Today in Supreme Court History: May 25, 1861

5/25/1861: John Merryman arrested. Chief Justice Taney ruled that his detention was unconstitutional in Ex Parte Merryman.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 691 (decided May 25, 1931): status as Native American does not excuse obligation to pay income tax on amounts received from tribe's oil and gas leases

Griffin v. School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218 (decided May 25, 1964): school district couldn't avoid desegregation order by closing all schools and using the money for vouchers to private schools all of which happened to exclude blacks

Phillips v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 283 U.S. 589 (decided May 25, 1931): summary taxation order (as to assets of dissolved corporation) does not violate Due Process because taxpayer may contest the order in court even though court will review only for clearly erroneous

United States v. Dickey, 268 U.S. 378 (decided May 25, 1925): First Amendment protected newspaper's publication of private person's tax return information (identity, address, amount paid) because Congress had already authorized the IRS to make this information available for public inspection

Carpenter v. Strange, 141 U.S. 87 (decided May 25, 1891): full faith and credit extended to New York court's probate of will even though it determined property rights out of state

Chang Chan v. Nagle, 268 U.S. 346 (decided May 25, 1925): pursuant to Immigration Act of 1924 (part of ongoing exclusion of Asians) Chinese women married to American citizens not eligible thereby for citizenship and not permitted to enter country

Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58 (decided May 25, 1970): actor who wore Army uniform in street play protesting Vietnam War atrocities not guilty under statute criminalizing impersonation of servicemen "in a manner to bring the military into disrepute" due to statutory exception for performance in theatrical production; criminal statute struck as violative of First Amendment

Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, 359 U.S. 520 (decided May 25, 1959): Illinois law uniquely requiring trucks to have curved mudflaps violated "dormant commerce clause" because it burdened interstate commerce (requiring truckers from other states to buy them just to go through Illinois)

[Commenter_XY]

Hmmm...that Griffin case sounds interesting, captcrisis.

(I read your summaries each morning - you should get royalties from Professor Blackman) 🙂

[Krychek_2]

No, he should not get royalties from Professor Blackman -- he should replace Professor Blackman. If you're going to fix a problem, finish the job.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

It's fun for me to do. With only rare exceptions, I've never heard of any of these cases before, and none of them have to do with my areas of practice. I'm sure I miss a few things, but reading a case for the first time -- when one doesn't have to read it, or know what it says -- is refreshing escapism.

[Dan Schiavetta]

P.S. My response was to XY’s comment.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I also enjoy your work, captcrisis. You find many and interesting and worthwhile decisions -- including Schacht. Griffin, Dickey, Chang Chan today.

[Dilan Esper]

Dickey definitely seems more relevant than ever.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Dickey relied on §257(b) of the Internal Revenue Act (of 1914, I assume), which might not be in force any more. Researching that question would be complicated. Does anyone know?

[Syd Henderson]

Though Merryman was a good case for the day. Important enough that Rehnquist wrote a book on it.

[John F. Carr]

I heard of that last one, or a very similar case. My memory said Iowa which is close enough to Illinois to be the result of neuron decay. Was Iowa the state that regulated triple trailers in a way allegedly burdening interstate commerce?

Anyway, I don't see a good unifying principle in the dormant commerce clause precedent. The Justice knows it when he sees it.

[John F. Carr]

On the immigration case, marrying a foreigner still comes with legal risks. I know somebody who married a Canadian. Immigrations knew something was up when she came into the United States and only authorized her for a short visit. On advice from counsel, they got married quickly in the United States, filed their application for status adjustment, and relied on the system to hold things up for a year or two until their application reached the front of the line. She was allowed to stay, under then-current rules, until her application was heard. Later, during the Trump administration, the government said it would change the order of consideration of applications for status adjustment so applicants could not rely on bureaucratic inertia.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sounds like a really curious case; Canada is, after all, a neighboring country, it would have been easy enough to have married in Canada, and then applied for a spousal visa, or to have applied for a fiancee visa in the first place.

Canadians can normally visit the US for up to 6 months at a time without bothering with a visa, but a visa IS required if the visit is suspected to be for purposes of marriage.

So, I guess they were lying about the purpose of the visit in order to jump the line, so to speak?