Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Brown et al. v. Thomson, Governor of New Hampshire, 1978 — 435 U.S. 938 · caselaw · US
General
Brown et al. v. Thomson, Governor of New Hampshire
435 U.S. 938·Supreme Court of the United States·1978
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
March 24, 1978
No. A-807.
Brown et al. v. Thomson, Governor of New Hampshire.
[MAJORITY]
Application for stay of judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, presented to Mr. Justice Brennan, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending timely filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court.
Should the petition for a writ of certiorari not be timely filed or denied, this stay is to terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, this stay is to remain in effect pending issuance of the judgment of this Court.
[DISSENT — The Chief Justice]
The Chief Justice
dissenting.
I would not disturb the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Moreover, the Attorney General of New Hampshire having this day personally represented to the Clerk of this Court that the proclamation of March 21, 1978, has been superseded by a new proclamation dated March 24, 1978, filed today, the application referred to the Court appears to be moot, and I therefore dissent from the action of the Court and would reinstate the order of the Court of Appeals.
[DISSENT — Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Powell, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist,]
Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Powell, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
dissenting.
As we would not disturb the order of the Court of Appeals of the First Circuit, we dissent from the order of this Court.