Samuel Bailey v. Joe T. Patterson
BAILEY Et Al. v. PATTERSON Et Al.
Opinion
Per Curiam.
Appellants, Negroes living in Jackson, Mississippi, brought this civil rights action, 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, seeking temporary and permanent injunctions to enforce their constitutional rights to nonsegregated service in interstate and intrastate transportation, alleging that such rights had been denied them under color of state statutes, municipal ordinances, and state custom and usage.
* A three-judge District Court was convened, 28 U. S. C. § 2281 , and, Circuit Judge Rives dissenting, abstained from further proceedings pending construction of the challenged laws by the state courts. 199 F. Supp. 595 . Plaintiffs have appealed, 28 U. S. C. § 1253 ;
N. A. A. C. P.
v. Bennett, 360 U. S. 471 . We denied a motion to stay the prosecution of a number of criminal cases pending disposition of this appeal. 368 U. S. 346 .
Appellants lack standing to enjoin criminal prosecutions under Mississippi’s breach-of-peace statutes, since they do not allege that they , have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution under them. They cannot *33 represent a class of whom they are not a part.
McCabe v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 235 U. S. 151, 162-163 . But as passengers using the segregated transportation facilities they are aggrieved parties and have standing to enforce their rights to nonsegregated treatment.
Mitchell v. United States, 313 U. S. 80, 93 ;
Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U. S. 202 .
We have settled beyond question that no State may require racial segregation of interstate or intrastate transportation facilities.
Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U. S. 373 ;
Gayle v. Browder, 352 U. S. 903 ;
Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U. S. 454 . The question is no longer open; it is foreclosed as a litigable issue. Section 2281 does not require a three-judge court when the claim that a statute is unconstitutional is wholly insubstantial, legally speaking nonexistent.
Ex parte Poresky, 290 U. S. 30 ;
Bell v. Waterfront Comm’n, 279 F. 2d 853 , 857-858. We hold that three judges are similarly not required when, as here, prior decisions make frivolous any claim that a state statute on its face is not unconstitutional.
Willis v. Walker, 136 F. Supp. 181 ;
Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 138 F. Supp. 336 ;
Kelley v. Board of Education, 139 F. Supp. 578 . We denied leave to file petitions for mandamus in Bush, 351 U. S. 948 , and from a similar ruling in Booker v. Tennessee Board of Education, 351 U. S. 948 . The reasons for convening an extraordinary court are inapplicable in such cases, for the policy behind the three-judge requirement — that a single judge ought not to be empowered to invalidate a state statute under a federal claim — does not apply. The three-judge requirement is a technical one to be narrowly construed, Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 251 . The statute comes into play only when an injunction is sought “upon the ground of the unconstitutionality” of a statute. There is no such ground when the constitutional issue presented is essentially fictitious.
*34 This case is therefore not one “required ... to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges,” 28 U. S. C. § 1253 , and therefore cannot be brought here on direct appeal. However, we have jurisdiction to determine the authority of the court below and “to make such corrective order as may be appropriate to the enforcement of the limitations which that section imposes,”
Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 292 U. S. 16, 18 ;
Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co.
v. Oklahoma Packing Co., 292 U. S. 386, 392 ;
Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 254 . Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for expeditious disposition, in light of this opinion, of the appellants’ claims of right to unsegregated transportation service.
Vacated and remanded.
* The statutes in question are Miss. Code, 1942, Tit. 11, §§ 2351, 2351.5, 2351.7, and Tit. 28, §§ 7784, 7785, 7786, 7786-01, 7787, 7787.5.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 22 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that class certification should not be granted where there is not an ascertainable and identifiable class)
-
(holding that federal question jurisdiction does not exist when the claim is “wholly insubstantial, legally speaking nonexistent”)
-
(holding that named plaintiffs “cannot represent a class of whom they are not a part”)
-
(stating that in class actions standing requires membership in the proposed class)
-
("To be a proper class representative, the named plaintiff must be a member of the class at the time the class action is certified.")
-
(petitioners "lack standing to enjoin criminal prosecutions under Mississippi's breach-of-peace statutes, since they do not allege that they have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution under them")
-
(parties may not "represent a class of whom they are not a part")
-
(“it bears repeating that a person cannot predicate standing on injury which he does not share. Standing cannot be acquired through the back door of a class action.”)
Cited by 614 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court36
- U.S. Courts of Appeals207
- Federal District Courts342
- Bankruptcy Courts2
- State Highest Courts11
- State Appellate Courts12
- State Trial Courts1
- State Attorney General Opinions1
- Territorial Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Samuel Bailey v. Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
- Nazareth Gates, and United States of America v. John Collier, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary
- Bailey v. Patterson
- Empagran, S.A. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.
- Joseph C. Daniel, Jr. v. Hugh Waters, Chairman, Textbook Commission of the State of Tennessee
- Lamont v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
Most recent
- Jeffrey Lewis, etc. v. City of New York
- Taher Alhorsome v. Macias
- Taher Alhorsome v. Macias
- Zachary Clark on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Valparaiso University
- Cobble v. United States Government
- Francisco Gallegos v. El Paso Police Department, Gregg Allen, Unknown Police Clerk, and Unknown Internal Affairs Officer
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.