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.
McSurely et al. v. Ratliff, 1967 — 389 U.S. 949 · caselaw · US
General
McSurely et al. v. Ratliff
389 U.S. 949·Supreme Court of the United States·1967
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
November 10, 1967.
No.-.
McSurely et al. v. Ratliff.
Arthur Kinoy, William M. Kunstler, Morton Stavis and Dan Jack Combs for applicants.
Solicitor General Griswold for the United States in opposition.
[MAJORITY]
The application for emergency relief presented to Mr. Justice Stewart, and by him referred to the Court, granted to the extent that the seized documents shall remain in their present custody pending further proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
This order is conditioned upon the applicants’ presentation, within five days, to such District Court of any objections they may have to the validity of the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations of the United States Senate and shall remain in effect pending the ruling of such District Court upon any such objections as may be presented.