United States v. State of Louisiana
Headline: Court appoints a special master to hold hearings, gather evidence, subpoena witnesses, and report back, with parties required to pay the master’s expenses and approved fees.
Holding: The Court ordered appointment of Walter P. Armstrong Jr. as special master to conduct preliminary hearings, summon witnesses, take evidence, and report, with his expenses and fees to be charged to the parties as approved.
- Allows a court-appointed official to subpoena witnesses and collect evidence.
- Gives the special master authority to run hearings and issue subpoenas.
- Makes parties responsible for the master’s expenses and report printing costs as approved.
Summary
Background
The Court issued an order following its March 3, 1969 opinion and named Walter P. Armstrong Jr., of Memphis, Tennessee, as a special master to make a preliminary determination consistent with that opinion. The order creates a temporary official role to move the case forward by fact-finding and hearings.
Reasoning
The Court directed the special master to set the time and conditions of any hearings, to summon witnesses, to issue subpoenas, and to take whatever evidence he receives or deems necessary. The master may submit reports as he thinks appropriate. The Court also authorized payment of the master’s actual expenses and reasonable compensation, to be approved later by the Court.
Real world impact
Practically, the order puts a court-appointed official in charge of gathering facts and evidence and running preliminary hearings, rather than resolving the dispute immediately from the bench. The order also says that the payments to the master, assistants, and the cost of printing reports will be charged to the parties in proportions the Court will decide later. This is a procedural step, not a final decision on the main legal issues, and the Court will review or approve compensation and cost allocation later.
Dissents or concurrances
Two Justices—the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Marshall—did not take part in considering or deciding this matter, and the order notes their nonparticipation.
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?