special characteristics, summary courts-martial in particular are simply not “criminal prosecutions” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment, and that the right to counsel is therefore inapplicable to them. I dissent. I Preliminarily, summary courts-martial aside, it is clear to me that a citizen does not surrender all right to appointed counsel when he enters the military. It is inconceivable, for example, that this Court could conclude that a defendant in a general court-martial proceeding, where sentences as severe as life imprisonment may be imposed, is not entitled to the same protection our Constitution affords a civilian defendant facing even a day’s imprisonment. See Argersinger v. Hamlin, supra. Surely those sworn to risk their lives to defend the Constitution should derive some benefit from the right to counsel, a 52 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Marshall, J., dissenting 425U.S. right that has become even more firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence over the past several generations. See Gideon n. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932). The only question that might arise is whether the general guarantee of counsel to court-martial defendants is to be placed under the Fifth Amendment or under the Sixth Amendment. It is my conviction that it is a Sixth Amendment guarantee. That Amendment provides an explicit guarantee of counsel “in all criminal prosecutions.” Since, as we recently observed, courts-martial are “convened to adjudicate charges of criminal violations of military law,” Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U. S. 34, 42 (1972), it would seem that courts-martial are criminal prosecutions and that the Sixth Amendment therefore applies on its face. There is legitimate dispute among scholars, it is true, about whether the Framers expressly intended the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to apply to the military. See ante, at 33-34, and n. 12? While the historical evidence is somewhat ambiguous, my reading of the sources suggests that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was intended by the Framers to apply to courts-martial. 1 Those who argue that the Framers did intend the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to apply point both to congressional proceedings which seem to assume the right’s applicability, see Henderson, Courts-Martial and the Constitution: The Original Understanding, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 293, 303-315 (1957), and materials cited therein, and to the fact that it was traditional in the late 18th century to allow an accused serviceman legal assistance. Id., at 318. Those who take the opposite position point, inter alia, to contemporary treatises, see Wiener, Courts-Martial and the Bill of Rights: The Original Practice I, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 23-26 (1958), and materials cited therein, to the lack of mention of any right to counsel in the first military codes under the Constitution, id., at 22-23, and to the fact that any counsel who did appear in military proceedings was allowed only a limited role. Id., at 27-32. MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 53 25 Marshall, J., dissenting But even if the historical evidence plainly showed to the contrary—and its certainly does not—that would not be determinative of the contemporary scope of the Sixth Amendment. As Mr. Chief Justice Hughes observed: “If by the statement that what the Constitution meant at the time of its adoption it means to-day, it is intended to say that the great clauses of the Constitution must be confined to the interpretation which the framers, with the conditions and outlook of their time, would have placed upon them, the statement carries its own refutation.” Home Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 442-443 (1934). Application of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the military follows logically and naturally from the modern right-to-counsel decisions, in which the right has been held fully applicable in every case in which a defendant faced conviction of a criminal offense and potential incarceration.2 See, e. g., Argersinger v. Hamlin, 2 In any given case, whether there is a Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury is, of course, not at all determinative of whether there is a Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Indeed, in Argersinger itself we stated that “[w]e reject, therefore, the premise that since prosecutions for crimes punishable by imprisonment for less than six months may be tried without a jury, they may also be tried without a lawyer.” 407 U. S. 25, 30-31 (1972). Compare id., at 37, with Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 159 (1968). This Court has indicated that the Fifth Amendment’s express exemption of the military from the requirement of indictment by grand jury also exempts the military “inferentially, from the [Sixth Amendment] right to trial by jury.” O’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U. S. 258, 261 (1969). But there is no reason to assume that the same inferences from the Fifth Amendment exemption should be drawn with regard to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Not even the federal parties suggest that the settling of the jury-trial issue with regard to the military has ipso facto settled all other Sixth Amendment issues as well. 54 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Marshall, J., dissenting 425 U. S. supra; Gideon n. Wainwright, supra. The due process right to counsel, usually applied on a case-by-case basis, extends a qualified right to counsel to persons not involved in criminal proceedings, see Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973), but has not been viewed as a replacement for the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in situations in which a defendant stands to be convicted of a criminal offense. In short, it