1. A party who plainly asserted a federal right in a state trial
court and whose appeal from an adverse judgment was dismissed by a
higher state tribunal upon the ground that the case, after
judgment, had become moot, is entitled to the judgment of this
Court on whether such dismissal in effect denied, or failed duly to
recognize, the right asserted, and local rules as to the extent of
review will not necessarily determine the decision here. P.
266 U. S.
33.
2. Where plaintiffs, as qualified electors, unsuccessfully
sought to enjoin, as violative of the Constitution, the enforcement
of a rule made by a City Democratic Executive Committee that
negroes should not be allowed to vote at a particular Democratic
primary election, their bill praying no other relief, and, months
later, their appeal to a higher state tribunal was dismissed upon
the ground that, the election having been held, the cause of action
had ceased to exist and that the appeal would not be entertained on
the question of costs alone,
held, that the dismissal did
not violate their constitutional rights. P.
266 U. S. 34.
236 S.W. 239 affirmed.
Error to a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas which
dismissed an appeal from a judgment dismissing a bill for an
injunction.
Page 266 U. S. 33
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a bill in equity alleging that the plaintiffs are
qualified electors residing in Houston, Texas, and of the
Democratic political faith; that, on January 27, 1921, the City
Democratic Executive Committee of Houston made and published a rule
that negroes would not be allowed to vote in the Democratic City
Primary Election to be held on February 9, 1921; that the Committee
and Judges of Election threatened to enforce the rule, contrary to
the Constitution of the United States, and praying an injunction to
restrain the Committee and Judges of Election from carrying out
their threats. The bill was filed on February 3, 1921. On February
5, 1921, it was demurred to generally, the demurrer maintaining
that the rule did not infringe the Fifteenth Amendment. On February
7, 1921, the demurrer was sustained and the bill was dismissed with
costs. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, but
that Court held that, at the date of its decision, months after the
election, the cause of action had ceased to exist, and that the
appeal would not be entertained on the question of costs alone. It
therefore dismissed the appeal with costs. Error is assigned here
on the ground that the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the
discrimination which was made the basis of the complaint, and that
the decision denied the plaintiffs their constitutional rights.
When, as here, there is a plain assertion of federal rights in
the lower court, local rules as to how far it shall be reviewed on
appeal do not necessarily prevail.
Davis v. Wechsler,
263 U. S. 22,
263 U. S. 24.
Whether the right was denied or not given due recognition by the
Court of Civil Appeals
Page 266 U. S. 34
is a question as to which the plaintiffs are entitled to invoke
our judgment.
Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S.
17,
253 U. S. 22. If
the case stood here as it stood before the court of first instance,
it would present a grave question of constitutional law, and we
should be astute to avoid hindrances in the way of taking it up.
But that is not the situation. The rule promulgated by the
Democratic Executive Committee was for a single election only that
had taken place long before the decision of the appellate court. No
constitutional rights of the plaintiffs in error were infringed by
holding that the cause of action had ceased to exist. The bill was
for an injunction that could not be granted at that time. There was
no constitutional obligation to extend the remedy beyond what was
prayed.
Decree affirmed.
