finding no “case or controversy” where both parties to the suit had.argued that the statute was constitutional and urged that a desegregation order be set aside
How later courts described this case
- finding no “case or controversy” where both parties to the suit had.argued that the statute was constitutional and urged that a desegregation order be set aside
- stating that when "both litigants desire precisely the same result," there is "no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III of the Constitution"
- finding “no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III” where both parties agreed the law was constitutional and required setting aside a district court order
- holding that no Article III case or controversy exists where the parties to an action desire “precisely the same result”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Per Curiam.
Appellants seek review of the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina declaring a portion of the North Carolina anti-busing statute unconstitutional, and enjoining its enforcement. It is a companion case to No. 498,
North Carolina State Board of Education
v.
Swann, ante,
p. 43. We postponed decision on the question of jurisdiction, 400 U. S. 803 (1970), and after hearing on the merits we now dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
At the hearing both parties argued to the three-judge court that the anti-busing law was constitutional and urged that the order of the District Court adopting the Finger plan should be set aside. We are thus confronted
*48
with the anomaly that both litigants desire precisely the same result, namely a holding that the anti-busing statute is constitutional. There is, therefore, no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. Ill of the Constitution.
Muskrat
v.
United States,
219 U. S. 346 (1911). Additionally, since neither party sought an injunction to restrain a state officer from enforcing a state statute alleged to be unconstitutional, 28 U. S. C. § 2281 , this is not an appeal from “any civil action, suit or proceeding required ... to be heard ... by a district court of three judges,” 28 U. S. C. § 1253 , and hence no direct appeal to this Court is available.
Dismissed.