*1 January 15, No. 77-1688. Symm, Tax Assessor-Collector of Waller County, Texas v. United States et al. Affirmed from D. C. S. D. Tex. Mr. Justice Blackmun would note probable jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Powell would dismiss appeal for want properly a presented question.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, with whom The Justice Chief joins, dissenting.
Today the Court summarily judgment affirms the of a three-judge District Court enjoining appellant Symm, the Tax Assessor-Collector and ex officio voting registrar of Waller County, Tex., using a certain designed to aid in determining persons whether registering to vote in Waller County are bona fide residents. Because I believe the three-judge District Court mistakenly jurisdic- exercised tion over Symm, dissent.
Waller County, a small rural county west Houston, has population of approximately 15,000, slight majority of which is Negro. Prairie View A & M University is a state- supported, predominately black university located in Waller County. Appellant Symm is responsible for registering voters in the county. Persons personally known or his deputies as county residents, as well as persons who listed are on the tax rolls as owning property in Waller are County, routinely registered upon filling out registration the state form. Those who fall within neither of categories these are required to complete a residency questionnaire, which asks whether the applicant college student if and, so, inquires into the student’s home address, property ownership, employ- ment status, future plans, and so forth.1 undersigned, “The request at the Registrar County, Waller answers questions the following support application of the of the under- of the General Attorney October On 1976, County, Symm, *2 filed States Attorney Gen- and Secretary of State its and Texas, State Prairie denied use that alleging eral, C. U. S. 42 in violation vote to right students View Four- 1973bb, and (d), 1973j (c), 1971 (a), 1971 Pur- Amendments. Twenty-sixth Fifteenth, teenth, United (a)(2),2 1973bb § to 42 suant request Court. three-judge a convene to moved States’ the United predicated was court three-judge for a violations alleged remedy to injunctive for claim a granted, was motion Amendment. Twenty-sixth Deputy aas appointment for or certificate registration a voter for signed may be: case Registrary, as address:. your name type or print “Please you school?.... attend so, do where If college student?. you a Are school? at such a student you been long have How . college?. in you while live do Where . In Waller in you Texas?. lived long have How . County in- reside Waller to you intend Do County?. abe yourself you considered long have definitely?.How plan you do County?.What resident bona fide a you have college education?.Do your you finish when do or other any home County?.Own in Waller position job or registered automobile Have an County?. in Waller property listing Waller telephone Have a County?. in Waller County some Waller Church, or Club Belong County?. so, please name If college related?. than other Organization . them: ?. in session college when you live do Where with address your home is listed address What . any information other Give college?. helpful.” might be which have shall of the courts “The district and deter heard shall 1973bb], instituted [§ proceedings section with judges accordance of three court mined U. S. Court.” Supreme to the lie shall any appeal 28, and title (a) (2). three-judge District Court was convened. The District found registration practices violated Twenty- sixth Amendment and permanently enjoined him from, among other things, using questionnaire. Symm appeals from that judgment.
The effect of an injunction against allegedly discriminatory voting practices in one small county in Texas is of no earth- shaking importance, and the District Court may have been justified in concluding that the appellant registrar violated rights guaranteed to Prairie View students under Twenty- sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. If the case were here, therefore, on petition for certiorari and fell *3 within our discretionary I jurisdiction, would have no hesita- tion in voting to deny certiorari.
But this case is here on
direct
from the decision of
a three-judge District Court. And since we are obligated to
decide the merits of cases which Congress allows
party
to
bring
by
here
appeal, regardless of their
importance,
think
we are bound to examine on our own motion
jurisdiction
the
of the federal court from which the appeal comes. See
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wetzel,
Section 1937bb directs the Attorney General “to institute,
in the name of the United States, such
against
actions
or political subdivisions, including actions for injunctive relief,
as he may determine to be necessary to implement
the
twenty-sixth article of amendment
to the Constitution of the
United States.”
42 U.
C.
S.
§ 1973bb (a) (1)
(emphasis
added). Suits brought under the statute “shall be heard and
by
determined
of
court
three judges ...
.” §
(a)
1973bb
(2).
The section unambiguously limits the Attorney General’s
authority to bringing actions against States
political
sub-
divisions. Although the United States brought
this suit
against
the State of Texas and Waller County as well as
named individual officials, the District Court’s injunction runs
only against Symm personally.
