The judgment of this court, reported in 260 F.2d 189, was reversed by the Supreme Court, — In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622, 79 S.Ct. 1376, 1383, 1384, 3 L.Ed. 2d 1473. The judgment of that Court is reflected in two opinions, that of Mr. Justice Brennan, concurred in by the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas; and that of Mr. Justice Stewart, concurring in the judgment. The opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan is in three parts, so numbered. The first portion, dealing with the order of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii suspending Sawyer from the practice of law, concluded “Accordingly, the suspension order, based on the charge relating to the speech, cannot stand.” The second portion dealt with what this court called the “second charge”, namely, the charge that Sawyer had misconducted herself by interviewing a juror. With *357respect to that the Supreme Court said that it agreed with the opinion of this court “that if the charge as to the speech were insupportable, in the present posture of the case the suspension could not stand.”
In the third portion of the opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan the Court upheld this court’s jurisdiction to review the order of suspension upon the broad general ground that this was a civil case “where the value in controversy exceeds $5000 exclusive of interest and cost.”
The judgment, as announced for the court by Mr. Justice Brennan, was a simple reversal. It thus appears that this court’s general jurisdiction to reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory is clear; and it is equally clear that Sawyer’s suspension from practice cannot stand.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the mandate of this court issue directed to the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii which by the provisions of the Act of March 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 4, § 12, is the successor of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii, ordering that court, as such successor, to dismiss the said cause and to award judgment to the appellant, Harriet Bouslog Sawyer, for her costs incurred in this court.
Judges HEALY and FEE who participated in the original decision in this case took no part in the making of this order