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.
MATLES v. UNITED STATES, 1958 — 356 U.S. 256 · caselaw · US
General
MATLES v. UNITED STATES
356 U.S. 2562 L. Ed. 2d 741·Supreme Court of the United States·1958
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
MATLES v. UNITED STATES.
No. 378.
Decided April 7, 1958.
Frank J. Donner, Arthur Kinoy and Marshall Perlin for petitioner in No. 378.
Richard J. Burke for petitioner in No. 450.
Edward Bennett Williams and Morris Shilensky for petitioner in No. 494.
Solicitor General Rankin, Warren Olney, III, then Assistant Attorney General, Beatrice Rosenberg and /. F. Bishop for the United States in Nos. 378 and 450. Mr. Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General McLean, Miss Rosenberg and Eugene L. Grimm for the United States iii No. 494.
Together with No. 450, Lucchese v. United States, and No. 494, Costello v. United States, also on petitions for writs of certiorari to the same Court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. In No. 378 the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to vacate the order holding the petitioner in contempt and to dismiss the complaint. In Nos. 450 and 494 the judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are reversed and the cases are remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaints. An affidavit showing good cause is a prerequisite to the initiation of denaturalization proceedings. The affidavit must be filed with the complaint when the proceedings are instituted. United States v. Zueca, 351 U. S. 91, 99-100.