Open main menu

Court Documents
Dissenting Opinion

United States Supreme Court

394 U.S. 968

Negre  v.  Larsen

[969] the Armed Forces when they are seeking to exhaust their military administrative remedies. Moreover, when military administrative remedies are exhausted can a federal court maintain the status quo while it determines the merits? That is to § y, can a federal court "in aid of" its jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, keep a member of the Armed Services, from being spirited out of the country? Some lower courts have granted interim relief pending exhaustion of military administrative remedies. Schwartz v. Covington, 9 Cir., 341 F.2d 537. Cf. Nelson v. Miller, 3 Cir., 373 F.2d 474. Army Regulation 15-185 ¶ 9 (Jan. 8, 1962) provides "The application to the Board for correction of a record will not operate as a stay of any proceedings being taken with respect to the person involved." While that gives the Army a directive, it is of no significance in resolving the "in aid of" question under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. This question is, in my mind, so substantial that it warrants issuance of the stay. Teague v. Regional Commissioner of Customs Region II [89SCt1457,394US977,22LEd2d756] 89 S.Ct. 1457 394 U.S. 977 22 L.Ed.2d 756 Walter D. TEAGUE, III, et al., petitioners, v. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OR CUSTOMS, REGION II, et al.

No. 1061. Supreme Court of the United States

April 21, 1969

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1969. See 395 U.S. 930, 89 S.Ct. 1768.

Henry Winestine, Osmond K. Fraenkel, Melvin L. Wulf and Alan H. Levine, for petitioners.

Solicitor General Griswold, for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).