REPORTER'S NOTE The next page is purposely numbered 901. The numbers between 845 and 901 were intentionally omitted, in order to make it possible to publish the orders in the current preliminary print of the United States Reports with permanent page numbers, thus making the official citations immediately available. ORDERS OF JUNE 26 THROUGH JUNE 29, 1972 Affirmed on Appeal JUNE 26, 1972 No. 70-143. SHAMES ET AL. v. NEBRASKA ET AL. Appeal from D. C. Neb. Judgment affirmed. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS Would note probable jurisdiction. Reported below: 323 F. Supp. 1321. Appeals Dismissed No. 71-1063. CAREY V. ELROD ET AL. Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS would note probable jurisdiction. Reported below: 49 Ill. 2d 464, 275 N. E. 2d 367. No. 71-1093. WESTENT, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS would note probable jurisdiction. No. 71-5302. CAULK ET UX. V. NICHOLS, JUDGE. Appeal from Sup. Ct. Del. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS would note probable jurisdiction. Reported below: 281 A. 2d 24. Vacated and Remanded on Appeal Del. No. 71-1044. ROSENFELD v. NEW JERSEY. Appeal from Super. Ct. N. J. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Cohen v. Cali 901 BURGER, C. J., dissenting 408 U.S. fornia, 403 U. S. 15 (1971), and Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972). Reported below: See 59 N. J. 435, 283 A. 2d 535. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, dissenting.* I am constrained to express my profound disagreement with what the Court does in these three cases on the basis of Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972). The important underlying aspect of these cases goes really to the function of law in preserving ordered liberty. Civilized people refrain from "taking the law into their own hands" because of a belief that the government, as their agent, will take care of the problem in an organized, orderly way with as nearly a uniform response as human skills can manage. History is replete with evidence of what happens when the law cannot or does not provide a collective response for conduct so widely regarded as impermissible and intolerable. It is barely a century since men in parts of this country carried guns constantly because the law did not afford protection. In that setting, the words used in these cases, if directed toward such an armed civilian, could well have led to death or serious bodily injury. When we undermine the general belief that the law will give protection against fighting words and profane and abusive language such as the utterances involved in these cases, we take steps to return to the law of the jungle. These three cases, like Gooding, are small but symptomatic steps. If continued, this permissiveness will tend further to erode public confidence in the law-that subtle but indispensable ingredient of ordered liberty. *[This opinion applies also to No. 70-5323, Lewis v. City of New Orleans, post, p. 913, and No. 71-6535, Brown v. Oklahoma, post, p. 914.] |