gilligan
morgan
argued
march
decided
june
respondents
filed
action
behalf
students
state
university
claiming
period
civil
disorder
campus
may
national
guard
called
governor
preserve
order
violated
students
rights
speech
assembly
caused
injury
death
students
sought
injunctive
relief
restrain
governor
future
prematurely
ordering
guard
troops
duty
civil
disorders
injunction
restrain
guard
leaders
future
violation
students
rights
also
sought
declaratory
judgment
ohio
revised
code
unconstitutional
district
dismissed
suit
ground
complaint
failed
state
claim
upon
relief
granted
appeals
affirmed
dismissal
respect
injunctive
relief
governor
premature
employment
guard
validity
state
statute
held
complaint
stated
cause
action
respect
one
issue
remanded
district
directions
resolve
question
whether
pattern
training
weaponry
orders
ohio
national
guard
require
use
fatal
force
suppressing
civilian
disorders
total
circumstances
nonlethal
force
suffice
restore
order
since
complaint
filed
named
respondents
left
university
officials
originally
named
defendants
longer
hold
offices
exercise
authority
guard
guard
adopted
new
substantially
different
use
force
rules
civil
disorder
training
guard
recruits
revised
held
case
resolved
basis
whether
claims
alleged
complaint
narrowed
appeals
remand
justiciable
rather
possible
mootness
pp
justiciable
controversy
presented
case
relief
sought
respondents
requiring
initial
judicial
review
continuing
judicial
surveillance
training
weaponry
standing
orders
national
guard
embraces
critical
areas
responsibility
vested
constitution
see
art
cl
legislative
executive
branches
government
pp
burger
delivered
opinion
white
blackmun
powell
rehnquist
joined
blackmun
filed
concurring
opinion
powell
joined
post
douglas
brennan
stewart
marshall
filed
dissenting
statement
post
thomas
martin
assistant
attorney
general
ohio
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
william
brown
attorney
general
michael
geltner
argued
cause
respondents
briefs
leonard
schwartz
melvin
wulf
sanford
jay
rosen
joel
gora
solicitor
general
griswold
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
brief
assistant
attorney
general
wood
robert
kopp
robert
berry
kenly
webster
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
david
engdahl
law
revision
center
jack
greenberg
james
nabrit
iii
charles
stephen
ralston
drew
days
iii
naacp
legal
defense
educational
fund
chief
justice
burger
delivered
opinion
respondents
alleging
students
officers
student
government
kent
state
university
ohio
filed
action
district
behalf
students
october
essence
complaint
period
civil
disorder
around
university
campus
may
national
guard
called
governor
ohio
preserve
civil
order
protect
public
property
violated
students
rights
speech
assembly
caused
injury
number
students
death
several
actions
national
guard
without
legal
justification
sought
injunctive
relief
governor
restrain
future
prematurely
ordering
national
guard
troops
duty
civil
disorders
injunction
restrain
leaders
national
guard
future
violation
students
constitutional
rights
also
sought
declaratory
judgment
ohio
revised
code
unconstitutional
district
held
complaint
failed
state
claim
upon
relief
granted
dismissed
suit
appeals
unanimously
affirmed
district
dismissal
respect
injunctive
relief
governor
premature
employment
guard
future
occasions
respect
validity
state
statute
time
however
appeals
one
judge
dissenting
held
complaint
stated
cause
action
respect
one
issue
remanded
district
directions
resolve
following
question
pattern
training
weaponry
orders
ohio
national
guard
singly
together
require
make
inevitable
use
fatal
force
suppressing
civilian
disorders
total
circumstances
critical
time
nonlethal
force
suffice
restore
order
use
lethal
force
reasonably
necessary
note
outset
since
complaint
filed
district
number
changes
factual
situation
oral
argument
informed
none
named
respondents
still
enrolled
university
likewise
officials
originally
named
party
defendants
longer
hold
offices
exercise
authority
state
national
guard
although
suit
parties
successors
office
addition
petitioners
solicitor
general
appearing
amicus
curiae
informed
us
since
ohio
national
guard
adopted
new
use
force
rules
substantially
differing
effect
complaint
filed
also
informed
initial
training
national
guard
recruits
relating
civil
disorder
control
revised
respondents
assert
nevertheless
changes
situation
affect
right
hearing
entitlement
injunctive
supervisory
relief
basis
therefore
exists
conclusion
case
moot
however
record
us
prepared
resolve
case
basis
therefore
turn
important
question
whether
claims
alleged
complaint
narrowed
appeals
remand
justiciable
ii
treat
question
justiciability
basis
assumption
respondents
claims
within
