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.
WILLIAMS et al. v. BROWN et al., 1980 — 446 U.S. 236 · caselaw · US
General
WILLIAMS et al. v. BROWN et al.
446 U.S. 23664 L. Ed. 2d 181·Supreme Court of the United States·1980
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
WILLIAMS et al. v. BROWN et al.
No. 78-357.
Argued March 19, 1979
Reargued October 29, 1979—
Decided April 22, 1980
William H. Allen reargued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Donald Harrison, John Michael Clear, and Robert C. Campbell III.
Eric Schnapper reargued the cause for appellees. With him on the briefs were J. U. Blacksher, Larry Menefee, and Jack Greenberg.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Turner reargued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. On the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Days, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Elinor Hadley Stillman, Brian K. Lafidsberg, Jessica Dunsay Silver, Dennis J. Dimsey, and Miriam R. Eisenstein.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan, see ante, p. 94.]
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Marshall, see ante, p. 103.]
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings in light of the decision of the Court announced today in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55.
It is so ordered.
[CONCURRENCE — Mr. Justice Blackmun,]
Mr. Justice Blackmun,
concurring.
I, of course, must accept the Court’s vacation of the judgment and its remand. If, however, we were to reach the merits, then, in contrast to the result in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case.
[DISSENT — Mr. Justice White,]
Mr. Justice White,
dissenting.
Because the decision below in this case is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law virtually identical to those in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, I dissent for the reasons stated in my opinion in that case, ante, p. 94.