Perez v. Ledesma

Supreme Court of the United States · Federal Courts

Federal Courtsjurisdictionthree-judge courtstate prosecutiondiscretiondeclaratory reliefinjunctive reliefLouisiana Revised Statutes § 14:106

Facts

The opinion states that a state prosecution was pending charging a violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes § 14:106. A three-judge court entered a judgment on August 14, 1969, granting relief in paragraphs 1 and 2 and declaring St. Bernard Parish Ordinance No. 21-60 unconstitutional in paragraph 4. The parties were directed to brief whether granting that relief and making that declaration were appropriate exercises of discretion. The case was set for argument with several related cases.

Issue

Whether it was an appropriate exercise of discretion for the three-judge court to grant relief in paragraphs 1 and 2 of its August 14, 1969 judgment in light of the pending state prosecution under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 14:106, and whether it was an appropriate exercise of discretion to declare St. Bernard Parish Ordinance No. 21-60 unconstitutional in paragraph 4.

Rule

This order does not establish a substantive black-letter rule; it postpones the jurisdictional question to the merits hearing and directs briefing on whether the three-judge court appropriately exercised its discretion in granting relief while a state prosecution was pending and in declaring the local ordinance unconstitutional.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A bookstore owner in Phoenix appeals from a federal district court order. On appeal, the Supreme Court issues a short order stating that further consideration of jurisdiction is postponed until the hearing on the merits and directs the parties to brief several additional questions about the propriety of relief entered below.

What is the best reading of the Supreme Court's order?

Explanation. The order means exactly what it says: consideration of jurisdiction is postponed to the merits hearing. Asking for briefing on additional questions does not itself decide jurisdiction, dismiss the case, or affirm the lower court. (Derived from Perez v. Ledesma (n.d.).)