framework
remand
order
true
established
evidence
assumption
address
question
whether
relief
district
appropriately
fashion
important
note
outset
case
damages
sought
injuries
sustained
tragic
occurrence
kent
state
action
seeking
restraining
order
specified
imminently
threatened
unlawful
action
rather
broad
call
judicial
power
assume
continuing
regulatory
jurisdiction
activities
ohio
national
guard
demand
relief
presents
important
questions
justiciability
respondents
continue
seek
benefit
kent
state
students
judicial
evaluation
appropriateness
training
weaponry
orders
ohio
national
guard
demand
appeals
remand
require
district
establish
standards
training
kind
weapons
scope
kind
orders
control
actions
national
guard
respondents
contend
thereafter
district
must
assume
exercise
continuing
judicial
surveillance
guard
assure
compliance
whatever
training
operations
procedures
may
approved
respondents
press
remedial
decree
scope
even
assuming
recently
adopted
changes
deemed
acceptable
evidentiary
hearing
continued
judicial
surveillance
assure
compliance
changed
standards
respondents
demand
relying
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
respondents
seem
overlook
explicit
command
art
cl
vests
congress
power
provide
organizing
arming
disciplining
militia
governing
part
may
employed
service
reserving
respectively
appointment
officers
authority
training
militia
according
discipline
prescribed
congress
emphasis
added
appeals
invited
district
remand
survey
certain
materials
record
case
example
prevention
control
mobs
riots
federal
bureau
investigation
dept
justice
edgar
hoover
employment
troops
aid
civil
authorities
instructions
members
force
mass
demonstrations
police
department
city
new
york
date
report
national
advisory
commission
civil
disorders
judge
celebrezze
dissent
correctly
read
baker
carr
said
believe
congressional
executive
authority
prescribe
regulate
training
weaponry
national
guard
set
forth
clearly
precludes
form
judicial
regulation
matters
envision
form
judicial
relief
directed
training
weaponry
national
guard
involve
serious
conflict
coordinate
political
department
lack
judicially
discoverable
manageable
standards
resolving
question
impossibility
deciding
without
initial
policy
determination
kind
clearly
nonjudicial
discretion
impossibility
undertaking
independent
resolution
without
expressing
lack
respect
due
coordinate
branches
government
unusual
need
unquestioning
adherence
political
decision
already
made
potentiality
embarrassment
multifarious
pronouncements
various
departments
one
question
baker
carr
supra
relief
whether
prescribed
standards
training
weaponry
simply
ordered
compliance
standards
set
congress
executive
necessarily
draw
courts
nonjusticiable
political
question
jurisdiction
emphasis
added
justiciability
concept
uncertain
meaning
scope
reach
illustrated
various
grounds
upon
questions
sought
adjudicated
federal
courts
held
justiciable
thus
justiciable
controversy
presented
parties
seek
adjudication
political
question
parties
asking
advisory
opinion
question
sought
adjudicated
mooted
subsequent
developments
standing
maintain
action
yet
remains
true
usticiability
legal
concept
fixed
content
susceptible
scientific
verification
utilization
resultant
many
subtle
pressures
poe
ullman
testing
case
standards
drawn
specifically
flast
serious
deficiencies
respect
advisory
nature
judicial
declaration
sought
clear
respondents
argument
indeed
language
remand
added
nature
questions
resolved
remand
subjects
committed
expressly
political
branches
government
factors
coupled
uncertainties
whether
live
controversy
still
exists
infirmity
posture
respondents
standing
render
claim
proposed
issues
remand
nonjusticiable
difficult
think
clearer
example
type
governmental
action
intended
constitution
left
political
branches
directly
responsible
judicial
branch
electoral
process
moreover
difficult
conceive
area
governmental
activity
courts
less
competence
complex
subtle
professional
decisions
composition
training
equipping
control
military
force
essentially
professional
military
judgments
subject
always
civilian
control
legislative
executive
branches
ultimate
responsibility
decisions
appropriately
vested
branches
government
periodically
subject
electoral
accountability
power
oversight
control
military
force
elected
representatives
officials
underlies
entire
constitutional
system
majority
opinion
appeals
failed
give
appropriate
weight
separation
powers
voting
rights
cases
baker
carr
reynolds
sims
prisoner
rights
cases
haines
kerner
cited
supporting
diminish
ing
vitality
political
question
doctrine
yet
doctrine
held
inapplicable
certain
carefully
delineated
situations
reason
federal
courts
assume
demise
voting
rights
