Application for stay of Illinois trial court's injunction
preventing applicants from displaying swastika "in the course of a
demonstration, march, or parade," pending the Illinois Supreme
Court's review of the Appellate Court's decision modifying the
original injunction and upholding the above portion, is denied
where it does not appear that the controversy will become moot
pending appeal or that the Illinois courts failed to comply with
this Court's order for "immediate appellate review," and where a
stay would be tantamount to a decision on the merits in applicants'
favor.
MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, Circuit Justice.
Following the entry of this Court's order of June 14, 1977,
432 U. S. 43, the
Illinois Appellate Court reviewed and substantially modified the
injunction entered against applicants by the Circuit Court of Cook
County, upholding only that portion of the injunction that
prevented applicants from displaying the swastika "in the course of
a demonstration, march or parade." Thereafter, the Illinois Supreme
Court scheduled an expedited review of the Appellate Court's
decision, but it denied an application for a stay of the injunction
pending that review. On August 18, 1977, a similar application was
submitted to me as Circuit Justice. I requested a response from the
village of Skokie, and have now decided to deny the
application.
Applicants have not demonstrated that a stay is necessary to
protect this Court's appellate jurisdiction. There appears to be no
danger that the controversy will become moot while the appeal is
pending in the Illinois Supreme Court. Nor have applicants
demonstrated that the Illinois courts have failed to comply with
the "immediate appellate review" requirement of
Page 434 U. S. 1328
this Court's order of June 14, 1977. After the entry of that
order, both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme
Court expedited their consideration of the case, and I am confident
that the Illinois Supreme Court will make its decision without any
unnecessary delay. Even "immediate" appellate review of an
important and difficult issue necessitates appropriate
deliberation. Considering these facts, the fact that the injunction
has been substantially modified, and the fact that the entry of the
stay would be tantamount to a decision on the merits in favor of
the applicants, it seems clear that a stay should not be
granted.
The application submitted to me as Circuit Justice is
denied.