pander

Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to assure safe and healthful working conditions. Section 8(a) of the Act empowered agents of the Secretary of Labor to enter without delay any workplace within the Act's jurisdiction to inspect for safety hazards and regulatory violations, with no search warrant expressly required under the Act. On the morning of September 11, 1975, an OSHA inspector entered the customer service area of Barlow's, Inc., an electrical and plumbing installation business located in Pocatello, Idaho. Ferrol G. "Bill" Barlow, the president and general manager, was present. After presenting credentials the inspector stated that he wished to search the working areas of the business, explaining that Barlow's had been selected through the agency's routine process even though no employee complaint had been filed. Barlow refused entry to the nonpublic employee areas without a warrant, invoking rights under the Fourth Amendment. Three months later the Secretary petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Idaho for an order compelling Barlow to admit the inspector. The district court issued the requested order on December 30, 1975; it was presented to Barlow on January 5, 1976. Barlow again refused admission and filed his own action seeking injunctive relief against warrantless OSHA searches. A three-judge district court was convened. On December 30, 1976, the three-judge court ruled in Barlow's favor, entering an injunction against searches or inspections conducted pursuant to Section 8(a). The Secretary appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.

In 1971 Jeffrey C. Bigelow served as a director, managing editor, and responsible officer of the Virginia Weekly, a newspaper published in Charlottesville and circulated in Albemarle County with particular focus on the University of Virginia campus. On February 8, 1971, Volume V, Number 6 of the newspaper carried on page 2 an advertisement placed by the Women's Pavilion of New York City. The advertisement stated that abortions were now legal in New York, that there were no residency requirements, and that the organization offered immediate placement in accredited hospitals and clinics at low cost; it supplied the address 515 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022, the telephone numbers (212) 371-6670 and (212) 371-6650, and the assurance that the service was available seven days a week, strictly confidential, and that the organization would make all arrangements and provide information and counseling. On May 13, 1971, Bigelow was charged with violating Va. Code Ann. § 18.1-63 (1960). He was convicted in the County Court of Albemarle County, appealed, and after a de novo nonjury trial in the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in July 1971 was again convicted and sentenced to pay a $500 fine with $350 suspended conditioned on no further violation. At that trial the evidence consisted of stipulated facts, an excerpt from the February 8, 1971 issue containing the advertisement, and the June 1971 issue of Redbook magazine containing abortion information and distributed in Virginia and Albemarle County. The Supreme Court of Virginia granted review and affirmed the conviction by a 4-2 vote in 1972. Bigelow appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which vacated the judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton; on remand the Virginia Supreme Court again affirmed in 1973. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in 1974.

In 1919, shortly after South Dakota's admission to the Union, the state established a cement plant near Rapid City through its Cement Commission to develop natural resources and provide an affordable supply of cement for residents and highway construction needs. The plant was financed by revenue bonds and required to be self-supporting without relying on general state revenues. Over the years the plant produced more cement than South Dakotans could use, with buyers in nine nearby states purchasing cement and between 1970 and 1977 some 40 percent of output going outside the state. As the 1978 construction season approached, production difficulties at the plant coincided with high regional and national demand, leading the Commission to reaffirm its policy of supplying all South Dakota customers first and allocating remaining volume on a first-come, first-served basis to others. The plant was producing at 100% of its capacity, but demand for cement in the region was running at about 120% of capacity. Reeves, Inc., a Wyoming corporation operating ready-mix concrete plants in that state, had purchased approximately 95 percent of its cement from the South Dakota plant since 1958, including $1,172,000 worth in 1977, and had supplied over half the ready-mix needs in three northwestern Wyoming counties. On June 30, 1978, the plant informed Reeves it could not continue filling orders, and on July 5 it turned away a Reeves truck, forcing Reeves to cut production by 76 percent after failing to find another supplier. On July 19, 1978, Reeves brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota against the Commission, seeking injunctive relief. The District Court granted a permanent injunction after finding no substantial issue of material fact. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Respondents Edna W. Ballard and Donald Ballard were indicted along with Guy W. Ballard, now deceased, in the District Court on twelve counts for using and conspiring to use the mails to defraud by organizing and promoting the I Am movement. The indictment charged a scheme to defraud through false and fraudulent representations, pretenses and promises set forth in eighteen specific allegations concerning the respondents' religious doctrines or beliefs. The representations included claims that Guy W. Ballard had been selected by Saint Germain as a divine messenger through whom the words of ascended masters would be transmitted to mankind. They also claimed that the three named individuals had the power to heal persons of ailments and diseases and had in fact cured hundreds of persons. Each representation was followed by the charge that the respondents well knew it was false and made with intent to cheat and defraud persons of money and property. Early in the trial the District Court, after conferring with counsel, confined the issues to the question of the good faith of the respondents. The court instructed the jury that whether the religious representations were true or not was not its concern. The court further instructed that the issue was whether the defendants honestly and in good faith believed those things. The jury returned a verdict of guilty against the respondents. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction and granted a new trial on the ground that the restriction of the issue to good faith was error because it was necessary to prove that some of the representations which respondents schemed to make were false. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari because of the importance of the question presented.