Hicks v. Pleasure House, Inc.

Background

The dispute began when a single federal judge issued a temporary restraining order that stayed pending prosecutions and restrained enforcement of certain state obscenity laws against the appellees. The judge had certified the case to be heard by a three-judge court and entered the short-term order to prevent alleged irreparable harm while the full court was to decide the merits. The appellants sought direct review in the Supreme Court of that temporary order.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Supreme Court could hear a direct appeal from a temporary order entered by a single judge in a case set for a three-judge court. The Court explained that the statute allowing direct Supreme Court review applies only to orders or decrees entered by a court actually composed of three judges. A single judge may issue a temporary restraining order in such cases, but that order can last only until the full three-judge court hears the case and is not the kind of three-judge decree that the direct-appeal statute covers. The Court noted past decisions and said mistakes by a single judge can be reviewed by a court of appeals, and if no appeal is taken first the convened three-judge court should be asked to modify or vacate the order.

Real world impact

Because the direct-appeal statute does not reach single-judge temporary orders, the Supreme Court dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Practically, parties cannot go straight to the Supreme Court from such short-term orders; they must seek relief from a court of appeals or from the three-judge court once convened. This decision is procedural and does not resolve the underlying obscenity prosecutions or the larger legal claims.