The court, however, disagreed, and said that the grandfather clause actually referred to "authorities" being exercised on July 1--in this case the authority to restrict travel--not specific prohibitions.

Boudin called the decision irrational and wholly without foundation. "There is no case that has so disregarded legislative intent," he said.

The lawyer is a veteran of right-to-travel laws, having argued several cases concerning the matter before the Supreme Court since 1958.

If the Court grants a rehearing he will stant his argument towards Justice John Paul Stephens, Boudin said. Since he needs only one vote to reverse the dicision, be said be though Stephens was the most likely to reverse himself.

In fact, he said, he had expected Stephens to rule in his favor all along and was surprised when he did not, although he was equally surprised when Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. ruled against the government.

"There is obviously something I failed to do to get through to [Stephens] and that is something I have to think through to see what I have to do to reach him," Boudin said