In Re Herndon
Headline: Court delays action against county judge who left Black candidates off the ballot, sending the question to a district-court contempt hearing to decide if he disobeyed federal orders.
Holding: The Court postponed ruling on whether a county judge should be held in contempt and ordered timely district-court proceedings to determine if his failure to place NDPA candidates on the ballot violated the earlier court order.
- Requires a district-court contempt hearing to decide the judge’s conduct.
- Delays Supreme Court punishment while lower-court proceedings are completed.
- Raises risk of double prosecution concerns if proceedings overlap.
Summary
Background
A group representing Black candidates, the National Democratic Party of Alabama (NDPA), asked courts to force Alabama officials to include their nominees on the Greene County ballot. A three-judge district court entered a temporary restraining order on September 18, 1968, barring use of any ballots that omitted NDPA names. That order was later dissolved, and the Supreme Court briefly restored temporary relief while appeals proceeded. Despite those orders, Probate Judge Herndon did not place NDPA nominees on the county ballot for the November 1968 election, and appellants asked the Supreme Court to hold him in contempt.
Reasoning
The core question was whether Herndon’s omission violated the earlier court order and amounted to contempt. The Court’s per curiam decision did not decide contempt itself. Instead the Court concluded that the matter should await timely initiation and completion of appropriate proceedings in the District Court to determine whether his failure to place NDPA candidates on the ballot constituted contempt of the September 18 order. The Supreme Court therefore postponed action on the motion.
Real world impact
The decision requires a district-court hearing before any contempt punishment can be imposed, leaving the NDPA candidates and affected voters without a final Supreme Court remedy from this order. The ruling is not a final finding that the judge acted willfully or unlawfully; those factual questions are left to the lower court. The dispute implicates voting rights and the enforcement of federal court orders in local elections.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Harlan, dissented. He said there was probable cause that Herndon knowingly evaded the Court’s orders and urged immediate contempt proceedings under Rule 42(b), appointment of counsel and a Master, and prompt hearings, warning about double-jeopardy and enforcement problems.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?