Rudder v. United States, No. 12313.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | EDGERTON, BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit |
| Citation | 226 F.2d 51 |
| Parties | John RUDDER and Doris Rudder, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 12313. |
| Decision Date | 21 July 1955 |
226 F.2d 51 (1955)
John RUDDER and Doris Rudder, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 12313.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 12, 1955.
Decided July 21, 1955.
Mr. Joseph Forer, with whom Mr. David Rein was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Joseph A. Rafferty, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Roger P. Marquis, Chief, Appellate Section, Dept. of Justice, and Thomas L. McKevitt, Atty., Lands Division, Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellee.
Mr. James H. Heller, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
Before EDGERTON, BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.
In 1952 the Rudders became tenants from month to month of an apartment in Lincoln Heights Dwellings, a low-cost housing development in the District of Columbia constructed under the United States Housing Act of 1937.1 The United States owns the property and the National Capital Housing Authority manages it.
In 1953, in supposed compliance with the Gwinn Amendment,2 the Housing Authority asked the Rudders and other tenants to sign a so-called "Certification of Nonmembership in Subversive Organizations", which contains the words: "I hereby certify that I am not a member of any of the organizations listed in the document entitled `Consolidated List, Dated November 10, 1952, of Organizations Designated by the Attorney General of the United States As Within Executive Order No. 9835' * * *." A list, under that title, accompanied the Certification which the Rudders were asked to sign.
Executive Order 9835 5 U.S.C.A. § 631 note authorized consideration, "in connection with the determination of disloyalty" of government employees, of various matters including "Membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association with any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons, designated by the Attorney General as 1 totalitarian, 2 fascist, 3 communist, or 4 subversive, or 5 as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or 6 as seeking to alter the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional
The Consolidated List that accompanied the Certification named nearly 200 organizations. It did not indicate that the Attorney General had designated any as "subversive". It indicated nothing more than that all had been "designated by the Attorney General of the United States as within Executive Order No. 9835." The Attorney General had, in fact, designated very few organizations as subversive. In 1948 he designated many as "Totalitarian", many as "Fascist", more as "Communist", a few as advocating violent denial of the rights of others, and a few as seeking to alter the form of government by unconstitutional means. At that time he designated only six as "Subversive". 13 Fed.Reg. 6137-6138. A "List of Organizations Designated by the Attorney General Pursuant to Executive Order No. 9835 Revised", in the 1952 Cumulative Pocket Supplement to the 1949 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 5, (pp. 123, 126) designates only 13 organizations as "Subversive".
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. Habib, No. 20883.
...to the requirements of due process and cannot act arbitrarily towards its tenants. Rudder v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 331, 226 F.2d 51, 53 (1955); Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles v. Cordova, 130 Cal.App.2d Supp. 883, 885, 279 P.2d 215, 216 (1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. ......
-
Meehan v. Macy, No. 20812.
...by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege." Compare Rudder v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 331, 226 F.2d 51, 53 (1955): "The District of Columbia Code provides that a tenancy from month to month may be terminated on 30 days' notice, and that a landlord may......
-
Nostrand v. Little, No. 34451
...350 U.S. 551, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692 (1955) (Resp.Br. 35-36), and Rudder v. United States, (C.A.D.C.1955) [96 U.S.App.D.C. 329] 226 F.2d 51 (Resp.Br. 21-23). * * It seems to us that, in a case which involved many constitutional issues, both state and federal, the citation of these thre......
-
Ricker v. United States, Civ. No. 74-71-ND.
...v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 164, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring); Rudder v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 226 F.2d 51, 53 (1955). Second, the Rickers as mortgagors retained under Maine law the right to undisturbed enjoyment of the farm until entry or foreclo......
-
Edwards v. Habib, No. 20883.
...to the requirements of due process and cannot act arbitrarily towards its tenants. Rudder v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 331, 226 F.2d 51, 53 (1955); Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles v. Cordova, 130 Cal.App.2d Supp. 883, 885, 279 P.2d 215, 216 (1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. ......
-
Meehan v. Macy, No. 20812.
...by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege." Compare Rudder v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 331, 226 F.2d 51, 53 (1955): "The District of Columbia Code provides that a tenancy from month to month may be terminated on 30 days' notice, and that a landlord may......
-
Nostrand v. Little, No. 34451
...350 U.S. 551, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692 (1955) (Resp.Br. 35-36), and Rudder v. United States, (C.A.D.C.1955) [96 U.S.App.D.C. 329] 226 F.2d 51 (Resp.Br. 21-23). * * It seems to us that, in a case which involved many constitutional issues, both state and federal, the citation of these thre......
-
Ricker v. United States, Civ. No. 74-71-ND.
...v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 164, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring); Rudder v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 226 F.2d 51, 53 (1955). Second, the Rickers as mortgagors retained under Maine law the right to undisturbed enjoyment of the farm until entry or foreclo......