Securities and Exchange Commission v. Medical Committee for Human Rights

The Court of Appeals, overruling the contentions of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), held that it had jurisdiction to review the SEC's "extremely dubious" determination not to oppose the Dow Chemical Co.'s refusal of respondent shareholder's request to include its proposal for a corporate charter amendment in Dow's proxy statement. Thereafter Dow acquiesced in the request, and at its annual meeting less than 3% of the voting stockholders supported the respondent's proposal, as a result of which the company under an SEC rule may exclude the proposal from its proxy material for a three-year period.

Held: Since it is extremely doubtful that at the end of that period respondent will resubmit the proposal and Dow will refuse it, the case is now moot. Pp. 405-407.

139 U.S. App. D.C. 226, 432 F. 2d 659, vacated and remanded.

MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 407. POWELL and REHNQUIST, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Solicitor General Griswold argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Daniel M. Friedman, William Terry Bray, Philip A. Loomis, Jr., David Ferber, and Richard E. Nathan.

Roberts B. Owen argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Michael Boudin.

Roger S. Foster and Charles R. Halpern filed a brief for the Project on Corporate Responsibility as amicus curiae urging affirmance.