Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
Rejects constitutional and international-law challenges to Selective Service prosecutions and enforces labor-election statutes against unions, showing willingness to uphold federal authority. United States v. Vargas ↗ Brennan v. Sindicato Empleados D… ↗
Reconsideration watch
Decisions resting on authority a higher court later overturned
This case involves a claimant's request for judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare's denial of disability insurance benefits, based on a work-related back injury requiring surgery along with subsequent physical and mental impairments that allegedly prevented substantial gainful activity. The court decided to remand the case to the Secretary for further administrative proceedings rather than affirming or reversing the denial outright. The core reasoning was that the Secretary's determination lacked substantial evidence, as it did not sufficiently evaluate the claimant's subjective symptoms in light of objective medical data, account for his age, limited education, and history of only arduous manual labor, or establish the realistic availability of suitable alternative employment.
In this 1973 case, Tomás R. Gómez, Jr. petitioned the court to be released from a 1967 undertaking, approved in 1968, in which he agreed with the SEC not to serve as an officer, director, or in related roles for certain registered securities entities including Puerto Rico Capital Corporation. The SEC opposed the petition but noted it would not have done so if filed in 1977. After a hearing with testimony, the court granted the petition, finding that Gómez had complied with the undertaking for over six years, had no intention of returning to the securities business, was not involved with the now-defunct corporation, and that continued enforcement was causing him psychological harm and hindering his current business activities in unrelated corporations. The court applied equitable principles similar to those for dissolving injunctions, noting comparable consent decrees with time limits and concluding there was no harm to the SEC or the investing public in releasing him.
The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Gamaliel Pérez Aldarondo, who was in custody after a Puerto Rico narcotics conviction for marijuana offenses and sought bail pending appeal. He claimed the Commonwealth Supreme Court's denial of bail without stated reasons violated equal protection and due process, initially framing the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but later seeking relief via habeas corpus, mandamus, or related writs against the warden and several justices. The court determined the matter was properly a habeas corpus proceeding under Preiser v. Rodriguez, requiring exhaustion of state remedies, and that the federal claims had not been adequately presented to the Commonwealth courts. It dismissed the petition as to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court justices because they were improper parties and stayed the remainder against the warden until the state court ruled on the petitioner's pending motion requesting a statement of reasons, citing principles of comity and the need for full exhaustion.
This case involves a suit by the U.S. Secretary of Labor against a local union in Puerto Rico under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, seeking to compel the union to hold officer elections by secret ballot at least every three years as required by the statute. The union moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Congress lacked authority to apply the Act to Puerto Rico because it contravened the 1952 compact granting the island commonwealth status. The court denied the motion, holding that the Act applies in Puerto Rico. Its reasoning rested on the Federal Relations Act's provision that U.S. statutory laws not locally inapplicable have the same effect in Puerto Rico as in the states, the historical applicability of the related Taft-Hartley Act, and the view that the 1959 statute was a permissible extension rather than new legislation outside the scope of the compact.
The case involved residents of Buena Vista and Ortiz Wards in Bayamón suing the municipality's mayor and dump operator under the Civil Rights Act, alleging that the municipal landfill was contaminating their nearby springs and wells through leachate from garbage placed over a permeable rock formation with natural springs. After extensive evidentiary hearings, water testing by multiple agencies, and site inspections, the court made detailed findings of fact establishing that the dump site sat atop an area with high groundwater permeability and an interconnected spring line, resulting in foul, turbid discharge into the creek and elevated levels of contaminants like lead, mercury, and nitrates in the plaintiffs' water sources. The court concluded that these conditions violated Commonwealth environmental statutes and municipal ordinances, and that expert testimony confirmed the site was unsuitable for a landfill, requiring relocation to prevent ongoing harm to the adjacent properties and water supplies. The parties had stipulated that the evidence would determine both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, with damages reserved for later proceedings.
The case involves a claim for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act by a construction worker who injured his back in 1970 and was diagnosed with a herniated lumbar disc at L5-S1. The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare denied benefits after finding that the claimant was not disabled as of the date he last met insured status requirements. The court reviewed the administrative record and determined that the examining physician's assessment was incomplete because it omitted standard tests for nerve root compression and herniated disc symptoms, while also failing to adequately account for the claimant's subjective reports of pain. The court therefore remanded the case to the Secretary for further findings consistent with its opinion.
