for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution." Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S., at 491. In these circumstances it is difficult to see what hazards to federal rights are posed by requiring one to follow orderly proceedings in the state courts. Numerous cases establish that the possible invalidity of a statute, or the imminence of a prosecution under it, itself will not suffice to warrant intervention. Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 214; Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U. S. 240; Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89; Beal v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 312 U. S. 45; Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157. Dombrowski v. Pfister is not to the contrary. It is obvious, however, that several of my Brethren find more guidance in Dombrowski than I do and more than I think a district judge can find in either that case or this unrevealing per curiam remand, which ignores the differences between this case and Dombrowski. The issues are important and of immediate concern and I would note probable jurisdiction and set this case down for argument." 2 As the Court recognizes, the question whether § 2283 bars an injunction in suits brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1958 ed.) is an open one; I think that the presence of that issue is a further reason why a per curiam remand is inappropriate. 381 U.S. June 7, 1965. CALIFORNIA v. HURST. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 45. Decided June 7, 1965. Certiorari granted and judgment reversed. Reported below: 325 F. 2d 891. Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, and Edsel W. Haws, Deputy Attorney General, for petitioner. PER CURIAM. The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed. Linkletter v. Walker, ante, p. 618. MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinion in Linkletter v. Walker, ante, at 640. REDMOND v. VIRGINIA. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. No. 1082. Decided June 7, 1965. Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. John Alvin Croghan for appellant. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. ASSOCIATED FOOD RETAILERS OF GREATER CHICAGO, INC., ET AL. v. JEWEL TEA CO., INC. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 321. Decided June 7, 1965. Certiorari granted and judgment reversed. Reported below: 331 F. 2d 547. Eugene Kart for petitioners. George B. Christensen, Fred H. Daugherty, Theodore A. Groenke and Samuel Weisbard for respondent. Solicitor General Cox for the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of the petition. PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment below is reversed. Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea, ante, p. 676. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, MR. JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG concur in the judgment of the Court for the reasons stated in MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG's opinion in United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington and Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea, ante, at 697. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE CLARK dissent. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION v. PAN ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. No. 1024. Decided June 7, 1965.* Certiorari granted and judgment reversed. Reported below: 339 F. 2d 694. Solicitor General Cox, Richard A. Solomon, Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Robert L. Russell and Peter H. Schiff for petitioner in No. 1024. Herbert E. Squires and Joseph C. Bruno for petitioner in No. 1025. J. P. Hammond, William J. Grove and Carroll L. Gilliam for respondent in both cases. PER CURIAM. The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted and the judgment is reversed. United Gas Improvement Co. v. Continental Oil Co., and Federal Power Comm'n v. Marr, ante, p. 392. *Together with No. 1025, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pan American Petroleum Corp., also on petition for writ of certiorari to the same court. 381 U.S. June 7, 1965. KNOWLES v. FLORIDA. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. No. 884, Misc. Decided June 7, 1965. Certiorari granted and judgment reversed. Petitioner pro se. Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and George R. Georgieff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment dismissing the appeal is reversed. Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, 437-440. Cf. Lane v. Brown, 372 U. S. 477; Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353. MR. JUSTICE STEWART would deny certiorari. MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissent. |