is my belief that the Sixth Amendment demands that court-martial defendants ordinarily be accorded counsel.3 Only if the special characteristics of summary courts-martial in particular deprive them of the status of “criminal prosecutions” is the Sixth Amendment inapplicable in the cases before us today. It is, of course, this proposition to which the major part of the Court’s opinion is addressed and to which I now turn. II The Court’s conclusion that summary courts-martial are not “criminal prosecutions” is, on its face, a surprising one. No less than in the case of other courts-martial, summary courts-martial are directed at adjudicating “charges of criminal violations of military law,” and conviction at a summary court-martial can lead to confinement for one month. Nevertheless, the Court finds its conclusion mandated by a combination of 3 Even if a pure due process analysis were to be used, however, counsel, to my mind, would still be required for courts-martial. Many of the factors analyzed below in a Sixth Amendment context, see Part II, infra, are fully relevant to a due process analysis. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973); Morrissey n. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (1972). And, while Gagnon adopts a case-by-case approach to the right to counsel in probation revocation proceedings, the fact that in courts-martial we are dealing with a trial which can result in a criminal conviction mandates that counsel be made available in every case. See Gagnon, supra, at 789 n. 12. MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 55 25 Marshall, J., dissenting four factors:4 the limitations on the punishment that can be meted out by a summary court-martial, the nature of the offenses for which a defendant can be tried, the nature of the summary court-martial proceeding itself, and “the distinctive nature of military life and discipline.” Ante, at 42 n. 19. I am totally unpersuaded that these considerations—or any others— 4 The Court looks to our analysis in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, as support in the distinctions it draws between “criminal prosecutions” under the Sixth Amendment and summary courts-martial. I find that reliance questionable, to say the least. The Court intimates, ante, at 35, that our holding in Gagnon that a probation revocation hearing is not part of a criminal prosecution was based on factors relating to the manner in which such hearings are conducted—factors such as the absence of a prosecutor and the informality of the proceedings. This, however, is an inaccurate reflection of what we said in Gagnon. Gagnon’s conclusion, stated early in the opinion, 411 U. S., at 782, that a probation revocation hearing is “not a stage of a criminal prosecution” was not at all dependent on the manner in which such proceedings are conducted. Rather, it was held to follow from the conclusion in Morrissey n. Brewer, supra, that revocation of parole was not part of a criminal prosecution, with the following analysis in Morrissey held to be determinative: “ ‘Parole arises after the end of the criminal prosecution, including imposition of sentence. . . . Revocation deprives an individual, not of the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only of the conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special parole restrictions.’ [408 U. S.], at 480.” 411 U. 8., at 781. The manner in which the hearing was conducted was simply not a factor in our conclusion that such a hearing is not part of a “criminal prosecution.” Only ajter we reached this conclusion did we refer to the manner in which the hearing was conducted in considering the secondary question whether the right to appointed counsel was nevertheless required as a matter of due process. Thus, even assuming there are “parallels” between the manner in which probation-revocation hearings are conducted and the manner in which summary courts-martial are conducted, ante, at 41-42, Gagnon lends no support to the conclusion that summary courts-martial are not “criminal prosecutions” within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment. 56 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Marshall, J., dissenting 425U.S. whether taken singly or in combination, justify denying to summary court-martial defendants the right to the assistance of counsel, “one of the safeguards of the Sixth Amendment deemed necessary to insure fundamental human rights of life and liberty.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 462 (1938). A It is of course true, as the Court states, that a summary court-martial may not adjudge confinement in excess of one month. Manual for Courts-Martial T 16b (1969) (MCM).5 But Argersinger itself held the length of confinement to be wholly irrelevant in determining the applicability of the right to counsel. Aware that “the prospect of imprisonment for however short a time will seldom be viewed by the accused as a trivial or ‘petty’ matter,” Baldwin n. New York, 399 U. S. 66, 73 (1970) (plurality opinion), we held in Argersinger that the fact of confinement, not its duration, is determinative of the right to counsel. Insofar as the Court today uses the 30-day ceiling on a summary court-martial defendant’s sentence as support for its holding, it is not so much finding Argersinger “inapplicable” as rejecting the very basis of Argersinger’s holding.6 5 The MCM was prescribed by Executive Order of September 11, 1968, to supplement the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 6 The Court attempts to evade Argersinger’s clear mandate by relying on our decisions in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, and In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967). As for Gagnon, I have already observed, supra, n. 4, that it lends no support to the Court’s Sixth Amendment analysis in this case. As for Gault, it is true that we have held that juvenile delinquency proceedings, even though they might result in confinement, are not “criminal prosecutions” under the Sixth Amendment. