Today in Supreme Court History: May 29, 1917

5/29/1917: President John F. Kennedy's birthday. He would appoint two Justices to the Supreme Court: Byron R. White and Arthur J. Goldberg.

President Kennedy's appointees to the Supreme Court

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ledbetter v. Goodyear, 550 U.S. 618 (decided May 29, 2007): Title VII lawsuit as to sexual discrimination in employment (after 18 years plaintiff found that she was getting paid less than newly hired men in the same division) must be brought according to statutory language within 180 days of the act of unequal payment whether or not she knows about it (and of course she wouldn't, unless she has a way to access the company's payroll files every six months) (wording of statute changed to fix this result in January 2009 by the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill signed into law by Obama)

Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. --- (decided May 29, 2018): police needed warrant to enter driveway and inspect stolen vehicle that was under a tarp, even though it was visible from the street and was parked in the same position as in photo of the (uncovered) stolen vehicle on defendant's Facebook page

Lagos v. United States, 584 U.S. --- (decided May 29, 2018): lender defrauded by Mr. Lagos not entitled after guilty plea to reimbursement of its private investigation expenses ($5 million) under Mandatory Victims Restitution Act which applies only to out-of-pocket expenses incurred in participating in government prosecutions (for example, child care, lost pay, train fare, etc.)

PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (decided May 29, 2001): ADA required professional golfer with circulatory condition (??) to be allowed to use golf cart because golf course was "public accommodation" (Scalia's dissent as to "this incredibly silly question" and "Platonic golf" is pretty funny)

Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (decided May 29, 1990): Double Jeopardy clause precluded prosecution for homicide after defendant pleaded guilty to DUI because arose out of the same conduct (Brennan and Marshall retired, and this was quickly overruled by United States v. Dixon, 1993; now Double Jeopardy protection applies only if the elements charged are the same)

Bean v. Morris, 221 U.S. 485 (decided May 29, 1911): dispute between users of river that flowed from Montana to Wyoming and back again would be decided by common law as if there were no state boundaries

Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (decided May 29, 1911): Oklahoma legislature could change capital from Guthrie to Oklahoma City in a manner different from that specified by Congress in the Act admitting the state to the Union (suit was brought by Guthrie businessmen)

Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic Nat'l Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (decided May 29, 1973): radio station's flat ban on political viewpoint ads did not violate First Amendment or Fairness Doctrine (since abolished) and did not violate "public interest" obligation placed on network by FCC (at issue were anti-Vietnam War ads by a private business group and DNC ads expressing Party views and asking for funds)

[John F. Carr]

_Coyle v. Smith_ seems to put to rest the legends that Utah is not allowed to legalize polygamy and Texas is allowed to spontaneously subdivide into five states.

[F.D. Wolf]

As to the subdivision of Texas, I would suggest, perhaps.

The Constitution provides that no state shall be created from the territory of existing states without the consent of the state and Congress. This has happened twice: when Maine split from Massachusetts and when West Virginia split from Virginia. (The latter incident of perhaps dubious legality, concerning who actually constituted the legal government of Virginia during the Civil War).

The federal statute admitting Texas into the Union provides that Texas could split into as many as five states if it so decided. But this does not necessarily place Texas on unequal footing with other states. Any state can subdivide into five states (or ten or twenty) if it so chooses, as long as it has the consent of Congress.

So, in the extremely unlikely case that Texas chose to subdivide, and contemporary assent from Congress was not forthcoming, Texas would presumably argue that it already received assent from the Congress in 1845.

Say, for example, tomorrow Congress passes a statute that gives California permission to subdivide. Or better yet, Congress passes a statute giving ALL states permission to subdivide. Would this stature present any Constitutional issues? Would it have an implied expiration date? Must a state's decision to subdivide precede Congressional consent to the subdivision? Why should it matter who goes first?

Anyway, just some random thoughts on an issue that will almost certainly never arise,

[David Nieporent]

Ledbetter v. Goodyear, 550 U.S. 618 (decided May 29, 2007): Title VII lawsuit as to sexual discrimination in employment (after 18 years plaintiff found that she was getting paid less than newly hired men in the same division) must be brought according to statutory language within 180 days of the act of unequal payment whether or not she knows about it (and of course she wouldn't, unless she has a way to access the company's payroll files every six months)

In fact, she did know about it, which is why her lawyers did not try to argue for a discovery rule under Title VII: it wouldn't have benefitted her. (Her lawyers also inexplicably chose to abandon her Equal Pay Act claim, which would have afforded her relief because it works differently than Title VII as far as the SOL is concerned.)

[Frank Drackman]

In his short not quite 3/4 of a term, JFK started the larges Nuke-ular (HT "W") build up in Amurican His-Straw (Minuteman's first went on Alert in 1962 during the "Cuber" thang, still stand on alert (albeit the more "Modern" (i.e 1970's)Minuteman III versions), was against abortion (Duh, Catholic, and hmmm, which way did White vote in Roe v Wade?) and didn't really push for Civil Rights ( JFK did alot of "Pushing" Marilyn, Angie D, Judith Exner, Giancana's "Gumar")
Oh yeah, he cut taxes, he was Trump before there was Trump!

Frank

[F.D. Wolf]

Arthur Goldberg was an Associate Justice from October 1, 1962, to July 25, 1965, a total of two years and 300 days, one of the shortest tenures in Supreme Court history. I have always been interested in exactly why he left, or perhaps more precisely, how President Johnson convinced him to leave. Some have suggested Johnson promised Goldberg the VP slot for his 1968 re-election campaign. (Johnson ultimately decided not to run for re-election, as it was becoming increasingly likely that he would not even win the Democratic nomination). Others have suggested that perhaps Johnson had a bit of dirt on Goldberg, somewhat related to the scandal that would ultimately bring down Abe Fortas, Goldberg's successor on the Court.

UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson died unexpectedly of a massive heart attack in London on July 14, 1965. According to Lyndon Johnson in his memoir, while traveling to his funeral on Air Force One, he asked Goldberg about rumors he was bored with Supreme Court work. Goldberg conceded that he was. Johnson offered him the position of Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, which would soon be vacant as Johnson had just nominated the current Secretary Anthony Celebrezze to a seat on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Goldberg declined, stating he was more interested in foreign policy. The next day Goldberg called Johnson to inquire about the UN Ambassador position, which Johnson then offered to him. According to Goldberg and others, however, it was Johnson who made the initial overtures about the UN Ambassador position. That, to me, seems more probably the truth.

While it was no secret that Johnson wanted to get his crony Ane Fortas on the Court, Johnson had other reasons to want Goldberg as UN Ambassador. By 1965, Vietnam was becoming a very important issue, and it probably already was the paramount issue for the Left, and it was beginning to fracture the Democratic party. Goldberg was seen as very liberal, a foreign policy dove, who would appeal to New York Times and liberal academic crowd that was beginning to turn on Johnson and would show that Johnson was serious about peace in Vietnam. To this extent, the PR of the Goldberg pick worked out exactly as Johnson had hoped it would with the media.

As for Goldberg, he claimed his motive was a sense of duty. The President asked him to do something for his country, so he did it. I think that is mostly true, as far as it goes. Of course, Goldberg, having been a Kennedy appointment, did not owe Johnson anything. And if one seeks to affect real change, as Goldberg and those of his political bent were wont to do, the Supreme Court is a much more conducive place than UN Ambassador, a relatively powerless position, even in 1965 when the UN perhaps still retained a modicum of respectability. Ultimately, I think Goldberg really wanted peace, though he overestimated his own abilities and those of his position to bring it about,