Indeed,
the District Court
the
. .
to .
respect
“with
grant
to
refused
specifically
County.”
and Waller
Texas,
of
State
S.
Doyle,
U.
v.
Education
Board
City
Healthy
In Mt.
of
jurisdic
between
distinguished
(1977),
274, 278-279
federal-
catchall
“the
1331,
§
S. C.
28 U.
under
asserted
tion
contro
$10,000 in
excess
requiring
provision
question
U. S.
under
jurisdiction
279,
atS.,U.
versy,” 429
require
technical
the
only that
requires
which
1343,
§
parties
against
suit
but
met
be
jurisdiction
ments
provisions
cognate
under
authorized
defendants
named
pro
language
1983.
§C.
42 U. S.
creates
very statute
part
being
here,
vision
conclu
require
to
seem
would
action,
cause
substantive
it
1343 than
§C.S.
28 U.
akin
more
1973bb
§
sion that
courts
three-judge
jurisdiction
1331.
§
28 U. S. C.
tois
limited,
Twenty-sixth
is thus
1973bb
convened
Attorney General
by
brought
claims
Amendment
polit
the statute —States
named
defendant
parties
category,
neither
within
Symm falls
Since
ical subdivisions.
using
him
enjoin
Court’s
did
Nor
(a)(2).
§on
be based
cannot
an
furnish
invoked
statutes
the other
for
basis
independent
See
Symm.
Government’s
*4
1973j (d).
(d),
1971
42
2201;
juris-
of
statutory basis
of a
absence
it is
however, for
matter,
end
not
Symm does
over
diction
injunction
its
based
District
that
conceivable
of
concept
hybrid
unarticulated,
some
also
issue
of
Resolution
jurisdiction.3
pendent-party
despite
exercise,
Court's
suggested
possibility
This
jurisdiction”
“pendent
States, of
appellee United
objection of
State,
Secretary of
Texas
against the
cross-claim
appellant
Texas
authority under
Secretary lacked
charged that
residency questionnaire.
use of the
prohibit
law
requires reference to § 1973bb since under cases such as
Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U. S. 1, 14 (1976), and Owen
Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger,
reach of the statute conferring jurisdiction should be con-
strued in light of the
scope
the cause of action as to which
federal
judicial power has been extended by Congress.”
S.,U.
at 17 (emphasis in original). Petitioner, who was
discharged from her job as a county employee, brought a
§ 1983 civil rights claim against county officials and a state-
law claim against
the county itself. Because Congress had
excluded municipal corporations such as counties from the
class
“person
[s]” suable under § 1983,4 and therefore
from the corresponding grant
in § 1343 (3),
we held that “where the asserted basis of
over a municipal corporation is not diversity of citizenship,
but is a claim jurisdiction
pendent to a suit brought against
a municipal officer within § 1343, the refusal
Congress
authorize suits against municipal corporations under the cog-
provisions
nate
of § 1983 is sufficient to defeat the asserted
claim of pendent-party jurisdiction.”
Services,
In this under wrong demonstrably be would Symm over tion by created action civil Owen, supra. and supra, Aldinger, against brought suits limited plainly is grant special Accordingly, subdivisions. political and is statute contained invoked statutes other similarly limited. three- basis independent no provide the United by Court District Since Symm. judge-court readily attributed quite have my opinion, could, stat- party County, to Waller registrar voting as actions a de- named in fact and named be authorized utorily and Symm against judgment reverse would fendant, proceedings for further Court District the case remand ordered relief injunctive county. While against Owen, and supra, Aldinger, contrary to is against if County, relief injunctive supra, fully au- would appropriate, is such decides right vindicating the efficacious equally and thorized I would relief, of such In the absence students. View Prairie bring an could any student think very may seem all analysis This §1343. S. 28 U. on here case since but “technical,” “legalistic” question to examine choice but no we have appeal, direct I believe examination, Upon such jurisdiction. reversal require Owen, supra, Aldinger, supra, Court. the District entered judgment et al. Bailey Judge, Hargrove, et al. v. 78-523. No. Mr. Justice M. D. Ga. D. C. from appeal on Affirmed dissent. Marshall Mr. Justice Brennan Af- Holloway et al. Judge, Wise, al. v. et No. 78-821. D. Ga. C. M. D. firmed