393 U.S. 904 (1968)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

HADNOTT v. AMOS , 393 U.S. 904 (1968)

393 U.S. 904

Sallie M. HADNOTT et al., appellants,
Mabel S. AMOS, etc. et al.
No. 647.

Supreme Court of the United States

October 19, 1968

Charles Morgan, Jr., Orzell Billingsley, Robert P. Schwenn and Melvin L. Wulf, on the motion.

The order entered October 14, 1968, restoring temporary relief is continued pending action upon the jurisdictional statement which has been filed. The motion to advance and expedite is denied.

Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The State of Alabama has excluded from its ballot in the forthcoming general election all but two of the candidates for local, state, and national office nominated

Page 393 U.S. 904 , 905

by the National Democratic Party of Alabama, a newly organized political group. Members of the Party, together with the Party itself, contend before us that the state statutes invoked in justification of Alabama's action violate rights guaranteed both by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973, and the Constitution of the United States. [Footnote 1] It is clear to me that both the statutory and constitutional issues appellants have raised require plenary consideration of difficult and important questions that cannot be properly resolved in the time remaining before the ballots are cast, no matter how expeditiously the appeal is heard. Consequently, I concur in the Court's denial of the motion to advance plenary hearing on the merits of the case.

Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice WHITE dissent from the continuance of the order restoring temporary relief.

Mr. Justice BLACK took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Such study as I have been able to make of the papers, in the short time since they were submitted to the Court, nevertheless convinces me that the chances of the Party's ultimate success on the merits are sufficiently substantial so that we may appropriately take steps to prevent the risk of an irretrievable loss of important federal rights in the approaching election. Unfortunately, while the Court properly seeks to protect appellants from irreparable injury, it has done so in a manner that is almost [393 U.S. 904 , 906]

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.