time Bell Aircraft was advised by the Director of the Office of Industrial Personnel Security Review that the decision in petitioner's case was not intended to prevent him from performing such nonclassified work as the Corporation might have available for him (S. Ex. 13). On June 14, 1957 petitioner was legally free to institute suit in the District Court, for his administrative remedies were then exhausted. However, instead, on November 22, 1957, petitioner elected to again set in motion the administrative processes of the Review Regulation (20 Fed. Reg. 1553) by requesting the respondent McElroy to reverse the June 14, 1957 determination (S. Ex. 15). Prior to February 3, 1958, an investigation was instituted to obtain any additional information that might be available and of value in assisting the respondent McElroy to rule on petitioner's request of November 22, 1957 (S. Ex. 17). On April 17, 1958, the Court of Appeals decided the case of Greenc v. McElroy, 254 F. 2d 944, now pending in this Court on writ of certiorari granted October 27, 1958, No. 180, October Term, 1958. On April 24, 1958-and despite the pendency of the administrative proceedings instituted at petitioner's request-petitioner instituted his suit in the District Court. On May 30, 1958, respondent McElroy rescinded the June 14, 1957 determination and ordered further proceedings conducted under the provisions of the aforementioned Review Regulation (S. Ex. 18). On June 19, 1958, petitioner was served with an Amended Statement of Reasons (S. Ex. 23). Petitioner re plied thereto on June 25, 1958 (S. Ex. 24). Hearings thereon were held on July 11, 1958 (S., par. 30) and August 1, 1958 (S., par. 33). A final administrative determination revoking "confidential" and denying "secret" clearance to petitioner was made on October 13, 1958. On October 14, 1958, the District Court ruled that the respondents were entitled to judgment as to a matter of law under the "controlling ruling" of the Greene case, supra (Pet. App. 16-17). On October 14, 1958, petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal, and the record was docketed in the Court of Appeals on October 16, 1958. Petitioner concedes that the substantial issues involved in this case are already before this Court in Greene v. McElroy, supra, in which certiorari recently was granted (Pet. 9-12). Petitioner seeks to invoke the provisions of Rule 20 of the Rules of this Court, not because this case and its issues require immediate settlement from a standpoint of "imperative public importance," for he recognizes that the principal issue which he raises-the confrontation issue-is already before the Court for review. The justification advanced for deviating from the normal appellate processes is that the record in this case would provide a broader factual basis, when coupled with the record in Greene, for this Court's determination of the issues raised in Greene (Pet. 12). However, the petition itself demonstrates the similarity of the issues here and in Greene and the likelihood that this Court's decision in Greene will illuminate or be dispositive of the questions which would be raised here by both the petitioner and the respondents. We do not believe that this case, taken by itself, warrants the "extraordinary" action of certiorari before judgment (Hamilton Shoe Company v. Wolf Brothers, 240 U. S. 251, 258), as did the cases cited in Rule 20 of this Court's Rules. Nevertheless, we recognize that the Court has granted such petitions in cases where the same issue was already before the Court in another case. Cf. White v. Mechanics Securities Corp., 269 U. S. 283, 299; Johnson v. United States Shipping Board, 280 U. S. 320, 324-325; Graham & Foster v. Goodcell, 282 U. S. 409, 411-412, 415, n. 2; United States v. Bankers Trust Co., 294 U. S. 240, 243; Porter v. Dicken, 328 U. S. 252; Brown v. Board of Education, 344 U. S. 1, 3; Kinsella v. Krueger, 350 U. S. 986, 351 U. S. 470, 473. Accordingly, since the Greene case is already before the Court on certiorari, we do not oppose the granting of the petition in this case. We believe the Court should be informed that this case is now the subject of further review by the Departments of Defense and Justice, and within the near future administrative action thereon may be taken which could moot the case or materially alter the legal situation. In such eventuality the Court will, of course, be advised immediately. Respectfully submitted. J. LEE RANKIN, DECEMBER 1958. MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS SUGGESTING THAT THE CAUSE IS MOOT INDEX CITATIONS Cases: American Public Power Association v. Power Authority, Association of Lithuanian Workers v. Brownell, 355 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry Co. v. Dixie Carriers, Bracken v. Securities & Exchange Comm'n., 299 U. S. 504 Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216 California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. R. Co., 149 U. S. 308 Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360 Cozart v. Wilson, 352 U. S. 884 Ford v. United States, 355 U. S. 38 Garcia v. Landon, 348 U. S. 866 Greene v. McElroy, 254 F. 2d 944, certiorari granted, Gunaca v. National Labor Relations Board, 353 U. S. 902 Harris v. Battle, 348 U. S. 803 Howard v. United States, 340 U. S. 898 Jew Sing v. Barber, 350 U. S. 898 Klig v. Rogers, 355 U. S. 605 Leader v. Apex Hosiery Co., 302 U. S. 656 Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades Council v. Le Baron, 342 U. S. 802 McKay v. Clackamas County, 349 U. S. 909 Mitchell v. C. W'. Vollmer & Co., Inc., 349 U. S. 427 Montgomery Ward & Co. v. United States, 326 U. S. Cases Continued National Association for the Advancement of Colored United States v. Alaska S. S. Co., 253 U. S. 113 United States v. Amarillo-Borger Express, Inc., 352 United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U. S. 36. United States ex rel. Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629 |