The Burger Court Opinion Writing Databasesupremecourtopinions.wustl.edu/files/opinion_pdfs/1983/...auttokingion,p. C. 2.apkg CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL June 27, 1984 Re:

The Burger Court OpinionWriting Database

Allen v. Wright468 U.S. 737 (1984)

Paul J. Wahlbeck, George Washington UniversityJames F. Spriggs, II, Washington University in St. LouisForrest Maltzman, George Washington University

REPRODUI FROM TEE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISIONLIERARE-10FTON_

Jltuprtutt aqintrt of tits 'Anita AtattoAtoitingtott, el. 2rrog RECEIVED

SUPREME COUR -1, U.S.JUSTICE MARSHALL

CHAMBERS OFTHE CHIEF JUSTICE

May 30, 1984134 HAY 30 P4 :08

Re: 81-757, Allen v. Wright 81-970, Regan v. Wright

Dear Sandra:

I join - even unto the 27th page!

l!egards,

Justice O'Connor

Copies to the Conference

AN/mu (4Intri of tilt pita Ataito7inzuritingtom zapp

CHAMDER8 OrJUSTICE WM. J. BRENNAN, JR.

March 5, 1984

No. 81-757) Allen v. Wright

No. 81-970) Regan v. Wright

Dear John,

You and I were in dissent in the

above. I'll be happy to undertake the

dissent.

Sincerely,

Justice Stevens

MANUSCRIPT DIVISION 12BRART'OF''CON

-To: The Chief JusticeJustice White.

JusticeJusticeJusticeJusticeJustice

MarshallBlackmunPowellRehnquistStevonsO'Coanor

No. 81-757

Allen v. Wright

From: Justice Brennan

No. 81-970

Circulated. e201/

Regan v. Wright Recirculated.

On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia

JUSTICE BRENNAN, dissenting.

Once again, the Court "uses 'standing to slam the

courthouse door against plaintiffs who are entitled to full

consideration of their claims on the merits.'" Valley Forge

Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church

and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 490 (1982) (BRENNAN, J.,

dissenting) (quoting Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159, 178 (1970)

(BRENNAN, J., concurring in the result and dissenting)). And

once again, the Court does so'by "wax[ing] eloquent" on

considerations that provide little justification for the decision

at hand. See 454 U.S., at 491. This time, however, the Court

focuses on "the idea of separation of powers," ante, at 11, 13,

21, 22, as if the mere incantation of that phrase provides an

obvious solution to the difficult questions presented by these

cases.

One could hardly dispute the proposition that Article III

of the Constitution, by limiting the judicial power to "cases" or

"controversies," embodies the notion that each branch of our

FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION,TaBRARY-DETON

RECEIVEDSUPREME COURT. U S.JUST!O -

To: The Chief JusticeJustice WhiteJustice MarshallJustice BlackmunJustice PowellJustice RehnquistJustice StevensJustice O'Connor

n u, i 1 -7 f4 4 • -,

From: Justice Brennan

Circulate•

Recirculate•

1st DRAFT

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Nos. 81-757 AND 81-970

W. WAYNE ALLEN, PETITIONER

81-757 v.INEZ WRIGHT, ETC., ET AL.

DONALD T. REGAN, SECRETARY OF THETREASURY, ET AL., PETITIONER

81-970 v.INEZ WRIGHT ET AL.

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[July —, 1984]

JUSTICE BRENNAN, dissenting.Once again, the Court "uses 'standing to slam the court-

house door against plaintiffs who are entitled to full consider-ation of their claims on the merits." Valley Forge ChristianCollege v. Americans United for Separation of Church andState, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 490 (1982) (BRENNAN, J., dissent-ing) (quoting Barlow v. Collins, 397 U. S. 159, 178 (1970)(BRENNAN, J., concurring in the result and dissenting)).And once again, the Court does so by "wax[ing] eloquent" onconsiderations that provide little justification for the decisionat hand. See 454 U. S., at 491. This time, however, theCourt focuses on "the idea of separation of powers," ante, at11, 13, 21, 22, as if the mere incantation of that phrase pro-vides an obvious solution to the difficult questions presentedby these cases.

