Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Issue: W/N the allegations raised by petitioners The Fiscal Service of the Bureau of Accounts of the
regarding the constitutionality of the Connecticut statute Department of the Treasury replied, explaining that it
raise a justiciable question before the Court. published the document known as the Combined
Statement of Receipts, Expenditures, and Balances of the
Held: No. Petitioners do not allege that appellee, Ullman US Gov’t. Several copies of the monthly and daily reports
threatens to prosecute them for their use of or for giving of the office were sent with the letter. Respondent also
advice regarding contraceptives. The allegations merely inquired as to how he could receive further information on
state that in the course of his public duty he intends to the expenditures of the CIA. The Bureau of Accounts
prosecute any violation of Connecticut law. There is thus replied stating that it had no other available information.
no imminent or impending threat of arrest on the
petitioners. The Court goes on to say that in the over 75 Respondent asked the federal court to declare
years of its existence, prosecutions for violation of the unconstitutional a provision of the CIA Act which permits
statute seems never to have been initiated according to the CIA to account for its expenditures "solely on the
counsel nor the researchers of the Court. Judicial notice certificate of the Director ". The only injury alleged by
was also taken of the fact that contraceptives are readily respondent was that he cannot obtain a document that
available in drug stores which invite more the attention sets out the expenditures and receipts of the CIA but on
of enforcement officials. Given the fact that federal the contrary was asked to accept a fraudulent document.
judicial power is to be exercised to strike down District Court dismissed the case for lack of standing.
legislation, whether state or federal, only at the instance
of one who is himself immediately harmed or The CA en banc with three judges dissenting, reversed,
immediately threatened with harm, by the challenged holding that the respondent had standing. The majority
action, the circumstances of the case do not justify the relied on Flast v. Cohen, and its two-tier test.
exercise of judicial power as it lacks the requisites for
“case” and “controversy”. While noting that the respondent did not directly attack an
appropriations act, as did the plaintiff in Flast, the CA
Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting. concluded that the CIA statute challenged by the
respondent was "integrally related," to his ability to
Public clinics dispensing birth-control information has challenge the appropriations since he could not question
been closed down by the State as well as others following an appropriation about which he had no knowledge. The
the Nelson case which the ponente cited as the test case CA seemed to rest its holding on an assumption that this
for the statute. The Court failed to take notice of the fact case was a prelude to a later case challenging, on the basis
that several prosecutions for violations of this statute of information obtained in this suit, some particular
had been initiated in the minor courts. In failing to appropriation for or expenditure of the CIA; respondent
answer the question of the constitutionality of the stated no such an intention in his complaint.
Application of Doctrines:
DISSENTS:
Douglas: does not address issue of mootness directly.
Discusses admissions policy. Argues for remanding of
case to determine if LSAT exam should be eliminated for
racial minorities because of it's inherent discriminatory
white man viewpoint