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.
ROSENBERG et al. v. UNITED STATES, 1953 — 346 U.S. 322 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
ROSENBERG et al. v. UNITED STATES
346 U.S. 32297 L. Ed. 2d 1633·Supreme Court of the United States·1953
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
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
ROSENBERG et al. v. UNITED STATES.
No.-, June 18 Special Term, 1953.
Decided June 19, 1953.
Emanuel H. Bloch submitted the motion for a further stay.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam. Mr. Justice Frankfurter.]
Per Curiam.
Motion of the petitioners for a further stay of the execution, as set forth in the written motion, is denied.
Mr. Justice Black dissents.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter.
On the assumption that the sentences against the Ro-senbergs are to be carried out at 11 o’clock tonight, their counsel ask this Court to stay their execution until opportunity has been afforded to them to invoke the constitutional prerogative of clemency. The action of this Court, and the division of opinion in vacating the stay granted by Mr. Justice Douglas, are, of course, a factor in the situation, which arose within the last hour. It is not for this Court even remotely to enter into the domain of clemency reserved by the Constitution exclusively to the President. But the Court must properly take into account the possible consequences of a stay or of a denial of a stay of execution of death sentences upon making an appeal for executive clemency. Were it established that counsel are correct in their assumption that the sentences of death are to be carried out at 11 p. m. tonight, I believe that it would be right and proper for this Court formally to grant a stay with a proper time-limit to give appropriate opportunity for the process of executive clemency to operate. I justifiably assume, however, that the time for the execution has not been fixed as of 11 o’clock tonight. Of course I respectfully assume that appropriate consideration will be given to a clemency application by the authority constitutionally charged with the clemency function.