Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Levy Vs. Parker

Levy vs Parker

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Aug-02-1969
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/102275

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
396 U.S. 1204
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Levy

Respondent

Parker

Excerpt

.....will continue, and applicant should be released on bail until the full court can pass on the application. mr. justice douglas. applicant has been sentenced to three years' imprisonment after conviction of one charge each for violating articles 90, 133, and 134 of the uniform code of military justice, 10 u.s.c. §§ 890, 933, 934. he has exhausted all of his military remedies, and has now filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court for the middle district of pennsylvania. he seeks release on bail pending determination of the merits. the district court, the court of appeals, and the circuit justice, mr. justice brennan, have each denied bail. this application to me therefore carries a special burden, for we very seldom grant an order that has been denied page 396 u. s. 1205 by the circuit justice. indeed, the practice is to refer such renewed application to the full conference of this court. we are now in recess, and widely scattered; hence, referral to the conference is not immediately possible. some of the problems tendered seem substantial to me. one charge on which applicant stands convicted rests on article 134, which makes a crime "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces." in o'c'allahan v. parker, 395 u. s. 258 , which the lower courts did not have before them when they denied bail, we reserved decision on whether article 134 satisfies the standards of vagueness required by due process. apart from the question of vagueness is the question of first amendment rights. while in the armed services, applicant spoke out against the war in vietnam. the extent to which first amendment rights available to civilians are not available to servicemen is a new and pressing problem. it is true that applicant's sentence will expire on august 14, 1969. but, in light of carafas v. lavallee, 391 u. s. 234 , i would not think that the running of the.....

Full Judgment

Levy v. Parker - 396 U.S. 1204 (1969)
U.S. Supreme Court Levy v. Parker, 396 U.S. 1204 (1969)

Levy v. Parker

Decided August 2, 1969

396 U.S. 1204

ON APPLICATION FOR BAIL

SYLLABUS

Application by military prisoner for release on bail pending determination on merits of habeas corpus petition filed in District Court is granted. Although bail had been denied by the lower court and the Circuit Justice, referral to the full Court is not immediately possible, since the Court is in recess and the Justices are widely scattered. There are substantial problems of whether Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which, inter alia, applicant had been convicted of violating, satisfies the standards of vagueness required by due process, and of First Amendment rights. While applicant's sentence will expire shortly, a live controversy will continue, and applicant should be released on bail until the full Court can pass on the application.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS.

Applicant has been sentenced to three years' imprisonment after conviction of one charge each for violating Articles 90, 133, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 890, 933, 934. He has exhausted all of his military remedies, and has now filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He seeks release on bail pending determination of the merits. The District Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Circuit Justice, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, have each denied bail. This application to me therefore carries a special burden, for we very seldom grant an order that has been denied

Page 396 U. S. 1205

by the Circuit Justice. Indeed, the practice is to refer such renewed application to the full Conference of this Court. We are now in recess, and widely scattered; hence, referral to the Conference is not immediately possible.

Some of the problems tendered seem substantial to me. One charge on which applicant stands convicted rests on Article 134, which makes a crime "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces." In O'C'allahan v. Parker, 395 U. S. 258 , which the lower courts did not have before them when they denied bail, we reserved decision on whether Article 134 satisfies the standards of vagueness required by due process. Apart from the question of vagueness is the question of First Amendment rights. While in the Armed services, applicant spoke out against the war in Vietnam. The extent to which First Amendment rights available to civilians are not available to servicemen is a new and pressing problem.

It is true that applicant's sentence will expire on August 14, 1969. But, in light of Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234 , I would not think that the running of the sentence would moot the petition for habeas corpus. A live controversy will continue, and I have concluded that this applicant should be released on bail until the full Court can pass on the application. For, in my view, substantial issues are presented on the merits.

The applicant, Howard B. Levy, is hereby ordered admitted to bail pending final determination of this application by the full Court when it convenes October 6, 1969.

Bail is hereby fixed in the following amount: $1,000.

Ordered this the 2d day of August, 1969.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial