Griffin v. Maryland
Headline: Court invites the U.S. government to file a supplemental brief on broader constitutional issues and allows parties to respond, while four Justices object to requesting the Justice Department’s views.
Holding:
- Invites the federal government to file a brief clarifying its views on constitutional issues.
- Gives parties thirty days to respond to any new government brief.
- Does not decide the constitutional questions now; it only seeks further briefing.
Summary
Background
Several appeals from state high courts in Maryland, South Carolina, and Florida were before the Court after lower courts had considered them. During oral argument on October 15, 1963, the Solicitor General (the federal government’s lawyer) indicated a willingness to say more about broad constitutional questions that had not been fully addressed earlier.
Reasoning
The Court decided to ask the Solicitor General to file a brief within thirty days setting out the United States’ views on those broader constitutional issues, and gave the parties thirty days afterward to respond if they wished. This order is a procedural step to gather more formal briefing from the government rather than a final decision on the constitutional questions themselves.
Real world impact
The order brings the federal government’s official position into the record, which could shape how the Court or lower courts think about the constitutional issues later. It does not resolve the underlying legal disputes yet; it only opens a timed opportunity for the Government to comment and for parties to reply.
Dissents or concurrances
Four Justices (Black, Clark, Harlan, and White) stated they did not agree that the Court should request the Department of Justice to file a brief on constitutional matters the Department had earlier declined to take a position on.
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?