One could hardly dispute the proposition that Article III ofthe Constitution, by limiting the judicial power to "cases" or"controversies," embodies the notion that each branch of our

REPRODUt :A1 FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION; LIBRARY OF'CON• %IP I .4 I is. IR

RECEIVEDSUPREME COURT. U.S.JUSTICE

—Justice WhiteJustice MarshallJustice BlackmunJustice PowellJustice RehnquistJustice StevensJustice O'Connor

"84 JUN 29 hb :37 From: Justice Brennan

Circulated.

Recirculated . 6--

2nd DRAFT


Nos. 81-757 AND 81-970






[July —, 19841

JUSTICE BRENNAN, dissenting.Once again, the Court "uses 'standing to slam the court-

house door against plaintiffs who are entitled to full consider-ation of their claims on the merits." Valley Forge ChristianCollege v. Americans United for Separation of Church andState, Inc., 454 U. S. 464,490 (1982)-(BRENNAN, J., dissent-ing) (quoting Barlow v. Collins, 397 U. S. 159, 178 (1970)(BRENNAN, J., concurring in the result and dissenting)).And once again, the Court does so by "wax[ing] eloquent" onconsiderations that provide little justification for the decisionat hand. See 454 U. S., at 491. This time, however, theCourt focuses on "the idea of separation of powers," ante, at12, 13, 21, 23, as if the mere incantation of that phrase pro-vides an obvious solution to the difficult questions presentedby these cases.

One could hardly dispute the proposition that Article III ofthe Constitution, by limiting the judicial power to "cases" or"controversies," embodies the notion that each branch of ourNational Government must confine its actions to those that

FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION; LIBRARY-DECOR

Aitprtutt Qourt of tIttAtittb jkotto

Pookingtan, p. Q. 20pig

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE BYRON R. WHITEApril 10, 1984

Re: 81-757 - Allen v. Wright81-970 - Regan v. Wright

Dear Sandra,

Please join me.

Sincerely yours,

4'4-

Justice O'Connor


cpm

REPRODU FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION; LIBRARVOF CON

Attprnnt Qlourt of tts lattittb bdes

Itlasitingtan, 20-ptg

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL April 11, 1984

Re: 81-757 - Allen v. Wright

81-970 - Regan v. Wright 4

Dear Sandra:

Please show me as "not participatingin this one".

Sincerely,

T .M.

•

Justice O'Connor

cc: The Conference

1

REPRODU FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT-DIVISION;AIBRART"OFTONGRES

.itprente Court of tt 2ttzt-ittb Statesauttokingion,p. C. 2.apkg

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL

June 27, 1984

Re: No. 81-757-Allen v. WrightNo. 81-970-Regan v. Wright

Dear Sandra:

On April 11, 1984, I sent a note to "Pleaseshow me as 'not participating in this one'".

Sincerely,

T .M.

Justice O'Connor

cc: The Conference

FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT 'L'IBRARY"OF'CONe

Auprtutt (Court of tilt 211.nitar gnatsVagfitingtrat, (c. 2og4g

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE HARRY A. BLACKMUN April 13, 1984

Re: No. 81-757) - Allen v. WrightNo. 81-970) - Regan v. Wright

Dear Sandra:

For the moment, I shall wait to see if there are anyother writings for these cases.

Sincerely,

Justice O'Connor

cc: The Conference

REPRODU FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION; tIBRARY-OF CONG

Anprtutt eland of tits Pita obit'slotteitington, p. (4. 2.0p)g

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE HARRY A. BLACKMUN

July 2, 1984

Re: No. 81-757) Allen v. WrightNo. 81-970) Regan v. Wright

Dear John:

Please join me in your dissent in this case.

Sincerely,

Justice Stevens

cc: The Conference

REPRODU FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION;AUHARrOF-CON..

Oman= ejourt of tilt Atiteb Naito

lenoiringtoit, P. Q zopigCRAM OCRS OF

JUSTICE LEWIS F POWELL, JR.

April 10, 1984

81-757 Allen v. Wright 81-970 Regan v. Wright

Dear Sandra:

Please join me.

Sincerely,

Justice O'Connor

lfp/ss

cc: The Conference

FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, L'IBEARY'OF COE- -

$uprzutt (qvitrt nf Hit ultra St:tiro

$ztoirinotxn, p ((J. zopig

CHAMBERS OFJUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

April 10, 1984

Re: No. 81-757) Allen v. Wright 81-970) Regan v. Wright

Dear Sandra:

Please join me.

