## Facts

- Nevada enacted a 1977 statute placing a question on the November 1978 ballot asking voters whether the Nevada Legislature should ratify the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).
- The statute expressly provided that the vote would be nonbinding and would impose no legal requirement on the legislature or its members.
- Isaac Kimble and other Nevada voters sued state officials to block the ballot question, arguing that involving the electorate in ratification violated Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
- A Nevada trial court denied relief; the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed (4–1), holding that Article V did not bar a nonbinding advisory referendum.
- The challengers sought Supreme Court review and applied to Justice Rehnquist (as Circuit Justice) for emergency relief, requesting (1) “summary reversal” or, alternatively, (2) an injunction preventing the question from appearing on the ballot or requiring ballots to be impounded and counting deferred pending Supreme Court action.

## Issues

1. Whether a single Supreme Court Justice, acting as Circuit Justice, has authority to “summarily reverse” a state supreme court judgment.
2. Whether interim injunctive relief should issue to block or delay a nonbinding advisory referendum alleged to violate Article V, pending potential full Court review.

## Decision

- The application was denied.
- A single Justice lacks authority to “summarily reverse” a state supreme court judgment; the Circuit Justice’s role is limited to interim relief to preserve the full Court’s jurisdiction.
- Interim relief was unwarranted because it was “very remote” that four Justices would vote to note probable jurisdiction on the appeal.
- Given the low likelihood of full Court review, the Circuit Justice did not reach the applicants’ irreparable-injury arguments.

## Legal Principles

- A single Circuit Justice may grant interim relief only to preserve the Supreme Court’s potential jurisdiction, not to decide the merits by reversing a state court judgment.
- In evaluating emergency relief pending appeal, the likelihood that the full Court will take the case is a central consideration; if that likelihood is very low, extraordinary interim relief is ordinarily denied.
- A state’s use of a purely advisory, nonbinding referendum concerning a proposed federal constitutional amendment is less likely to present a substantial Article V question when the legislature remains legally free to ratify or reject regardless of the vote.

## Conclusion

Justice Rehnquist, acting in chambers, denied emergency relief against Nevada’s nonbinding advisory ERA ballot question, holding that a single Justice cannot summarily reverse a state court judgment and concluding that interim relief was not justified because full Court review was unlikely.


Kimble v. Swackhamer, 439 U.S. 1385 (1978)