McSurely v. Ratliff
| Decision Date | 29 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 18638.,18638. |
| Citation | 398 F.2d 817 |
| Parties | Alan McSURELY, Margaret McSurely, Southern Conference Educational Fund, Inc., the National Conference for New Politics, and Vietnam Summer, Appellants, and Joseph Mulloy, Intervenor, v. Thomas B. RATLIFF, Commonwealth's Attorney for the 35th Judicial District, Pike County, Kentucky; Perry A. Justice, Sheriff of Pike County, Kentucky; Grover Atkins, Jailer of Pike County, Kentucky; and Robert L. Matthews, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellees, and United States of America, Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Morton Stavis, Newark, N. J. (Dan Jack Combs, Pikeville, Ky., Arthur Kinoy, William B. Kumstler, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.
Robert V. Zener, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., George B. Cline, U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, CELEBREZZE and McCREE, Circuit Judges.
State and local authorities of Kentucky commenced a prosecution of Alan McSurely and wife, Margaret McSurely, under the Anti-Sedition Law of the Commonwealth, KRS 432.040. Numerous books, pamphlets and documents were seized in connection with the arrests.
The McSurelys brought an action in the United States District Court to enjoin the prosecution, invoking the doctrine of Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 14 L.Ed.2d 22. A three-judge District Court held the Anti-Sedition statute to be unconstitutional on the grounds of vagueness and federal preemption. 282 F.Supp. 848. Enforcement of the statute and the pending State criminal prosecution were enjoined. No appeal was taken from this decision. The District Court directed that the seized documents be retained in the possession of the Commonwealth attorney for safekeeping until final disposition of the case by appeal or otherwise.
After the decision of the District Court and before the time for appeal had expired, subpoenas duces tecum ordering production of certain of the seized documents were issued by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations of the United States Senate. The Subcommittee issued the subpoenas in connection with its investigation of riots and civil disturbances. Identical subpoenas were served upon Mr. and Mrs. McSurely, the Commonwealth attorney and the United States Marshal.
The McSurelys filed motions in the District Court for an order directing the return of the seized documents and seeking to enjoin the release of the documents pursuant to the subpoenas. The District Court denied this motion and ordered the parties to the action and officers of the court to cooperate with the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. McSurely, 24812
...the Subcommittee would not have been issued. See Finding of Fact No. 3, Defendants' Appendix, Vol. 2, pp. 971-72. 11 McSurely v. Ratliff, 398 F.2d 817 (6th Cir. 1968). 12 Id. at 13 Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 223-224, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1447, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960). 14 The affidavit i......
-
Sovereign News Co. v. Falke
...order. See, McSurely, supra at 850-851, 853-854; appeal dismissed, 390 U.S. 412, 88 S.Ct. 1112, 19 L.Ed.2d 1272 (1968); 398 F.2d 817, 818 (6th Cir. 1968) (Sixth Circuit Judges Phillips, Celebrezze, and McCree, reversing the district court's refusal to order the federal defendants, i. e., Ke......
-
McSurely v. McClellan
...Conference Educational Fund, Inc., were remitted to an appeal to the Sixth Circuit. That court in its opinion, McSurely, et al. v. Ratliff, et al., 398 F.2d 817 (1968), noted that the appellants had contended that their rights under the First and Fourth Amendments had been violated. That co......
-
McSurely v. McClellan, 82-2369
...documents must be returned to the McSurelys, but without prejudice to the Subcommittee's right to enforce the subpoenas. McSurely v. Ratliff, 398 F.2d 817 (6th Cir.1968). Upon receipt of these materials, the McSurelys were immediately served with new subpoenas. They appeared before the Subc......