Ellis v. Dixon/Opinion of the Court

Upon reargument the Court has come to the conclusion that the writ of certiorari should be dismissed as improvidently granted.

The New York Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for leave to appeal without stating any ground for its decision. 306 N.Y. 981, 115 N.E.2d 437. In these circumstances we must ascertain whether that court's decision 'might' have rested on a nonfederal ground, for if it did we must decline to take jurisdiction. Stembridge v. State of Georgia, 1952, 343 U.S. 541, 547, 72 S.Ct. 834, 837, 96 L.Ed. 1130; see also Lynch v. People of New York ex rel. Pierson, 1934, 293 U.S. 52, 54, 55 S.Ct. 16, 17, 79 L.Ed. 191. We approach the matter first by considering what the petitioner has alleged as a basis for the constitutional issues which he asks us to review on the merits.

The constitutional questions involved are whether respondents, members of the Yonkers Board of Education, in refusing the use of any of the Yonkers public school buildings to the Yonkers Committee for Peace for a forum on 'peace and war,' discriminated against the Committee, so as to deprive the Committee's members of their rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and equal protection of the laws, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Petitioner concedes that a State may withhold its school facilities altogether from use by nonscholastic groups. It is implicit in this concession that petitioner also recognizes that a State may make reasonable classifications in determining the extent to which its schools shall be available for nonscholastic uses, and petitioner has not attacked on this score the classifications made by the applicable New York statute and respondents' regulations. The question of whether the regulations are unconstitutionally vague was not raised below, and hence is not open here. Therefore the burden of petitioner's grievance would seem to be that respondents have applied the statute and regulations to similar groups differently than they have to the Committee for Peace. Any yet petitioner has failed to allege in his pleading, which upon respondents' motion was dismissed prior to answer, that other organizations of a similar character to the Committee for Peace have been allowed use of the Yonkers schools. The allegations of that pleading simply are that unnamed and undescribed 'organizations' have been allowed to use Yonkers school buildings in the past 'for the purpose of public assembly and discussion.' Whether such organizations are in any way comparable to the Committee for Peace nowhere appears in the pleading. And what the practice of the Board of Education has been in permitting the nonscholastic use of school buildings is not shown.

What has been alleged is entirely too amorphous to permit adjudication of the constitutional issues asserted. And we think the most reasonable inference from this record is that the Court of Appeals' denial of petitioner's motion for leave to appeal went on that ground, rather than on the ground, suggested on behalf of respondents, that in proceeding by way of leave to appeal rather than by an appeal as of right the petitioner had followed the wrong appellate route. This conclusion is fortified by two additional circumstances. If the Court of Appeals had considered the constitutional issues adequately presented, it presumably would have saved petitioner's right to appeal as of right by putting its denial of leave to appeal on the ground that an appeal lay as of right. See N.Y. Civil Practice Act, § 592(5)(a). Otherwise we would have to assume that the Court of Appeals desired to thwart review of the constitutional questions, an assumption wholly unjustified by this record. Furthermore, the decision of New York's intermediate appellate court against the petitioner was because of the insufficiency of his pleading.

If the insuficiency of petitioner's pleading was the reason for the Court of Appeals' denial of leave to appeal, the past decisions of this Court still leave room for argument as to whether we should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the state court's decision rested on an adequate nonfederal ground. It is established law that this Court is not finally concluded by the state court's determination as to the sufficiency of pleadings asserting a federal right. Some of the cases seem to suggest that the scope of our review is limited to determining whether the state court has by-passed the federal right under forms of local procedure, from which it would seem to follow that if we find that such is not the case we should dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Cf. American Railway Express Co. v. Levee, 1923, 263 U.S. 19, 21, 44 S.Ct. 11, 12, 68 L.Ed. 140; Davis v. Wechsler, 1923, 263 U.S. 22, 24, 44 S.Ct. 13, 14, 68 L.Ed. 143. There can be no suggestion of by-passing in this instance. Other cases, however, indicate that we should accept jurisdiction and decide the sufficiency of the pleadings de novo for ourselves. See Boyd v. State of Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 1892, 143 U.S. 135, 180, 12 S.Ct. 375, 388, 36 L.Ed. 103; Carter v. State of Texas, 1900, 177 U.S. 442, 447, 20 S.Ct. 687, 689, 44 L.Ed. 839; First National Bank of Guthrie Center v. Anderson, 1926, 269 U.S. 341, 346, 46 S.Ct. 135, 137, 70 L.Ed. 295. Brown v. Western Railway of Alabama, 1949, 338 U.S. 294, 296, 70 S.Ct. 105, 106, 94 L.Ed. 100. In the present case, the route which we travel would make no difference in the result. Even if we were to look at the matter ourselves de novo, we could not on this vague and empty record decide the constitutional issues sought to be presented. This Court has often refused to decide constitutional questions on an inadequate record. See, e.g., International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Denver Milk Producers, Inc., 1948, 334 U.S. 809, 68 S.Ct. 1015, 92 L.Ed. 1741; Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 1947, 331 U.S. 549, 575-585, 67 S.Ct. 1409, 1423-1427, 91 L.Ed. 1666; Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch, 1947, 331 U.S. 752, 762-763, 67 S.Ct. 1493, 1498, 91 L.Ed. 1796; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 1945, 325 U.S. 450, 65 S.Ct. 1384, 89 L.Ed. 1725. In the circumstances of this case, we prefer to rest our decision on the ground that we lack jurisdiction. For if we could not ourselves decide on this record the constitutional issues tendered, we consider that by the same token the New York Court of Appeals was entirely justified in refusing to pass on them, and that we should therefore regard its denial of leave to appeal as resting on an adequate nonfederal ground. See Vandalia R. Co. v. State of Indiana ex rel. South Bend, 1907, 207 U.S. 359, 28 S.Ct. 130, 52 L.Ed. 246; Brinkmeier v. Missouri P.R. Co., 1912, 224 U.S. 268, 32 S.Ct. 412, 56 L.Ed. 758.

We conclude that the writ of certiorari must be dismissed as improvidently granted.

Dismissed.

The CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice CLARK dissent, believing that the allegations of the petition are sufficient to state a case of discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.