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U. S. 528 (1971); see id., at 553 (opinion of Brennan, J.). However, that conclusion was undoubtedly based on the predominantly rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile justice system, a factor which, as shown MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 57 25 Marshall, J., dissenting B In further support of its holding, the Court observes that “[m]uch of the conduct proscribed by the military is not ‘criminal’ conduct in the civilian sense of the word,” ante, at 38, and intimates that conviction for many offenses normally tried at summary court-martial would have no consequences “beyond the immediate punishment meted out by the military.” Ante, at 39. The Court’s observations are both misleading and irrelevant. While the summary court-martial is generally designed to deal with relatively minor offenses, see MCM fl 79, as a statutory matter the summary proceeding can be used to try any noncapital offense triable by general or special court-martial. Art. 20, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 820.7 See United States v. Moore, 5 U. S. C. M. A. 687, 697, 18 C. M. R. 311, 321 (1955). And while the offense for which most of the plaintiffs here were tried—unauthorized absence—has no common-law counterpart, a substantial proportion of the offenses actually tried by summary court-martial are offenses, such as larceny and assault, that would also constitute criminal offenses if committed by a civilian.8 Indeed, one of the service injra, at 61, is manifestly not present in the summary court-martial context. And, while Gault did not apply the Sixth Amendment, it did, of course, hold a due process right to counsel applicable to all juvenile delinquency proceedings which pose a threat of confinement. 7 Of course the punishment ceilings imposed by 10 U. S. C. § 820 on summary courts-martial are applicable no matter what offense is being tried. But the “popular opprobrium” resulting from conviction of a serious crime—a factor in which the Court places considerable stock, ante, at 39—is likely to be severe whatever the magnitude of the punishment; that “popular opprobrium” could, of course, have significant “practical effect,” ante, at 40 n. 17, on a serviceman’s future. 8 See 10 U. S. C. §§ 921, 928. Figures supplied by the federal parties indicate that in 1973, 14% of the summary courts-martial 58 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Marshall, J., dissenting 425 U. S. men in these cases was charged with assault. It is therefore misleading to suggest, as the Court does, that there is a fundamental difference between the type of conduct chargeable at summary court-martial and the type of conduct deemed criminal in the civilian sector. The Court’s further implication that a summary court-martial conviction has no consequences beyond “the immediate punishment” ante, at 39, is also inaccurate. One of the central distinctions between Art. 15 non judicial punishment and a summary court-martial conviction is that the latter is regarded as a criminal conviction.9 And that criminal conviction has collateral consequences both in military and civilian life. As the Army itself has readily acknowledged: “Conviction by [any] court-martial creates a criminal record which will color consideration of any subsequent misconduct by the soldier. A noncommissioned officer may survive one summary court-martial without reduction being effected, but it is unlikely that, with one conviction on his record, he will survive a second trial and retain his status. A conviction of an officer by any court-martial could conducted by the Navy were for “nonmilitary offenses.” Brief for Federal Parties 33; see also Fidell, The Summary Court-Martial: A Proposal, 8 Harv. J. Legis. 571, 599 n. 121 (1971). See also Joint Hearings on Military Justice before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and a Special Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 1056 (1966) (hereinafter cited as 1966 Hearings). 9 In Senate testimony, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy observed that a serviceman convicted by a summary court-martial as opposed to one punished under Art. 15, “begins to acquire a record of convictions.” 1966 Hearings 33. See also Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Summary—Report of Hearings on the Constitutional Rights of Military Personnel, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 35 (1963). MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 59 25 Marshall, J., dissenting have a devastating aftereffect upon his career. It could be described in some cases as a sentence to a passover on a promotion list and may serve as a basis for initiation of administrative elimination action. “For any man, the fact of a criminal conviction on his record is a handicap in civilian life. It may interfere with his job opportunities; it may be counted against him if he has difficulty with a civilian law enforcement agency; and in general he tends to be a marked man.” 10 The MCM itself belies any claim that no significant consequences beyond immediate punishment attach to a summary court-martial conviction. Paragraph 127c of the MCM establishes a comprehensive scheme by which an offender is made subject to increased punishment if he has a record of previous convictions—even if all of those previous convictions were by summary court-martial. It is therefore wholly unrealistic to suggest that the impact of a summary court-martial conviction lies exclusively in the immediate punishment that is meted out.11 Summary court-martial convictions carry with them a potential of stigma, injury to career, and increased punishment for future offenses in the same way as do convictions after civilian criminal trials and convictions after general and special courts-martial. Quite apart from their flimsy factual basis, the Court’s observations as to both the nature of the offenses tried at summary court-martial and the lack of collateral conse 10 Hearings on Constitutional Rights of Military Personnel before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 87th Cong., 2d Sess„ 838 (1962). 