Sincerely,

tyt

Justice O'Connor

cc: The Conference

REPRODU FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISIONIBRARY-OF'CONG

Sitprnitt (Court a tit* ?lutter Otatto

761teltittgton, 113. zopkg

CHAMBERS OFJUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS

April 10, 1984

Re: 81-757 - Allen v. Wright 81-970 - Regan v. Wright

Dear Sandra:

Although I find the first seventeen pages of youropinion persuasive and also have serious reservationsabout the plaintiff's standing to represent anationwide class, I am still not sure that we candiscount entirely the possibility that injurycomparable to that involved in Coit v. Green might beestablished at trial. In other words, if we resolveall doubts in construing the complaint in favor of theplaintiff, I am still inclined to think there isstanding. For the time being, I shall therefore waitto see what else may be written in this case.

Respectfully,

1-

Justice O'Connor


us ce rennanJustice WhiteJustice Ka shallJustice BlackmunJustice PowellJustice RehnquistJustice O'Connor

No. 81-757--Allen v. Wright

No. 81-970—Regan v. Wright

MEOW FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION - LIBHART"OrCON

JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.

From: Justice Stevens

;14Circulated: ; 044

Recirculated.

Three propositions are clear to me: (1) respondents have

adequate ly alleged "injury in fact"; (2) their injur y is fairly

traceable to the conduct that they claim to be unlawful; and (3)

the "separation of powers" principle does not create a

jurisdictional obstacle to the consideration of the merits of

their claim.

I

Respondents, the parents of black school children, have

alleged that their children are unable to attend fully

desegregated schools because lar ge numbers of white children in

the areas in which respondents reside attend private schools

which do not admit minorit y children. The Court, JUSTICE

BRENNAN, and I all agree that this is an adequate allegation of

"injury in fact." The Court is quite correct when it writes:

"The injury they identify--their children's diminishedability to receive an education in a raciallyintegrated school--is, beyond any doubt, not onlyjudicially cognizable but, as shown by cases from Brownv. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) , to BobJones University v. United States, 46] U.S. (1983),one of the most serious injuries recognized in ourlegal system." Ante, at 18.

This kind of injury may be actionable whether it is caused by the

exclusion of black children from public schools or by an official

REPRODU :41 FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION,'MBRARY"OF"CON ! • °°.

To: The Chief JusticeJustice BrennanJustice WhiteJustice MarshallJustice BlackmunJustice PowellJustice RehnquistJustice Stevens

From: Justice StevensjUL ? '?e4 Circulate&

Recirculate•

1st DRAFT


Nos. 81-757 AND 81-970






[June —, 1984]

JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.Three propositions are clear to me: (1) respondents have

adequately alleged "injury in fact"; (2) their injury is fairlytraceable to the conduct that they claim to be unlawful; and(3) the "separation of powers" principle does not create a ju-risdictional obstacle to the consideration of the merits of theirclaim.

IRespondents, the parents of black school children, have al-

leged that their children are unable to attend fully desegre-gated schools because large numbers of white children in theareas in which respondents reside attend private schoolswhich do not admit minority children. The Court, JUSTICEBRENNAN, and I all agree that this is an adequate allegationof "injury in fact." The Court is quite correct when it writes:

"The injury they identify—their children's diminishedability to receive an education in a racially integratedschool—is, beyond any doubt, not only judicially cogni-zable but, as shown by cases from Brown v. Board of

-REPRODU FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION;'ZIRRARY-OF'CON

eJustice BrennanJustice WhiteJustice MarshallJustice BlackmunJustice PowellJustice RehnquistJustice Stevens

From: Justice O'Connor

Circulated . 7--ELF

Recirculated.

1st DRAFT


Nos. 81-757 AND 81-970


81-757

v.

INEZ WRIGHT, ETC., ET AL.




[April —, 1984]

JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

Parents of black public school children allege in this nation-wide class action that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)has not adopted sufficient standards and procedures to fulfillits obligation to deny tax-exempt status to racially discrimi-natory private schools. They assert that the IRS therebyharms them directly and interferes with the ability of theirchildren to receive an education in desegregated publicschools. The issue before us is whether plaintiffs havestanding to bring this suit. We hold that they do not.

