Perez v. Ledesma (1970)
- Docket
- 60
- Decided
- 1970-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Did the district court err when it convened a three-judge court and ruled on the validity of the arrests and seizure of materials while the state criminal proceedings were still pending? Conclusion: Yes. Justice Hugo L. Black, writing for a 5-4 majority, reversed in part and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held that the district court’s ruling on the validity of the arrests and seizure constituted improper federal interference with state criminal proceedings. The Court reversed that judgment. The Court also held that it had no jurisdiction to review the order declaring the ordinance invalid on direct appeal. Justice Potter Stewart concurred, citing several cases in support of his decision. Justice Harry A. Blackmun joined in the concurrence. Justice William O. Douglas dissented in part, agreeing that the court had no jurisdiction to review the ordinance, but disagreeing on the district court’s arrest and seizure ruling. Justice William J. Brennan also dissented in part, agreeing with the majority on reversing the three-judge court, but disagreeing about the Supreme Court’s ability to review the decision on the ordinance. Justice Byron R. White and Justice Thurgood Marshall joined in this dissent.