11 See also Fidell, supra, n. 8, at 594-596; Feld, The Court Martial Sentence: Fair or Foul, 39 Ya. L. Rev. 319, 322 (1953). 60 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Marshall, J., dissenting 425 U. S. quences of convictions have already been determined by Argersinger to be irrelevant to the applicability of the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel. Argersinger teaches that the right to counsel is triggered by the potential of confinement, regardless of how trivial or petty the offense may seem. See 407 U. S., at 37. Logic itself would therefore preclude the suggestion that the right to counsel, activated by the potential of confinement, is deactivated by the absence of collateral consequences of conviction. C The nature of the summary court-martial proceeding— the proceeding’s nonadversary nature and, relatedly, the protective functions of its presiding officer—is a third factor which, according to the Court, helps to make unnecessary the provision of counsel to the accused. Again, the Court’s reliance is without substantial foundation. The Court characterizes summary courts-martial as “nonadversary,” but offers little explanation as to how that characterization advances the contention that the right to counsel is inapplicable. If the Court’s argument is simply that furnishing counsel will transform the proceeding into an adversary proceeding, it is no argument at all, but simply an observation. The argument must be either that there is something peculiar about the goal of the summary court-martial proceeding that makes the right to counsel inapplicable, or that there are elements in the conduct of the proceeding itself that render counsel unnecessary. To the extent that the Court’s characterization of summary courts-martial as “nonadversary” is meant to convey something about the goal or purpose of the proceeding, it is totally unpersuasive. In this sense the summary court-martial proceeding is far less “nonadversary” than the juvenile delinquency proceedings to which we MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 61 25 Marshall, J., dissenting held the right to counsel applicable in In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967). The Court in Gault did not dispute that the proper purpose of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitative rather than punitive, that all parties to a juvenile delinquency proceeding might be striving for an adjudication and disposition that is in “the best interests of the child,” and that the traditional notion of the “kindly juvenile judge” is a highly appropriate one. See id., at 27. Yet the Court in Gault confronted the reality that, however beneficial the goal of delinquency proceedings, they have as their potential result the confinement of an individual in an institution. Ibid. This factor mandated that accused juvenile offenders be entitled to the representation of counsel.12 As distinguished from the situation in Gault, summary courts-martial have no special rehabilitative purpose; rather, their central immediate purpose is to discipline those who have violated the UCMJ.13 If the goals of juvenile delinquency proceedings are an insufficient justification for the denial of counsel, it follows a fortiori that the goals of the summary court-martial are similarly insufficient. The second possible meaning conveyed by characterizing the summary court-martial as “nonadversary”—the 12 The Court intimates that our decision in Gault might have been different had Gerald Gault been faced with a period of confinement significantly less than three years in duration. Ante, at 46 n. 22. However, our opinion contained no hint of any such limitation and held the right to counsel applicable whenever a juvenile is faced with proceedings “which may result in commitment to an institution in which the juvenile’s freedom is curtailed.” 387 U. S., at 41. 13 In general, “a military trial is marked by the age-old manifest destiny of retributive justice. . . . ‘[MJilitary law has always been and continues to be primarily an instrument of discipline, not justice.’ Glasser, Justice and Captain Levy, 12 Columbia Forum 46, 49 (1969).” O’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U. S. 258, 266 (1969). 62 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Marshall, J., dissenting 425U.S. presence of elements in the conduct of the proceeding itself which render independent counsel unnecessary-*—is reflected in the Court’s observation that the “function of the presiding officer is quite different from that of any participant in a civilian trial.” Ante, at 41. It is the responsibility of the presiding officer to act as judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense counsel combined. The Court intimates that the presiding officer’s duty to advise the accused of his rights and his ability to help the accused assemble facts, examine witnesses, and cross-examine his accusers make defense counsel unnecessary, particularly in light of the absence of a formal prosecutor in the proceeding. I find this argument unpersuasive. In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932), we rejected the notion that a judge could “effectively discharge the obligations of counsel for the accused,” largely because a judge “cannot . . . participate in those necessary conferences between counsel and accused which sometimes partake of the inviolable character of the confessional.” Id., at 61. It is true that in Powell the unrepresented defendant was opposed by a traditional prosecutor. But in Gault, supra, there was no prosecutor; the only participants in the delinquency proceedings were the juvenile, his mother, the probation officers, and the judge. All participants were presumably interested in the welfare of the juvenile. Yet we held that no matter how protective the judge or the other participants might have been, the juvenile was entitled to independent counsel. The irreconcilable conflict among the roles of the summary court-martial presiding officer inevitably prevents him from functioning effectively as a substitute for defense counsel. For instance, a defendant has a right to remain silent and not testify at his court-martial. See Art. 31, UCMJ, 10 U.’ S. C. § 831 ; MCM î 53h. An in MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 63 25 Marshall, J., dissenting telligent decision whether to exercise that right requires consultation as to whether testifying would hurt or help his case and inevitably involves the sharing of confidences with counsel. Full consultation cannot possibly take place when “defense counsel” is also playing the role of judge and prosecutor. The defense counsel who also serves as prosecutor and judge is effectiyely unavailable for many of the “necessary confererices between counsel and accused,” Powell v. Alabama, supra, at 61, as well as for the making and implementation of critical tactical and strategic trial decisions. As helpful as the presiding officer might be to the defendant, his inconsistent roles bar him from being an adequate substitute for independent defense counsel. In sum, there is nothing about the assertedly “nonadversary” nature of the summary court-martial—either in terms of its goals or alternative safeguards—that renders unnecessary the assistance of counsel. D Finally, the Court draws on notions of military necessity to justify its conclusion that the right to counsel is inapplicable to summary court-martial proceedings. Concerns for discipline and obedience will on occasion, it is true, justify imposing restrictions on the military that would be unconstitutional in a civilian context. See Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 758 (1974). But denials of traditional rights to any group should not be approved without examination, especially when the group comprises members of the military, who are engaged in an endeavor of national service, frequently fraught with both danger and sacrifice. After such examination, I am persuaded that the denial of the right to counsel at summary courts-martial cannot be justified by military necessity. 64 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Marshall, J., dissenting 425 U. S. The substance of the asserted justification here is that discipline, efficiency, and morale demand the utilization of an expeditious disciplinary procedure for relatively minor offenses. It would seem, however, that Art. 15 nonjudicial punishment—which can be speedily imposed by a commander, but which does not carry with it the stigma of a criminal conviction—provides just such a procedure.14 Indeed, the 1962 amendments to Art. 15, 10 U. S. C. § 815, greatly expanded the availability of nonjudicial punishment and resulted in a sharp decrease in the utilization of the summary court-martial.15 There is, therefore, no pressing need to have a streamlined summary court-martial proceeding in order to supply an expeditious disciplinary procedure. Moreover, it is by no means clear that guaranteeing counsel to summary court-martial defendants would result in significantly longer time periods from preferral of charges to punishment than fairly conducted proceedings in the absence of counsel;16 any timesaving that is now 14 Differences have been advanced to distinguish the punishment that can be imposed under Art. 15 from the “confinement” that can result from a summary court-martial. See United States v. Shamel, 22 U. S. C. M. A. 361, 47 C. M. R. 116 (1973) (Quinn, J.). 15 Between 1962 and 1969, the number of summary courts-martial per year in the Armed Services dropped from 85,166 to 28,281, and their percentage of the total military caseload dropped from 64% to 26%. Fidell, supra, n. 8, at 573. “The chief explanation for this phenomenon lies in the expansion of nonjudicial punishment powers accomplished in 1963.” Id., at 572. 16 While, according to the federal parties to these cases, the average time period between preferral of charges and final review in summary courts-martial has increased by 13 days since the United States Court of Military Appeals applied Argersinger to the military in United States v. Aiderman, 22 U. 8. C. M. A. 298, 46 C. M. R. 298 (1973), Supp. Mem. for Federal Parties 3-4, the parties themselves concede that “it is not possible to ascribe the changed experience . . . exclusively to the injection of counsel into summary court proceedings.” Ibid. Nothing is offered by the federal parties MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 65 25 Marshall, J., dissenting enjoyed might well result from the presiding officer’s being something less than an adequate substitute for independent defense counsel. It is especially difficult to accept the federal parties’ claim of “military necessity” in view of the fact that well before our decision in Argersinger, each of the services allowed summary court-martial defendants to retain counsel at their own expense.17 Given this fact, the fed to indicate that the average time of the summary court-martial proceeding itself has been lengthened as a result of providing counsel to defendants. 