Slochower v. Board of Higher Education
Headline: Court denies a rehearing request and removes an inaccurate factual comment about Slochower’s claimed privilege, correcting the published opinion while leaving the main ruling intact and unchanged.
Holding: The Court denied the petition for rehearing and ordered deletion of a non-controlling sentence about Slochower’s privilege because newly submitted transcript portions cast doubt on its accuracy.
- Leaves the Court’s main decision in place while correcting an inaccurate factual statement.
- Removes a published sentence about Slochower’s privilege and employment consequences.
- Shows courts may amend opinions if new official records cast doubt on facts.
Summary
Background
An earlier opinion included a sentence saying that neither the Senate Subcommittee nor Slochower knew his claim of privilege would automatically lead to his discharge and permanently bar him from city employment. The Board supplied new portions of the official Senate-subcommittee transcript for the first time and asked the Court to reconsider and remove that sentence. Several States filed joinders supporting the request for rehearing.
Reasoning
The Court reviewed whether to grant rehearing and whether the challenged sentence should stay in the opinion. The Court explained the sentence had been based on the printed record then before it, but the newly presented transcript portions cast doubt on the sentence’s accuracy. Because that comment was not essential to the Court’s decision, the Justices concluded deleting it would better reflect the record. The petition for rehearing was denied, and the opinion was amended to remove the disputed sentence.
Real world impact
The Court’s core decision remains in place; this action corrects the published opinion’s wording rather than changing the outcome of the case. The amendment removes a potentially misleading factual claim about Slochower’s privilege and employment consequences. The ruling is procedural and limited: it fixes the record but does not revisit the merits of the original judgment.
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?