InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Gunn, Sheriff, et al. v. University Committee to End the War in Vietnam et al.

The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 because the District Court had issued neither an injunction nor an order granting or denying one.· AI-written

399 U.S. 383 · No. 7 · 1969 term · Burger Court

Decided Jun 29, 1970 · argued Jan 13, 1969, reargued Apr 29, 1970

Judicial power · Judicial administration: Supreme Court jurisdiction or authority on appeal or writ of error, from federal district courts or courts of appeals

Majority opinion: Potter Stewart

The voteMajority

8–08 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

Petition denied or appeal dismissed. Gunn, Sheriff, et al. lost.

What this ruling means

Dismissed: after hearing the case the Supreme Court declined to decide it, so the decision of the Texas Western U.S. District Court stands.

Gunn, Sheriff, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Gunn v. University Committee to End the War in Viet Nam, 399 U.S. 383 (1970), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court that since the District Court has issued neither an injunction nor an order granting or denying one, Supreme Court has no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, which provides for review of orders granting or denying interlocutory or permanent injunctions.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1969 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasMarshallBrennanBlackWhiteStewartHarlanBurger

Majority(8)

Dissent(0)

  • None.

Did not take part: Harry Blackmun.

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Gunn, Sheriff, et al.Governmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact (Texas)
Respondent
University Committee to End the War in Vietnam et al.Protester, demonstrator, picketer or pamphleteer (non-employment related), or non-indigent loiterer
Reached the Court by
Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
28 U.S.C. § 1253
Kind of law
Infrequently litigated statutes
Decided by
Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction; Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 29, 1970DecidedDecided · Decided 8–0: petition denied or appeal dismissed. Gunn, Sheriff, et al. lost.
  2. Apr 29, 1970RearguedReargued · The Court heard the case argued a second time.
  3. Jan 13, 1969ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  4. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  5. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the Texas Western U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

23 other argued cases since 1946 on judicial administration: Supreme Court jurisdiction or authority on appeal or writ of error, from federal district courts or courts of appeals, newest first.

  1. Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., dba Conagra Refrigerated Foods546 U.S. 394Jan 23, 2006 · 546 U.S. 394Judicial power7–27–2 band
  2. Charles Quackenbush, California Insurance Commissioner, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company517 U.S. 706Jun 3, 1996 · 517 U.S. 706Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  3. U. S. Bancorp Mortgage Company v. Bonner Mall Partnership513 U.S. 18Nov 8, 1994 · 513 U.S. 18Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  4. Republic National Bank of Miami v. United States506 U.S. 80Dec 14, 1992 · 506 U.S. 80Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  5. Escambia County, Florida, et al. v. McMillan et al.466 U.S. 48Mar 27, 1984 · 466 U.S. 48Judicial power8–18–1 band
  6. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Edwards465 U.S. 870Mar 21, 1984 · 465 U.S. 870Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  7. Silkwood, Administrator of the Estate of Silkwood v. Kerr-Mcgee Corp. et al.464 U.S. 238Jan 11, 1984 · 464 U.S. 238Judicial power5–45–4 band
  8. MTM, Inc., et al. v. Baxley, Attorney General of Alabama, et al.420 U.S. 799Mar 25, 1975 · 420 U.S. 799Judicial power8–18–1 band
  9. Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union et al.419 U.S. 90Dec 10, 1974 · 419 U.S. 90Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  10. Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. New Left Education Project et al.404 U.S. 541Jan 24, 1972 · 404 U.S. 541Judicial power6–18–1 band
  11. United States v. Ryan402 U.S. 530May 24, 1971 · 402 U.S. 530Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  12. Utah Public Service Commission v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. et al.395 U.S. 464Jun 16, 1969 · 395 U.S. 464Judicial power4–27–2 band
  13. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers et al. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. et al.382 U.S. 423Jan 31, 1966 · 382 U.S. 423Judicial power7–18–1 band
  14. Swift & Co., Inc., et al. v. Wickham, Commissioner of Agriculture & Markets of New York382 U.S. 111Nov 22, 1965 · 382 U.S. 111Judicial power6–36–3 band
  15. United States v. Georgia Public Service Commission371 U.S. 285Jan 14, 1963 · 371 U.S. 285Judicial power6–36–3 band
  16. Paul, Director of Agriculture of California, et al. v. United States371 U.S. 245Jan 14, 1963 · 371 U.S. 245Judicial power6–36–3 band
  17. Rohr Aircraft Corp. v. County of San Diego et al.362 U.S. 628May 23, 1960 · 362 U.S. 628Judicial power7–27–2 band
  18. Florida Lime and Avocado Growers, Inc., et al. v. Jacobsen, Director of the Department of Agriculture of California, et al.362 U.S. 73Mar 7, 1960 · 362 U.S. 73Judicial power7–27–2 band

  19. Spevack v. Strauss et al.359 U.S. 115Mar 23, 1959 · 359 U.S. 115Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  20. Griffin v. United States336 U.S. 704Apr 25, 1949 · 336 U.S. 704Judicial power5–45–4 band
  21. Stainback, Governor of the Territory of Hawaii, et al. v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, an Eleemosynary Corporation, et al.336 U.S. 368Mar 14, 1949 · 336 U.S. 368Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  22. Fleming, Temporary Controls Administrator, v. Rhodes, Sheriff, et al.331 U.S. 100Apr 28, 1947 · 331 U.S. 100Judicial power8–18–1 band
  23. United Public Workers of America (C. I. O.) et al. v. Mitchell et al.330 U.S. 75Feb 10, 1947 · 330 U.S. 75Judicial power4–36–3 band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.