In the Matter of Harriet Bouslog Sawyer, Also Known as Harriet Bouslog, an Attorney at Law

256 F.2d 553 In the Matter of Harriet Bouslog SAWYER, also known as Harriet Bouslog, an Attorney at Law, Appellant. No. 15109. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. May 23, 1956, Dissenting Opinion May 25, 1956. John T. McTernan, Los Angeles, Cal., Myer C. Symonds, Honolulu, Hawaii, A. L. Wirin, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. A. William Barlow, U.S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, Edward N. Sylva, Atty. Gen., Territory of Hawaii, Morio Omori, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Territory of Hawaii, for appellee. Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and POPE and LEMMON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellant, ordered suspended from practicing law for one year by the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii, has appealed to this court and now seeks an order staying the order of suspension pending her appeal here. 2 Opposing the motion, the Territory, and the Bar Association of Hawaii, which prosecuted the proceedings in the Hawaiian Court, argue that we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 3 A justiciable contention is here made that we have jurisdiction, both because there is the requisite value in controversy incidental to the order appealed from, 1 and because appellant asserts the…

(dissenting).

I find myself unable to agree with my colleagues regarding the proper disposition of this motion.

Our jurisdiction over appeals from final decisions of-the Supreme Court of Hawaii is strictly limited by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1293 . That jurisdiction embraces appeals in three types of cases:

1. “Cases involving the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States or any authority exercised thereunder.”

2. “Habeas corpus proceedings.”

3. “All other civil cases where the value in controversy exceeds |5,-000, exclusive of interest and costs.”

Since this is not a habeas corpus proceeding, we need consider only groups 1 and 3.

1. This Case Does Not Involve Any Rights Protected, by “the Constitution, Laws or Treaties of the United States,” etc.

The right to practice law before a state or territorial court is not protected by the Constitution of the United States. In Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 1873, 16 Wall. 130, 138-139 , 83 U.S. 130, 138-139 , 21 L.Ed. 442 , the Court said:

See, also, In re Lockwood, 1894, 154 U.S. 116, 117 , 14 S.Ct. 1082 , 38 L.Ed. 929 ; Mitchell v. Greenough, 9 Cir., 1938, 100 F.2d 184, 185 , and the cases there cited, certiorari denied 1939,…

Appellant, ordered suspended from practicing law for one year by the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii, has appealed to this court and now seeks an order staying the order of suspension pending her appeal here.

Opposing the motion, the Territory, and the Bar Association of Hawaii, which prosecuted the proceedings in the Hawaiian Court, argue that we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

A justiciable contention is here made that we have jurisdiction, both because there is the requisite value in controversy incidental to the order appealed *554 from, 1 and because appellant asserts the order operates to infringe her rights under the First Amendment; Cf. Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, 350 U.S. 551 , 76 S.Ct. 637 , 100 L.Ed. 692 .

Without expressing any views as to the merits of the appeal, we deem it a justiciable question whether the right to exercise the privilege of practicing law may be terminated because of statements which are protected as constitutional rights. Cf. Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 , 75 S.Ct. 215 , 97 L.Ed. 216 . Since appellant “has a fair question to raise as to the existence of such a right”, as she claims here (American…