Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Love v. Griffith

266 U.S. 32

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1924-10-20
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • finding challenge to rule prohibiting African Americans from voting in past primary election moot because “bill was for an injunction that could not be granted at that time” and “[t]here was no constitutional obligation to extend the remedy beyond what was prayed”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Love v. Griffith. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
21 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Federal Rights on Appeal Where a party plainly asserts a federal right in the lower court, state rules governing the scope of appellate review do not necessarily control, and the party may invoke federal judicial judgment on whether that right was denied or not given due recognition.
  2. Constitutional Law — Mootness of Injunction Claims A constitutional claim seeking an injunction against a rule promulgated for a single election does not survive where the election has already taken place, the bill seeks an injunction that cannot be granted at the time of decision, and there is no constitutional obligation to extend the remedy beyond what was prayed.
  3. Constitutional Law — Mootness of Election Regulations No constitutional rights are infringed by holding that a cause of action has ceased to exist where the challenged rule was promulgated for a single election only and that election occurred long before the appellate decision.
Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a bill in equity alleging that the plaintiffs are qualified electors residing in Houston, Texas, and of the Democratic political faith; that on January 27, 1921, the City Democratic Executive Committee of Houston made and published a rule that negroes would not be allowed to vote in the Democratic City Primary Election to be held on February 9, 1921; that the Committee and Judges of Election threatened to enforce the rule, contrary to the Constitution of the United States; and praying an injunction to restrain the Committee and Judges of Election from carrying out their threats. The bill was filed on February 3, 1921. On February 5, 1921, it was demurred to generally, the demurrer maintaining that the rule did not infringe the Fifteenth Amendment. On February 7, 1921, the demurrer was sustained and the bill was dismissed with costs. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, but that Court held that at the date of its decision, months after the election, the cause of action had ceased to exist and that the appeal would not be entertained on the question of costs alone. It therefore dismissed the appeal with costs. Error is assigned here on the ground that the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the discrimination which was made the basis of the complaint, and that the decision denied the plaintiffs their constitutional rights.

When as here there is a plain assertion of federal rights in the lower court, local rules as to how far it shall be reviewed on appeal do not necessarily prevail. Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 24. Whether the right was denied or not given due recognition by the Court of Civil Appeals *34 is a question as to which the plaintiffs are entitled to invoke our judgment. Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17, 22. If the case stood here as it stood before the court of first instance it would present a grave question of constitutional law and we should be astute to avoid hindrances in the way of taking it up. But that is not the situation. The rule promulgated by the Democratic Executive Committee was for a single election only that had taken place long before the decision of the Appellate Court. No constitutional rights of the plaintiffs in error were infringed by holding that the cause of action had ceased to exist. The bill was for an injunction that could not be granted at that time. There was no constitutional obligation to extend the remedy beyond what was prayed.

Decree affirmed.