United States v. Powell

PETITIONER: United States
RESPONDENT: Powell
LOCATION: North Carolina State Capitol

DOCKET NO.: 74-884
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

CITATION: 423 US 87 (1975)
ARGUED: Oct 06, 1975
DECIDED: Dec 02, 1975

ADVOCATES:
Frank H. Easterbrook - for petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court
Jerry J. Moberg - for respondent, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court

Facts of the case

Question

Media for United States v. Powell

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 06, 1975 in United States v. Powell

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - December 02, 1975 in United States v. Powell

Warren E. Burger:

Mr. Justice Rehnquist has the opinion for the Court to announce in 74-884, United States against Powell.

William H. Rehnquist:

This case comes to us from the Eastern District of Washington where the respondent, one Josephine Powell, was convicted of mailing a firearm capable of being concealed on the person to with a sawed-off shotgun in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 1715.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed her conviction on the ground that this act of Congress was unconstitutionally vague.

In an opinion filed today with the clerk, we conclude that the statute of Congress was not unconstitutionally vague and we, therefore, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Potter Stewart:

I should just say that I have filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

William H. Rehnquist:

I should have said that.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you Mr. Justice Rehnquist, Mr. Justice Powell.