|
Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100 (1982)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100 (1982)
Princeton University v. Schmid No. 80-1576 Argued November 10, 1981 Decided January 13, 1982 455 U.S. 100
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Syllabus
Appellee, who was not a student at Princeton University, was arrested for criminal trespass while distributing political materials on the University’s campus without having first received permission from University officials, as required by a University regulation. Appellee was convicted in state court, but the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that his rights of speech and assembly under the State Constitution had been violated. The University, which had intervened in the State Supreme Court proceedings, filed a notice of appeal and a jurisdictional statement (joined by the State) in this Court, claiming that the judgment below deprived it of its rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution.
Held: The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
(a) The State, in its brief, asked that the issues be decided, but declined to take a position on the merits. Thus, if the State were the sole appellant, the appeal would be dismissed for want of a case or controversy. Accordingly, the State’s presence in the case does not provide a sound jurisdictional basis for undertaking to decide the constitutional issues.
(b) Nor does this Court have jurisdiction with respect to the University. While the case was pending on appeal, the University substantially amended its pertinent regulations, and the New Jersey Supreme Court did not pass on the validity of the revised regulations. The issue of the old regulation’s validity is thus moot. Since the University is not prevented by the judgment below from having the validity of its new regulation ruled upon in another enforcement action, it is without standing to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.
Appeal dismissed. Reported below: 84 N.J. 535, 23 A.2d 615.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100 (1982) in 455 U.S. 100 455 U.S. 101. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NZFYZJURB42F9LI.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100 (1982), in 455 U.S. 100, page 455 U.S. 101. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NZFYZJURB42F9LI.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100 (1982). cited in 1982, 455 U.S. 100, pp.455 U.S. 101. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NZFYZJURB42F9LI.
|