Today in Supreme Court History: May 31, 1860

5/31/1860: Justice Peter Daniel's death.

Justice Peter Daniel

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Maul v. United States, 274 U.S. 501 (decided May 31, 1927): vessel without proper registration properly seized by Coast Guard 34 miles offshore because statute restricting jurisdiction to 4 leagues (about 14 miles) applied only to searches, not seizures (does this mean the Coast Guard can seize a ship off the coast of Zanzibar as well as Connecticut?)

United States v. Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1 (decided May 31, 1960): United States sued the Gulf states under the Court's original jurisdiction claiming ownership of (and oil rights to) offshore submerged lands. This is one hell of a long and complicated treatise dealing with three miles v. three leagues offshore, boundaries of the states as specified when admitted to the Union, and the Submerged Lands Act of 1953. Also long are the dissents by Black and Douglas. The decision: Texas was allowed three leagues, the other states three miles; and the U.S. owned everything past that up to the edge of the continental shelf.

Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (decided May 31, 1977): union's seniority system in allocating jobs did not violate Title VII in discriminating against blacks and Hispanics even though it had that effect (§703(h) of Title VII protects "bona fide seniority systems")

Edwards v. United States, 286 U.S. 482 (decided May 31, 1932): signature of President on private bill was valid to make it law even though Congressional session had ended because it was still within ten days of presentation (art. I, §7); no one disputed this (no case or controversy?) but Court wanted to correct "views strongly held in the past"

Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (decided May 31, 2005): conviction for obstruction of justice (destroying Enron documents) overturned because jury not instructed (per language of applicable statute) that destruction must have corrupt intent, even though while following normal procedures as to purging old documents they were aware of being investigated

New Energy Co. v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269 (decided May 31, 1988): Ohio sales tax on ethanol produced out of state regulated interstate commerce in violation of Dormant Commerce Clause despite exception for states offering reciprocity

Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (decided May 31, 1977): zoning ordinance limiting occupancy to immediate family (and not allowing, here, grandmother to live with grandchildren) was violation of Due Process as to liberty

McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27 (decided May 31, 1904): tax on margarine artificially colored to look like butter was not deprivation of property without due process (and even though Congress was being irrational because butter often was also artificially colored) (one could call this an offbeat application of Plessy)

[John F. Carr]

Regarding _Edwards_, in modern practice the court appoints an amicus when the parties are not truly opposed. The procedural posture of that case appears to no longer be possible. The lower court had certified a question of law.

Regarding _Maul_, the First Circuit hears a fair amount of litigation about the Maritime Drug law Enforcement Act. The U.S. can enforce its drug laws against any "stateless" vessel on the high seas. I think the cases go to the First Circuit because Puerto Rico has the closest District Court to most drug interdiction actions. There was an en banc decision within the last year or so clarifying what it meant to be stateless. I mean, clarifying to District Court judges. I am more confused now than before.

I do not like the outcome of _Arthur Andersen_. I remember a city council committee meeting where I was waiting my turn to speak against an ordinance. After the proponents in the audience had all spoken the chair said they don't normally allow citizen comments at this sort of meeting and moved on without giving me a chance. It may be that official committee policy was not to take oral statements, but once the exception starts to swallow the rule you should be judged on effect on not on the letter of the law. I read somewhere that one Arthur Andersen employee was convicted despite trying to hide behind company policy. One is too few.

[David Nieporent]

Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (decided May 31, 1977): zoning ordinance limiting occupancy to immediate family (and not allowing, here, grandmother to live with grandchildren) was violation of Due Process as to liberty

Also relied on the "deeply rooted" test that liberals inexplicably think was invented by Alito to overturn Roe.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The zoning ordinance in Moore went against a deeply rooted value. Don't you agree?

[David Nieporent]

Yes, but that's not relevant; the point is that it employed that test. It's not a one-way test.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, it is.

Segregation was certainly "deeply rooted". Homophobia was certainly "deeply rooted".

[Cal Cetín]

Opposition to polygamy is deeply rooted, too.

[David Nieporent]

Segregation was certainly "deeply rooted".

Not sure why you think that's relevant. Segregation was not outlawed under SDP; it was outlawed under equal protection. "Homophobia" is a viewpoint, not an action, so I don't even know what you mean to say.

[Syd Henderson]

"Maul v. United States, 274 U.S. 501 (decided May 31, 1927): vessel without proper registration properly seized by Coast Guard 34 miles offshore because statute restricting jurisdiction to 4 leagues (about 14 miles) applied only to searches, not seizures (does this mean the Coast Guard can seize a ship off the coast of Zanzibar as well as Connecticut?)"

So you seize the ship, bring it within 4 leagues then search it. In the Zanzibar case, I'm sure the ship has to be in international waters before you commit this act of piracy.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It's not piracy if it's your own country's ship breaking your own country's laws and you have statutory authority to grab it.

[Cal Cetín]

You arrrrr right.

[Cal Cetín]

Famous for two things:

1) Joined Dred Scott in 1857.

2) Also in 1857, his wife died when her dress caught fire from a candle. Nasty way to go.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks! Interesting