Beard v. Stahr

Supreme Court

Beard v. Stahr

370 U.S. 41, 82 S. Ct. 1105, 8 L. Ed. 2d 321, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 1196

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided May 28, 1962·No. 648·Published·Cited by 53 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint. The action is premature. The appellant will not be removed from the active list of the Regular Army unless the Secretary of the Army exercises the discretionary authority to remove him conferred by 10 U. S. C. § 3794. The Secretary has not stated that he will so exercise his discretion as to remove appellant. If the Secretary does not remove the appellant it will be unnecessary [42]*42to pass on the constitutional objections which have been urged. If appellant is removed, the Court is satisfied that adequate procedures for seeking redress will be open to him. Compare Aircraft & Diesel Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U. S. 752, 772-773. Accordingly, the application for a stay is denied.

The Chief Justice is of the opinion that further consideration of the question of jurisdiction should be postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits and would grant the application for a stay.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint. The action is premature. The appellant will not be removed from the active list of the Regular Army unless the Secretary of the Army exercises the discretionary authority to remove him conferred by 10 U. S. C. § 3794. The Secretary has not stated that he will so exercise his discretion as to remove appellant. If the Secretary does not remove the appellant it will be unnecessary [42]*42to pass on the constitutional objections which have been urged. If appellant is removed, the Court is satisfied that adequate procedures for seeking redress will be open to him. Compare Aircraft & Diesel Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U. S. 752, 772-773. Accordingly, the application for a stay is denied.

The Chief Justice is of the opinion that further consideration of the question of jurisdiction should be postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits and would grant the application for a stay.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the decision of this case.

Beard v. Stahr, 370 U.S. 41, 82 S. Ct. 1105, 8 L. Ed. 2d 321, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 1196 (1962).

Pincite

370 U.S. 41 (Beard v. Stahr) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related