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.
BOYD et al. v. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., 1969 — 393 U.S. 316 · caselaw · US
General
BOYD et al. v. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.
393 U.S. 316·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
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
BOYD et al. v. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.
No. 490.
Decided January 13, 1969.
Victor Rabinowitz and Leonard B. Boudin for appellants.
Solicitor General Griswold for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed, Clark v. Gabriel, ante, p. 256, without reaching the jurisdictional question raised under 28 U. S. C. § 1331.