The Internal Revenue Service denies tax-exempt statusunder § 501(a) and (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26U. S. C. § 501(a) and (c)(3)—and hence eligibility to receivecharitable contributions deductible from income taxes under§ 170(a)(1) and (c)(2) of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 170(a)(1) and(c)(2)—to racially discriminatory private schools. Rev. Rul.

RECE!YEDstip7.7!,,f;.

7,1

REPRODUt FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION .; OF'CON( 'CON

To:_ e e us ce

Justice BrennanJustice.WhiteJustice MarshallJustice BlackmunJustice PowellJustice RehnquistJustice Stevens

From: Justice O'Connor

Circulate•

Recirculated . i S %-;"(

2nd DRAFT


Nos. 81-757 AND 81-970






[May —, 1984]

JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.Parents of black public school children allege in this nation-

wide class action that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)has not adopted sufficient standards and procedures to fulfillits obligation to deny tax-exempt status to racially discrimi-natory private schools. They assert that the IRS therebyharms them directly and interferes with the ability of theirchildren to receive an education in desegregated publicschools. The issue before us is whether plaintiffs havestanding to bring this suit. We hold that they do not.

IThe Internal Revenue Service denies tax-exempt status

under § 501(a) and (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26U. S. C. § 501(a) and (c)(3)—and hence eligibility to receivecharitable contributions deductible from income taxes under§ 170(a)(1) and (c)(2) of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 170(a)(1) and(c)(2)—to racially discriminatory private schools. Rev. Rul.

Stylistic Changes ihrou

5 -'f)_4)/).23

RECEIVEDSUPREME COURT. U.S.JU.̀ .3T'r_F

FROM TEE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION ; LIERARY-OF 'CON

Justice BrennanJustice WhiteJustice MarshallJustice BlackmunJustice PowellJustice RehnquistJustice Stevens

'84 MN 28 119 :37From: Justice O'Connor

Circulated.

4141frRecirculated.

4th DRAFT


Nos. 81-757 AND 81-970




81-970 v.INEZ WRIGHT ET\ AL.


[June —, 1984]


Parents of black public school children allege in this nation-wide class action that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)has not adopted sufficient standards and procedures to fulfillits obligation to deny tax-exempt status to racially discrimi-natory private schools. They assert that the IRS therebyharms them directly and interferes with the ability of theirchildren to receive an education in desegregated publicschools. The issue before us is whether plaintiffs havestanding to bring this suit. We hold that they do not.

The Internal Revenue Service denies tax-exempt statusunder §§ 501(a) and (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26U. S. C. §§ 501(a) and (c)(3)—and hence eligibility to receivecharitable contributions deductible from income taxes under§§170(a)(1) and (c)(2) of the Code, 26 U. S. C. §§170(a)(1)and (c)(2)—to racially discriminatory private schools. Rev.

REPRODU FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION, LIBRARY"OF "CON •;`,7

o :Justice BrennanJustice WhiteJustice MarshallJusticc BlackmunJ'ostic PovJell

From: Justice O'Conr.n7

Circulated:

JUL 1 Vg4 Resirculatad:__NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in epreliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested tonotify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in orderthat corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.


Nos. 81-757 AND 81-970






[July 3, 1984]


Parents of black public school children allege in this nation-wide class action that the Internal Revenue Service -(IRS)has not adopted sufficient standards and procedures to fulfillits obligation to deny tax-exempt status to-racially- discrimi-natory private schools. They assert that the IRS therebyharms them directly and interferes with the ability of theirchildren to receive an education in desegregated publicschools. The issue before us is whether plaintiffs havestanding to bring this suit. We hold that they do not.

The Internal Revenue Service denies tax-exempt statusunder §§501(a) and (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26U. S. C. §§ 501(a) and (c)(3)—and hence eligibility to receivecharitable contributions deductible from income taxes under§§170(a)(1) and (c)(2) of the Code, 26 U. S. C. §§170(a)(1)and (c)(2)—to racially discriminatory private schools. Rev.

Documents

The Burger Court Opinion Writing Databasesupremecourtopinions.wustl.edu/files/opinion_pdfs/1983/...auttokingion,p. C. 2.apkg CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL June 27, 1984 Re: