Massachusetts v. Westcott
| Citation | 97 S.Ct. 1755,52 L.Ed.2d 349,431 U.S. 322 |
| Decision Date | 23 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1775,75-1775 |
| Parties | Commonwealth of MASSACHUSETTS, Petitioner, v. Jack B. WESTCOTT |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Respondent Westcott was arrested for violating a Massachusetts statute that prohibits nonresidents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from dragging for fish by beam or otter trawl in Vineyard Sound during July, August, and September.1 After he was found guilty, he pursued his right to de novo review and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review and ordered the complaint dismissed on the ground that the statute violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2, 344 N.E.2d 411. We granted certiorari. 429 U.S. 815, 97 S.Ct. 54, 50 L.Ed.2d 74 (1976).
Our decision today in Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U.S. 265, 97 S.Ct. 1740, 52 L.Ed.2d 304, suggests that there may be a statutory basis to provide respondent the relief he seeks, thereby making it unnecessary to decide the constitutional question presented. Douglas holds that federal law pre-empts the States from denying vessels that are federally enrolled and licensed for the fisheries the right to fish in state waters on the same terms as state residents. Respondent's vessel is federally enrolled and licensed "to be employed in carrying on the mackerel fishery," the same license that was held by appellees in Douglas.2 In accordance with our longstanding principle of deciding constitutional questions only when necessary, Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1382, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974); Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S.Ct. 466, 483, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring), we decline to decide the privileges and immunities question presented in this case, and vacate the judgment and remand the case for further consideration in light of Douglas. See McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U.S. 430, 60 S.Ct. 670, 84 L.Ed. 849 (1940).
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice REHNQUIST concurs in the judgment on the authority of Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U.S. 265, 97 S.Ct. 1740, 52 L.Ed.2d 304.
1 The Act of Feb. 20, 1923, c. 35, 1923 Mass. Acts 17, as amended by the Act of Mar. 13, 1962, c. 219, 1962 Mass. Acts 107:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering
...Leroy v. Great Western United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 181, 99 S.Ct. 2710, 2715, 61 L.Ed.2d 464 (1979); Massachusetts v. Westcott, 431 U.S. 322, 323, 97 S.Ct. 1755, 1756, 52 L.Ed.2d 349 (1977); Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 633, 92 S.Ct. 1221, 1226, 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972); Ashwander v. T......
-
Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Public Serv. Com'n
...common knowledge, nor are they capable of such certain verification that they may be judicially noticed. Massachusetts v. Westcott, 431 U.S. 323, 97 S.Ct. 1755, 52 L.Ed.2d 349 (1977). The dissent's selective use of material unavailable to Pepco during the proceeding (since it did not exist)......
-
Alexander v. Trustees of Boston University, s. 84-1712
...for reargument or remand the case to the district court for further consideration of the point. Cf. Massachusetts v. Westcott, 431 U.S. 322, 97 S.Ct. 1755, 52 L.Ed.2d 349 (1976) (per curiam). In the absence of any such further reconsideration, and particularly in light of the First Amendmen......
-
Minnesota Federation of Teachers v. Randall
...briefs.Weinstein & Berger, 1 Weinstein's Evidence p 201, at 201-49 (1989). See also Massachusetts v. Westcott, 431 U.S. 322, 323 n. 2, 97 S.Ct. 1755, 1756 n. 2, 52 L.Ed.2d 349 (1977). Further, the documentary material considered by the dissent is not the type of evidence embraced by Fed.R.E......