cases
indeed
represented
efforts
strengthen
political
system
assuring
higher
level
fairness
responsiveness
political
processes
assumption
continuing
judicial
review
substantive
political
judgments
entrusted
expressly
coordinate
branches
government
concluding
justiciable
controversy
presented
clear
neither
hold
imply
conduct
national
guard
always
beyond
judicial
review
may
accountability
judicial
forum
violations
law
specific
unlawful
conduct
military
personnel
whether
way
damages
injunctive
relief
hold
questions
presented
case
decline
require
district
involve
directly
intimately
task
assigned
appeals
orloff
willoughby
reversed
footnotes
section
provides
certain
circumstances
law
enforcement
personnel
engaged
suppressing
riot
guiltless
consequences
use
necessary
proper
force
ohio
rev
code
ann
supp
opinion
appeals
reported
sub
nom
morgan
rhodes
respondents
sought
certiorari
respect
claims
tr
oral
arg
memorandum
petitioners
suggesting
question
mootness
army
began
give
national
guard
recruits
hours
additional
special
training
recognizing
peculiar
role
national
guard
area
ed
supp
et
seq
initial
basic
training
national
guard
personnel
regulation
department
army
pursuant
statutory
authority
federal
jurisdiction
commencing
national
guard
units
received
part
basic
training
hours
special
training
recognition
likelihood
national
guard
primary
source
military
personnel
called
civil
disorder
situations
see
dept
army
reserve
enlistment
program
con
supp
app
xxv
anx
par
footnotes
omitted
colloquy
scope
relief
sought
remand
one
justice
asked
fair
characterization
position
case
goes
back
district
quarrel
specific
national
guard
regulations
force
want
made
permanent
want
continuing
surveillance
see
carried
fair
statement
case
geltner
counsel
respondents
answered
yes
honor
fair
statement
seeking
point
understanding
time
complaint
filed
seeking
specific
change
existed
tr
oral
arg
see
duncan
kahanamoku
sterling
constantin
laird
tatum
said
hen
presented
claims
judicially
cognizable
injury
resulting
military
intrusion
civilian
sector
federal
courts
fully
empowered
consider
claims
asserting
injury
nothing
nation
history
decided
cases
including
holding
today
properly
seen
giving
indication
actual
threatened
injury
reason
unlawful
activities
military
go
unnoticed
unremedied
justice
blackmun
justice
powell
joins
concurring
respondents
brought
action
seeking
broadranging
declaratory
injunctive
relief
issue
presently
relates
portion
relief
sought
appeals
remand
order
district
limited
review
determining
existence
pattern
training
weaponry
orders
ohio
national
guard
singly
together
require
make
inevitable
unjustifiable
use
lethal
force
suppressing
civilian
disorders
ohio
rules
changed
identical
army
rules
counsel
respondents
stated
oral
argument
rules
effect
provide
satisfactory
safeguards
unwarranted
use
lethal
force
ohio
national
guard
tr
oral
arg
special
training
provided
various
national
guard
units
narrowly
confined
setting
asked
decide
issues
presented
case
respondents
informed
us
seek
change
current
national
guard
regulations
rather
wish
assure
continuance
constant
judicial
surveillance
orders
training
weaponry
guard
continuing
surveillance
respondents
seek
little
difficulty
concluding
controversy
moot
except
aspect
case
relief
requested
respondents
obtained
one
might
argue
likelihood
future
changes
rules
attenuated
even
claim
continuing
review
district
moot
issue
need
reached
district
clearly
without
power
grant
relief
sought
respondents
complaint
rests
upon
single
isolated
tragic
incident
kent
state
university
conditions
existed
time
incident
longer
prevail
respondents
complaint
contains
nothing
suggesting
likely
suffer
specific
injury
future
result
practices
challenge
see
laird
tatum
complaint
based
single
past
incident
containing
allegations
unspecified
speculative
threats
uncertain
harm
might
occur
indefinite
time
future
support
respondents
standing
maintain
action
see
complaint
par
app
roe
wade
relief
sought
respondents
moreover
beyond
province
judiciary
respondents
district
continuing
surveillance
evaluate
pass
upon
merits
guard
training
programs
weapons
use
force
orders
relief
sought
prospective
evaluation
matters
context
particular
factual
setting
predicate
relief
form
injunction
continuing
activity
damages
present
wholly
different
issues
case
relates
prospective
relief
form
judicial
surveillance
highly
subjective
technical
matters
involving
military
training
command
presents
inappropriate
subject
matter
judicial
consideration
respondents
asking
district
fashioning
prospective
relief
enter
upon
policy
determinations
judicially
manageable
standards
lacking
baker
carr
reasons
judgment
appeals
must
reversed
understanding
opinion
holds
join
opinion