TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rosenberg v. United States

ROSENBERG Et Al. v. UNITED STATES

Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 322 (1953)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
October 12, 1953
Judges
Frankfurter, Black
Citations
346 U.S. 32273 S. Ct. 117897 L. Ed. 2d 16331953 U.S. LEXIS 1898

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

Motion of the petitioners for a further stay of the execution, as set forth in the written motion, is denied.

Mr. Justice Black dissents.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter.

On the assumption that the sentences against the Ro-senbergs are to be carried out at 11 o’clock tonight, their counsel ask this Court to stay their execution until opportunity has been afforded to them to invoke the constitutional prerogative of clemency. The action of this Court, and the division of opinion in vacating the stay granted by Mr. Justice Douglas, are, of course, a factor in the situation, which arose within the last hour. It is not for this Court even remotely to enter into the domain of clemency reserved by the Constitution exclusively to the President. But the Court must properly take into account the possible consequences of a stay or of a denial of a stay of execution of death sentences upon making an appeal for executive clemency. Were it established that counsel are correct in their assumption that the sentences of death are to be carried out at 11 p. m.

*323 tonight, I believe that it would be right and proper for this Court formally to grant a stay with a proper time-limit to give appropriate opportunity for the process of executive clemency to operate. I justifiably assume, however, that the time for the execution has not been fixed as of 11 o’clock tonight. Of course I respectfully assume that appropriate consideration will be given to a clemency application by the authority constitutionally charged with the clemency function.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1960: 11962: 11971: 11990: 11999: 119602026peak 1960 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wigglesworth v. Mauldin990 P.2d 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999)
  2. Meredith v. Fair306 F.2d 374 (5th Cir. 1962)
  3. Goldsby v. State123 So. 2d 429 (Miss. 1960)
  4. Crocker v. United States323 F. Supp. 718 (N.D. Miss. 1971)
  5. United States ex rel. Farmer v. Kaufman750 F. Supp. 106 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)

Most recent

  1. Wigglesworth v. Mauldin990 P.2d 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999)
  2. United States ex rel. Farmer v. Kaufman750 F. Supp. 106 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)
  3. Crocker v. United States323 F. Supp. 718 (N.D. Miss. 1971)
  4. Meredith v. Fair306 F.2d 374 (5th Cir. 1962)
  5. Goldsby v. State123 So. 2d 429 (Miss. 1960)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list