holding that any rights parolees had to travel were necessarily limited because “those rights of necessity are conditioned by the situation in which their convictions placed them”
How later courts described this case
- holding that any rights parolees had to travel were necessarily limited because “those rights of necessity are conditioned by the situation in which their convictions placed them”
- While prisoners and parolees do not “lose their constitutional rights” altogether, “those rights of necessity [,e.g., the Fifth Amendment liberty right to travel,] are conditioned by the situation in which their convictions placed them.”
- "The decision of a trial ... court to grant or deny a preliminary injunction does not constitute the law of the case for the purposes of further proceedings and does not limit or preclude the parties from litigating the merits...."
- decision by trial or appellate court to grant or deny preliminary injunction does not constitute law of the case on further proceedings and does not limit or preclude the parties from litigating the claims on the merits
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAZELON, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
When this case was before us on a motion for a temporary restraining order 1 we were at pains to point out that “the authority — if any — of the Department of State to grant or deny its *389 permission [for appellants’ trip] is not at issue.” 2 What is at issue is the authority of the Parole Board to impose restrictions on the constitutional right to travel. 3 Whatever may be the scope of that authority in the ordinary case, where, as here, the Board seeks to interfere with activities involving the expression of political and social views, it must show a compelling need for the particular restriction it seeks to invoke. No such need was shown in the prior proceeding and none has been shown here. Accordingly, I would reverse the decision of the District Court and enjoin the Parole Board from withholding its approval of appellants’ travel.
. See opinion of the court, supra at 517.
. Berrigan v. Sigler, 475 F.2d 918, 920 (1973) (Bazelon, C. J., concurring).
. Id. at 920, 921 .