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.
McCARTHY et al. v. BRISCOE, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, et al., 1976 — 429 U.S. 1316 · caselaw · US
General
McCARTHY et al. v. BRISCOE, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, et al.
429 U.S. 1316·Supreme Court of the United States·1976
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
McCARTHY et al. v. BRISCOE, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, et al.
No. A-201.
Decided September 14, 1976
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Powell, Circuit Justice.]
Mr. Justice Powell, Circuit Justice.
This application, for a partial stay of an order and judgment of a three-judge District Court for the Western District of Texas, reaches me during the summer recess of the Court. Following a practice utilized by other Justices and by myself on previous occasions, see, e. g., Graves v. Barnes, 405 U. S. 1201 (1972) (Powell, J., in chambers), I have consulted informally with each of my Brethren who was available. Although no other Justice has participated in the drafting of this order, I am authorized to say that each of those consulted would vote to deny the application for the reason stated below.
In denying injunctive relief to applicants, the three-judge District Court based its action not upon resolution of the merits of the constitutional claim presented (which it resolved in favor of applicants), but upon the equitable doctrine of laches. I conclude, therefore, that direct appeal to this Court does not lie under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, MTM, Inc. v. Baxley, 420 U. S. 799, 804 (1975), and that the Court is without jurisdiction to grant the relief now requested. Accordingly, the application for a stay is denied, but without prejudice to the right of applicants to seek relief in the Court of Appeals.
A11 Members of the Court, save two who were not available, have been consulted.