Held: In federal court proceedings wherein it was
claimed that the Massachusetts Democratic Party's Charter, as
enforced by a Massachusetts statute, violated the First and
Fourteenth Amendments, the Court of Appeals erred in concluding, on
the basis of
Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.
S. 332, that the claim here was foreclosed by this
Court's summary disposition of two appeals from the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court in
Langone v. Connolly,
460 U. S. 1057.
Hicks explained the precedential effect of a dismissal by
this Court "for want of [a] substantial federal question" where
this Court has jurisdiction over an appeal. However, in
Langone, this Court dismissed the appeals for lack of
appellate jurisdiction, and thus had no occasion to adjudicate the
merits of the constitutional questions presented in the
jurisdictional statements. Nor did the denial of certiorari, upon
treating the papers whereon the appeals were taken in
Langone as petitions for certiorari, have any precedential
effect.
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction and, treating the
papers as a petition for certiorari, certiorari granted; 746 F.2d
97, vacated and remanded.
PER CURIAM.
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers
whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari,
the petition is granted.
Hopfmann filed this action in the Federal District Court for the
District of Massachusetts challenging a provision in the Charter of
the Massachusetts Democratic Party. Among the theories he advanced
was a claim that the provision, as enforced by Mass.Gen.Laws Ann.,
ch. 53, §§ 1-121 (West 1975 and Supp.1985), violated the First and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Relying on
Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U. S. 332,
422 U. S. 344
(1975), the Court of Appeals held that the claim was foreclosed by
this Court's
Page 471 U. S. 460
summary disposition of two appeals from the Supreme Judicial
Court of Massachusetts in
Langone v. Connolly,
460 U. S. 1057
(1983).
See 746 F.2d 97, 100-101 (1984).
In
Hicks, the Court explained the precedential effect
of the dismissal "for want of [a] substantial federal question" in
Miller v. California, 418 U. S. 915
(1974):
"[
Miller] was an appeal from a decision by a state
court upholding a state statute against federal constitutional
attack. A federal constitutional issue was properly presented, it
was within our appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2),
and we had no discretion to refuse adjudication of the case on its
merits, as would have been true had the case been brought here
under our certiorari jurisdiction. We were not obligated to grant
the case plenary consideration, and we did not; but we were
required to deal with its merits. We did so by concluding that the
appeal should be dismissed because the constitutional challenge to
the California statute was not a substantial one."
422 U.S. at
422 U. S.
343-344. Because the Court had jurisdiction over the
appeal in
Miller, the dismissal involved a rejection of
"the specific challenges presented in the statement of
jurisdiction."
Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.
S. 173,
432 U. S. 176
(1977) (per curiam).
On the other hand, the order disposing of the appeals in Langone
read:
"Appeals from Sup.Jud.Ct.Mass. dismissed
for want of
jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeals were
taken as petitions for writs of certiorari, certiorari denied.
Reported below: 388 Mass. 185,
446
N.E.2d 43 [1983]."
460 U.S. at
1057 (emphasis added). Because the Court dismissed the appeals
for lack of appellate jurisdiction, we had no occasion to
adjudicate the merits of the constitutional questions presented in
the jurisdictional
Page 471 U. S. 461
statements. Nor did the denial of certiorari have any
precedential effect.
See Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show,
Inc., 338 U. S. 912,
338 U. S. 919
(1950) (opinion of Frankfurter, J., respecting denial of the
petition for certiorari).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated to the extent it
relied on the dismissal of the appeals in
Langone, and the
cause is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
