Travia v. Lomenzo, 86 S.Ct. 7 (decided July 16, 1965): In this order by Harlan refusing a stay of a District Court decision, we see 1) that a federal trial court order, even when up for appeal, is “final and binding” on a state’s highest court; 2) how pissed off he was by the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in this case, which he dissented from; 3) how he is bound by the Court’s earlier decision regarding a similar application (381 U.S. 431); and 4) how if the Court had explained its reasoning “in a sensitive and not heavy-handed manner” the state court would have felt free to defer to the District Court. Here, the question was whether state senate and assembly elections could be held in the midst of litigation as to whether a recent reapportionment violated Equal Protection. The District Court ordered it to go forward; the state court had ordered it stayed. The matter was settled the next year, in time for the 1966 elections, when the New York court approved reapportionment recommendations of a judicial commission (Orans v. Rockefeller, 1966)
top of page
Recent Posts
See AllMcLeod v. General Electric Co. , 87 S.Ct. 5 (decided September 21, 1966): Harlan reinstates NLRB decision forcing General Electric to...
Barthuli v. Board of Trustees of Jefferson Elementary School District , 434 U.S. 1337 (decided September 20, 1977): Rehnquist says he...
United States v. United Liquors Corp. , 77 S.Ct. 208 (decided September 19, 1956): Reed denies stay of antitrust judgment prohibiting...
bottom of page
Comments