17 See 1966 Hearings 34 (testimony of Brig. Gen. Kenneth J. Hodson, Asst. Judge Adv. Gen. for Military Justice, Department of the Army); 38 (testimony of Maj. Gen. R. W. Manss, Judge Adv. Gen. of the Air Force); 39 (testimony of Rear Adm. Wilfred A. Hearn, Judge Adv. Gen. of the Navy); 626 (letter of June 7, 1965, to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services from the Acting General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury). Indeed, while acknowledging that “[t]here is no provision either in law or regulation for the appointment of counsel before a summary court-martial,” the Department of the Treasury indicated, six years before Argersinger was decided, that “it is Treasury Department policy [in the Coast Guard] that military counsel for a summary court-martial will be supplied upon request if reasonably available.” Id., at 627. Moreover, the following question-and-answer exchange took place in 1966 by letter between the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights and the Navy Judge Advocate General Corps: “Question: Are defendants permitted by official Defense Department or service policy or regulation to have counsel assist them in summary courts? “Answer: . . . [A]lthough the right to individual representation is not extended to an accused before a summary court-martial by policy or regulation, the general practice in the naval service is to accord such representation on the request of the accused. “Question: ... If a man requests the appointment of counsel, legal or otherwise, is it the practice to grant such requests ? “Answer: Yes, dependent upon the reasonable availability of the requested counsel.” Id., at 939. 66 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Marshall, J., dissenting 425 U. S. eral parties’ argument is reduced to a contention that only those defendants who cannot afford to retain counsel must, as a matter of “military necessity,” be denied counsel at summary court-martial proceedings. Sustaining that contention means a defeat for those very principles of equality and justice that the military is sworn to defend; thé most fundamental notions of fairness are subverted when the rights of the poor alone are sacrificed to the cause of “military necessity.” It is also significant that the United States Court of Military Appeals (USCMA), a body with recognized expertise in dealing with military problems,18 has applied Argersinger to summary courts-martial without giving any hint that military necessity posed a problem. United States v. Aiderman, 22 U. S. C. M. A. 298, 46 C. M. R. 298 (1973).19 Indeed, Judge Duncan of that court explicitly noted that “the record contains no evidence which convinces me that application of the Argersinger rule should not be followed in our system because of military necessity.” Id., at 303, 46 C. M. R., at 303 (concurring in part and dissenting in part).20 And even before Aiderman was decided, both the Air Force and the 18 See Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 758 (1975); Noyd v. Bond, 395 U. S. 683, 694 (1969). 19 The decisions of the USCMA are final. 10 U. S. C. § 876. It is indeed ironic that the federal parties—statutorily barred from appealing Aiderman—have now secured its rejection through this lawsuit, originally brought in federal court by servicemen seeking the very protections later accorded them by Aiderman. 20 See also Daigle v. Warner, 490 F. 2d 358 (1974), cert, pending, No. 73-6642, in which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted that “[w]hile the Navy argues with some vigor that naval discipline will suffer severely if appointed counsel are required [in summary courts-martial], there is scant support for this in the record.” Id., at 366. The Court, relying on previously stated views of Judge Quinn, one of the members of the Aiderman majority, and on Judge Quinn’s MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 67 25 Marshall, J., dissenting Army applied Argersinger to summary courts-martial21 rather than advancing the theoretically available “military necessity” argument. See United States V. Priest, 21 U. S. C. M. A. 564, 45 C. M. R. 338 (1972). That they did so leads me to doubt whether even the military was then of the opinion that military necessity dictated the denial of counsel. Virtually ignoring all the factors that cast doubt on the military-necessity justification, the Court defers to an asserted congressional judgment that “counsel should not be provided in summary courts-martial.” Ante, at 43. While Congress’ evaluation of military necessity is clearly entitled to deference, it would be a departure from our position in the past to suggest that the Court need not come to its own conclusion as to the validity of any argument based on military necessity. See, e. g., United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258, 264 (1967); Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733 (1974); cf. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971). But regardless of what weight is properly accorded a clear congressional determination of military necessity, there has been no such determination in this case. The only congressional action referred to by the Court is Congress’ refusal in 1956 and 1968 to abolish summary failure in his Alderman opinion to explicitly mention the militarynecessity argument, declines to view Aiderman as a rejection of that argument. I disagree. In United States v. Priest, 21 U. S. C. M. A. 564, 45 C. M. R. 338 (1972)—decided only 10 months before Aiderman—the USCMA had recognized, albeit in- another context, that military necessity may affect the application of traditional constitutional rights to members of the military, and the parties in Aiderman briefed the military-necessity argument in great detail. Judge Quinn concurred in the Priest opinion. These factors, plus Judge Duncan’s explicit reference to the argument, lead me to read Alderman as a rejection of the military-necessity argument. 