## Facts

- Evelyn Rice purchased a cemetery lot under a contract granting a “right of sepulture” but containing a clause limiting burial privileges to members of the Caucasian race.
- After funeral services, the cemetery refused to bury Rice’s husband, a Winnebago Indian, allegedly causing Rice mental suffering.
- Rice sued in Iowa state court for damages for breach of contract, alleging the racial restriction was void under the Iowa and U.S. Constitutions and, by amendment, invoking the United Nations Charter.
- The cemetery relied on the racial restriction as a defense.
- The Iowa trial court ruled the clause was unconstitutional and unenforceable if used affirmatively, but held the cemetery could invoke it defensively without triggering state or federal action under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments; it rejected the UN Charter theory and dismissed the case.
- The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed, concluding that constitutional doctrines concerning judicial enforcement of racial restrictions did not require disregarding the clause when used as a defense.
- The U.S. Supreme Court initially affirmed by an equally divided Court.
- Before the rehearing petition was resolved, Iowa enacted a statute preventing the underlying controversy from recurring in Iowa, though the statute did not apply to Rice’s case.

## Issues

1. Whether, after an intervening change in state law limiting recurrence of the underlying controversy, the case presented “special and important reasons” warranting discretionary review by certiorari.
2. Whether the Court should vacate the prior equally divided affirmance and dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

## Decision

- The Court granted rehearing.
- The Court vacated the prior judgment of affirmance entered by an equally divided Court.
- The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted under its rules governing discretionary review.
- The Court did not decide the merits of the constitutional challenges to the racial restriction or the UN Charter arguments; the Iowa judgment remained in effect without a merits ruling by the Court.

## Legal Principles

- Certiorari is a discretionary mechanism aimed at resolving questions of federal law that have significance beyond the immediate parties; the Court does not grant review solely to correct alleged errors in a single case.
- A writ of certiorari should be granted only for “special and important reasons,” particularly when constitutional questions are presented.
- Intervening legal developments that eliminate the likelihood of recurrence of the underlying issue can weigh against continued Supreme Court review and support dismissal as improvidently granted.
- When certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted, the Court issues no decision on the merits and leaves the state-court judgment in place without national precedent on the substantive questions presented.

## Conclusion

The Court, sitting on rehearing with a full bench, vacated its earlier 4–4 affirmance and dismissed certiorari as improvidently granted because intervening Iowa legislation made the dispute insufficiently important for discretionary review; it therefore declined to reach the constitutional merits.


Rice v. Sioux City Mem'l Park Cemetery, Inc., 349 U.S. 70 (1955)