*1 returning necessity of land he was due.
forced to flee to collect what was prece
In the absence a German flatly asserting
dent inapplicable, that Section 242
we will assume
inapplicability law is inherent Germany interpreted fairly in accord — Nor
ance with the intention of the Code. speculative
will diverted we be possibly realistic assessment that might an
different result have been pre question
nounced if this had been Germany
sented to a court unhappy sway land was under
regime essentially rather flouted implemented
than of law. rule foregoing it fol-
From the conclusion Guinness, swpra,
lows under Hicks v.
the reichsmarks debt was to be converted exchange.
into dollars at a rate cause reversed and remanded disposition
the District Court for in ac- opinion.
cord
So ordered. LOBBY, INC., al.,
LIBERTY et Appellants, al., Appellees.
Drew PEARSON et
No. 20690. Appeals
United States Court of
District Columbia Circuit.
Argued May 1, 1967.
DecidedDec.
As Amended Feb.
Appellant Liberty Lobby political- is a lobbying orgаnization; Appel- action or organizer lant Carto an and treasurer. Appellees Pearson and Anderson “Washing- column entitled Merry-Go-Round,” syndi- ton which is throughout cated the United The States. charges Horne, Appellee employee Liberty Lobby, while an re- copied private moved certain let- and/or and ters in a box documents Liberty Lobby file closet and published Pearson and Anderson have propose publish excerpts and from allege they Appellants these do letters. precisely papers Appel- not know what lees have. Ap District
The
Court denied
pellant’s
injunctive
motion for
pending
exercising
In
discre
trial.
grant
preliminary
tion to
or withhold a
injunction,1
Judge
2the
con
must
petitioner’s prospect
sider
of success
weigh
on
merits and
interests of
parties
public.2
and the
review
Our
Judge’s
of the District
decision is limit
ed, Maas,
supra
1;
Perry
see
also
note
Perry,
U.S.App.D.C. 837,
F.2d
(1951).
Washing-
Harvey
Bolton, Jr.,
Mr.
B.
Judge
injunc-
The District
denied the
ton,
C.,
appellants.
D.
Appellants
tion.
their
constructed
Donovan, Washington,
Mr.
C.,
John
D.
appeal
challenge
on a
to the District
appellees.
Appellants’
rights
Court’s
view
Wright
argue
privacy
Burger,
Before
and
and
and
Tamm,
Judges.
rights
support
Circuit
injunction
these
against
press,
private
even
wherе
Judge.
BURGER, Circuit
papers
illegally acquired,
of-
without
fending the First Amendment.
appeal
This is an
from the District
preliminary
injunc-
Court’s denial of a
Amendment,
The First
sought
Appellants
prohibit
tion
course, protects
expression
the free
and
publication [by Appel-
“dissemination or
exchange
regardless
ideas
information,
letters,
lee]
or documents
impera
merit because this
considered
illegally
unlawfully
removed and/or
tive to
mat
and “robust debate” on
plaintiffs.”
the files of
Any
ters of
interest.3
claim which
injunction
sought
preliminary
was
prior
seeks
restraint
bears
disposition
pending
Appellant’s
suit
heavy
validity
burden.
injunction
damages.
permanent
for a
depends
such claim
on a balance of the
States,
U.S.App.D.C.
1. Maas v. United
York
New
Times v.
251, 254-255,
F.2d
351-352
254, 269-270,
710, 11
L.Ed.2d
(1966).
Virginia
Petroleum Jоbbers
v. F.
Ass’n.
C.,
U.S.App.D.C. 106,
P.
F.2d
pleadings
sought
protected
and evidence. Their
to be
interests
complaint alleges
employee,
against
injury
one
free ut-
that an
limitation
Jeremy Horn,
duty
in breach of
terance.4
Appellants’
rights,
reproduced
private
expression
While
copies to others
documents and delivered
*3
absolute,
bal
not
is
and
including
Appellees
will
who
always weighted in
of free
favor
ance is
making copies of
Horne admits
them.
is
for error
expression5
and tolerance
and documents which
various
protected
afforded;
some utterances
custody
employee of
in his
merit or truth but
of their
not because
Lobby including pub-
Appellant Liberty
free,
society
to
elects
because a
by
Lobby
sponsored
Liberty
and
lications
keep expression
risks to
take calculated
Lobby.
of
income tax returns
uninhibited.6
depositions
pre-trial
Horne testified in
gave copies
papers
of these
and
he
that
express purposes
and
to
later
incomе tax returns
the F.B.I. and
Liberty Lobby—
admitted activities of
testimony
Appellees.
was that
to
His
political
lobbying and dissemination
of
property these
not
whose
did
know
he
subj
highly
controversial
were;
vari-
papers
refused to answer
he
of
7—render
a
its affairs
matter
ects
precise
of
questions
nature
as to
ous
public
“lobby
term
interest.
While
owned
or who
the documents he
with invidious
ist” has become encrusted
pursue
Appellants
papers.
did not
these
connotations,
group
every person оr
en
interrogation
judicial power
or seek
been,
gaged,
allegedly
in
as this one
compel answers.
to
Congressional
trying
persuade
action
to
right
exercising
Amendment
the First
showing
Upon
proper
the wide
a
petition.
of
Like other Constitutional
might
sweep
Amendment
the First
of
right
subject
rights,
petition
to
pri
conceivably yield
of
invasion
to an
vigilant press
to
and misuse and
abuse
prop
rights of
deprivation
vacy
of
and
expose
public
to
abuses
view.
manuscripts.
But
erty
private
in
clear
case;
no
here there is
not this
Appellants
this court
contend in
ownership
showing
as to
presents
not
case
considerations
taking
papers
unlawful
or of an
private
by
hold-
controlled
First Amendment
any
Appellees
showing
had
no
argue
ings. They
does not
this case
papers or
these
of
part
the removal
in
expression
of
ideas
free
involve
Appellants or
copies from
offices
illegally
papers
private
rather
use
receiving
them
any
other than
act
rights
рrivacy
in
taken
violation
pos
claim
person
a colorable
property.
session.
question here, however,
is wheth-
Appellants
er
have
out
made
such a case
Affirmed.
g.,
Publishing
4.
Butts,
398,
E.
Time,
Hill,
Curtis
Co. v.
388
in
Inc. v.