21 United States v. Aiderman, supra, at 303, 46 C. M. R., at 303 (Duncan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 68 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Marshall, J., dissenting 425 U. S. courts-martial altogether and its concurrent extending of the serviceman’s opportunity to reject trial by summary court-martial. The Court refers to that action as evidence that Congress has considered “in some depth” the matter whether counsel is required in summary courts-martial. Ante, at 45 n. 21. But there is no evidence offered of any detailed congressional consideration of the specific question of the feasibility of providing counsel at summary courts-martial. And, more importantly, there is no indication that Congress made a judgment that military necessity requires the denial of the constitutional right to counsel to summary court-martial defendants. If Congress’ lack of discussion of military necessity is not enough to throw substantial doubt on the Court’s inferences, the timing of the congressional action cited by the Court should certainly do so. All that action occurred substantially before our decision in Argersinger. Thus, even if we assume that Congress’ decision to retain the summary court-martial represents a considered conclusion that “counsel should not be provided,” that judgment was made at a time when even civilian defendants subject to prison terms of less than six months had no recognized constitutional right to counsel. There would, therefore, have been little reason for Congress in 1956 or 1968 to undertake the detailed consideration necessary to make a finding of “military necessity” before concluding that counsel need not be provided to summary court-martial defendants. In sum, there is simply no indication that Congress ever made a clear determination that “military necessity” precludes applying the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel to summary court-martial proceedings. Indeed, the Court characterizes the congressional determination in the vaguest of terms, and never expressly MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 69 25 Marshall, J., dissenting claims that Congress made a determination of military necessity. Thus, I can only read the Court’s opinion as a grant of almost total deference to any Act of Congress dealing with the military. Ill The Court rejects even the limited holding of the Court of Appeals that the provision of counsel in summary court-martial proceedings should be evaluated as a matter of due process on the basis of the accused’s defense in any particular case. The Court explains that summary court-martial defendants can have counsel appointed by refusing trial by summary court-martial and then proceeding to trial by special court-martial—the acknowledged consequence of which is exposure to greater possible penalties. Given my conviction that a summary court-martial is a criminal prosecution under the Sixth Amendment, it is unnecessary for me to deal in detail with this due process question.22 In the event, however, that the special court-martial option may be offered as additional support for the Court’s treatment of the Sixth Amendment issue, I shall briefly assess its significance. The Court analogizes the decision whether to expose oneself to special court-martial with counsel or to proceed by summary court-martial without counsel to the 22 It does seem to me, however, that the serviceman’s “option” of subjecting himself to the possibility of a special court-martial lends little support to the Court’s due process analysis. We held in In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967)—a decision left unmentioned in the Court’s treatment of the Fifth Amendment question—that, as a matter of due process accused offenders have an absolute right to counsel at juvenile delinquency proceedings. Surely that holding would be no different in the case of a juvenile given the opportunity “voluntarily” to subject himself to adult criminal proceedings, in which he would have counsel, but at which he would be subject to harsher punishment. 70 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Marshall, J., dissenting 425U.S. decision faced by a civilian defendant whether to proceed to trial or plead guilty to a lesser included offense. According to the Court, the right given up by such a civilian defendant is “not only his right to counsel but his right to any trial at all.” Ante, at 47. The analogy is a flawed one. The civilian defendant who pleads guilty necessarily gives up whatever rights he might thereafter have been accorded to enable him to protect a claim of innocence; the conditions on his pleading guilty are logically mandated ones. By contrast, the condition on the military defendant’s opting to be tried by summary court-martial—i. e., the denial of counsel— is an imposed one, and must therefore be viewed with suspicion. Indeed, the force of the Court’s analogy is entirely dissipated by the fact that a civilian defendant who pleads guilty forfeits only so much of his right to counsel as is a necessary consequence of his plea. He is fully entitled to counsel in the process leading up to the plea— including negotiations with the Government as to the possibility of a plea and the actual decision to plead. The defendant is also entitled to counsel in any sentencing proceeding that might follow the making of his plea. I have no doubt that a scheme in which the acceptance of guilty pleas was conditioned on a full abandonment of the right to counsel would be unconstitutional. By contrast, the Court today approves the denial of counsel to the summary court-martial defendant at all stages and for all purposes—including, at least as regards sailors and marines,23 the very decision whether to reject 23 Neither the UCMJ nor the MCM contains any indication that a serviceman must be provided with counsel to assist him in making his determination as to whether to consent or object to trial by summary court-martial. While internal Army guidelines do appear to allow consultation with counsel in making this determination, see Military Justice Handbook, Guide for Summary Court-Martial Trial MIDDENDORF v. HENRY 71 25 Marshall, j., dissenting trial by summary court-martial. And if the accused opts for the summary court-martial—the Court’s parallel to the accepted guilty plea—he has no right to counsel either at the adjudicative or sentencing phase of the proceeding.24 Conditioning the provision of counsel on a defendant’s subjecting himself to the risk of additional punishment suffers from the same defect as the scheme disapproved by the Court in United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570 (1968), in which the right to a trial by jury was conditioned on a defendant’s subjecting himself to the possibility of capital punishment. If the Court’s analysis is correct as applied to the Sixth Amendment, then Ar ger singer's guarantee of counsel for the trial of any offense carrying with it the potential of imprisonment could be reduced to a nullity; a State could constitutionally establish two levels of imprisonment for the same offense—a lower tier for defendants who are willing to proceed to trial without counsel, and a higher one for those who insist on having the assistance of counsel.25 It Procedure 3-3 to 3-5, Department of the Army Pamphlet No. 27-7 (1973), Navy guidelines contain no such provision. 