Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Ray v. Blair

343 U.S. 154· U.S. Supreme Court· cites 1 cases
343 U.S. 154 72 S. Ct. 598 96 L. Ed. 852 RAY v. BLAIR. No. 649. Argued March 31, 1952. Decided April 3, 1952. Subsequent Opinion April 15, 1952. See 343 U.S. 214 , 72 S. Ct. 654 . Messrs. Marx Leva, Washington, D.C., Harold M. Cook, Birmingham, Ala., for petitioner. Mr. Horace C. Wilkinson, Birmingham, Ala., for respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 In this proceeding, an Alabama circuit court entered an order directing petitioner to certify to the Secretary of State of Alabama the name of respondent as a candidate for nomination for Presidential and Vice-Presidential elector in the primary election of the Democratic Party to be held on May 6, 1952. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed on the single ground that the order was compelled by Article II, Section 1 and the Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 2 Petitioner applied to this Court for a stay of the judgments and mandates of the Alabama courts and filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court. On March 24, 1952, we granted certiorari and ordered the judgments and mandates of the courts below stayed pending further consideration and disposition of the case by this Court. The case was assigned for argument on the stay as well as the merits on March 31, 1952. 343 U.S. 901 , 72 S. Ct. 637 . 3 The question raised in this case has been thoroughly briefed and argued. The Court has fully considered the question and has reached its conclusion. It now announces its decision and enters its judgment in advance of the preparation of a full opinion which, when prepared, will be filed with the Clerk. See 343 U.S. 214 , 72 S. Ct. 654 . 4 The Court holds that Article II, Section 1 and the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution do not compel issuance of the order and judgment entered below. 5 The judgment below is reversed. The mandate of this Court is directed to issue forthwith. 6 Reversed. 7 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice JACKSON dissent. 8 Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Public-domain opinion of the United States Supreme Court, reproduced from the court record (U.S. Reports). Historical text may contain OCR artifacts. Provided for reference — not legal advice.

★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.