The Supreme Court of the United States, 1964-1965

• Author: Paul C. Bartholomew
• Date: 01 December 1965
• Published date: 01 December 1965
• DOI: 10.1177/106591296501800401
• Subject Matter: Articles

741

THE

SUPREME

COURT

OF

THE

UNITED

STATES,

1964-1965

PAUL

C.

BARTHOLOMEW

University

of

Notre

Dame

HIS

TERM

of

the

Supreme

Court

must

be

regarded

as

worthy

of

note

in

~

at

least

one

respect

regardless

of

what

else

the

Court

did

or

did

not

do.

It

~-

adjourned

earlier

than

it

has

for

ten

years,

specifically

at

the

close

of

the

October

1954

Term

on

June

6,

1955.

In

another

area

this

term

was

unusual.

For

only

the

second

time

since

the

1953

Term

(the

1958

Term

being

the

other

time)

the

Court

did

not

set

a

new

record

for

cases

disposed

of.

This

term

the

Court

dis-

posed

of

2,180

cases

as

against

2,412

last

term

and

2,350

in

the

1962

Term.

This

term

apparently

set

a

new

record

for

the

number

of

cases

remaining

on

the

docket,

482

as

compared

with

367

in

the

1963

Term

and

474

in

the

1962

Term.

There

were

122

cases

argued

during

the

recent

term

by

comparison

with

144

in

the

previous

term.

Of

these,

105

were

disposed

of

by

91

written

opinions

and

17

by

per

curiam

opinions.

No

cases

were

ordered

reargued,

the

first

time

this

has

happened

in

many

terms.

There

was

a

remarkably

even

distribution

of

the

work

of

writing

opinions

during

this

term.

Justice

Clark

wrote

twelve,

Chief

Justice

Warren

and

Justices

Black,

Douglas,

Harlan,

Brennan,

White,

and

Goldberg

each

wrote

ten,

and

Justice

Stewart

wrote

nine.

Justice

Harlan

and

Justice

Black

each

wrote

twelve

dissenting

opinions,

Douglas

wrote

ten,

Goldberg

wrote

nine,

Stewart

did

eight,

White

wrote

five,

and

Clark

did

two.

Neither

Warren

nor

Brennan

wrote

a

dissenting

opinion

this

term.

It

might

be

noted

that

during

this

term

the

Court

adopted

a

new

policy

on

the

handing

down

of

opinions.

Monday

is

no

longer

&dquo;Decision

Day&dquo;

but

opinions

may

be

read

on

any

day

that

the

Court

is

in

session.

The

Court

adjourned

on

June

7,

1965.

When

it

convened

again

on

October

4

it

had

a

new

member

(due

to

the

resignation

of

Justice

Arthur

J.

Goldberg)

in

the

person

of

Abe

Fortas

of

Washington,

D.C.

Due

Process

CIVIL

LIBERTIES

The

recurring

question

of

the

extent

of

the

authority

of

the

Secretary

of

State

to

control

the

issuance

and

use

of

passports

was

before

the

Court

in

Zemel

v.

Rusk

(381

U.S.

1;

85

S.Ct.

1271).

Here

Zemel

had

applied

to

the

State

Department

to

have

his

passport

validated

for

travel

to

Cuba

as

a

tourist

and

his

request

was

denied.

The

Court,

in

an

opinion

by

Chief

Justice

Warren

(vote:

6-3,

Black,

Douglas,

and

Goldberg

dissenting)

held

that

the

Secretary

of

State’s

action

was

supported

by

the

authority

granted

by

Congress

in

the

Passport

Act

of

1926

and

also

upheld

the

con-

stitutionality

of

the

Act.

The

opinion

noted

that

&dquo;we

cannot

accept

the

contention

of

appellant

that

it

is

a

First

Amendment

right

which

is

involved.

For

to

the

extent

NOTE :

Similar

reviews

of

the

work

of

the

Court

appeared

in

the

March

1961,

March

1962,

December

1962,

December

1963,

and

December

1964

issues

of

the

Western

Political

Quarterly.