24 Assuming the “option scheme” presents the serviceman with any sort of realistic choice, its availability also substantially undercuts the federal parties’ military-necessity argument. See supra, at 63-69. The federal parties argue that as a matter of “military necessity” minor offenses must be disposed of at summary court-martial proceedings without giving defendants the benefit of counsel. Yet, under the option scheme any serviceman can be assured of counsel simply by rejecting trial by summary court-martial. Thus the scheme itself could render unattainable a goal which is claimed to be a matter of military necessity. 25 While we sustained the Kentucky two-tier system against due process and double jeopardy attacks in Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104 (1972), we were careful to note that under that system a defendant “cannot, and will not, face the realistic threat of a prison sentence in the inferior court without having the help of counsel.” Id., at 119. 72 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Marshall, J., dissenting 425U.S. is inconceivable to me that the Sixth Amendment would tolerate such a result. IV The right to counsel has been termed “the most pervasive” 26 of all the rights accorded an accused. As a result of the Court’s action today, of all accused persons protected by the United States Constitution—federal defendants and state defendants, juveniles and adults, civilians and soldiers—only those enlisted men 27 tried by summary court-martial can be imprisoned without having been accorded the right to counsel. I would have expected that such a result would have been based on justifications far more substantial than those relied on by the Court. I respectfully dissent. 26 Schaefer, Federalism and State Criminal Procedure, 70 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 8 (1956). 27 Officers are not subject to summary courts-martial. 10 U. S. C. §820. CAREY v. SUGAR 73 Per Curiam CAREY, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, et al. v. SUGAR ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK No. 74-858. Argued January 20, 1976—Decided March 24, 1976* Where it is unclear whether the New York State courts will construe a New York pre judgment attachment statute so as to remove any federal constitutional problems, it is improper for a three-judge District Court to address the question of the statute’s constitutionality or to interfere with its enforcement. The judgment declaring the statute unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement is therefore vacated and the cases are remanded to the District Court with directions to abstain from a decision of the federal constitutional issues until the parties have had an opportunity to obtain a construction of the New York law from the New York state courts. 383 F. Supp. 643, vacated and remanded. A. Seth Greenwald, Assistant Attorney General of New York, argued the cause for appellants in No. 74-858. With him on the briefs Were Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, and Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General. Philip H. Busner argued the cause for appellants in No. 74-859. With him on the brief was Fred I. Sonnenfeld. John G. Ledes argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees.! Per Curiam. This is an appeal from the judgment of a three-judge federal court declaring unconstitutional and enjoining *Together with No. 74-859, Curtis Circulation Co. et al. v. Sugar et al., also on appeal from the same court. ^John E. Kirklin and Kalman Finkel filed a brief for the Legal Aid Society of New York City as amicus curiae urging affirmance. 74 OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Per Curiam 425U.S. the enforcement of certain statutes of the State of New York which provide for prejudgment attachment of a defendant’s assets. On April 13, 1973, appellant Curtis Circulation Co. (Curtis) filed a suit against appellees Sugar and Wrestling Revue, Inc. (Wrestling), and Champion Sports Publications, Inc. (Champion), in a New York state court. The complaint alleged that Curtis had advanced over $100,000—of which $28,588.08 remained unpaid—to Champion under a contract with Champion pursuant to which Champion had agreed to permit Curtis to market certain identified sports magazines. It further alleged that Sugar, who owned and operated Champion, had caused title to the magazines to be transferred to Wrestling, another company owned and operated by Sugar, and had caused Wrestling to transfer the magazines to National Sports Publishing Corp. (National), a corporation not controlled by Sugar, for sale to the public. The consequence was that Champion had been stripped of its assets and that the magazines—out of the sales of which Curtis was to recoup its advance to Champion—had been sold instead by National. The complaint, containing several counts alleging fraud on the part of each defendant, sought a judgment for the $28,588.08 of Curtis’ advances which remained unrepaid. At the same time, Curtis sought to attach the debt owed by National to Wrestling for the magazines which National had sold and for which it had not yet paid Wrestling. New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules (CPLR) § 6201 (Supp. 1975-1976)1 provides for attach 1<