Virginia Military Institute v. United States
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Faulkner v. Jones (4th Cir. 1995)
- Faulkner v. Jones (4th Cir. 1995)
- Faulkner v. Jones (4th Cir. 1994)
- Faulkner v. Jones (4th Cir. 1994)
- Faulkner v. Jones (4th Cir. 1993)
- Faulkner v. Jones (4th Cir. 1993)
- Faulkner v. Jones (4th Cir. 1995)
- Faulkner v. Jones (4th Cir. 1995)
- Home Savings of America v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2005)
- United States v. Robert Anthony Studevent (D.C. Cir. 1997)
- United States v. Mark Albritton (D.C. Cir. 1996)
- United States v. Oscar Anderson, Jr. (D.C. Cir. 1996)
- Gary Graham v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (5th Cir. 1996)
- United States v. Raymond Watson, Jr., in Re Sealed Case (D.C. Cir. 1995)
- West v. Virginia Department of Corrections (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1994)
- State Ex Rel. Holmes v. Honorable Court of Appeals for the Third District (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)
- Gary Graham, Now Known as Shaka Sankofa v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (5th Cir. 1999)
- Graham v. Johnson (District Court, S.D. Texas 1999)
- United States v. Dennis L. Mitchell, United States of America v. Paul B. Campbell, A/K/A Soup (D.C. Cir. 1995)
- Franklin v. Kyle (Tex. App. 1995)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Opinion of
respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari.
Whether it is constitutional for a State to have a men-only military school is an issue that should receive the attention of this Court before, rather than after, a national institution as venerable as the Virginia Military Institute is compelled to transform itself. This present petition, however, seeks our intervention before the litigation below has come to final judgment. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment that had been entered in favor of petitioners, and remanded the case to the District Court for determination of an appropriate remedy. It expressly declined to rule on the “specific remedial course that the Commonwealth should or must follow hereafter,” and suggested permissible remedies other than compelling the Virginia Military Institute to abandon its current admissions policy. United States v. Virginia, 976 F. 2d 890, 900 (CA4 1992).
We generally await final judgment in the lower courts before exercising our certiorari jurisdiction. See, e. g., American Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 384 (1893); Locomotive Firemen v. Bangor & Aroostook R. Co., 389 U. S. 327, 328 (1967) (per curiam); see generally R. Stern, E. Gressman, & S. Shapiro, Supreme Court Practice §4.18, pp. 224-226 (6th ed. 1986). I think it prudent to take that course here. Our action does not, of course, preclude VMI from raising the same issues in a later petition, after final judgment has been rendered. See, e.g., Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers & Co., 240 U. S. 251, 257-259 (1916); Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 409 U. S. 363, 365-366, n. 1 (1973); Stern, Gressman, & Shapiro, supra, §4.18, at 226; 17 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §4036, p. 32 (2d ed. 1988).
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.