Today in Supreme Court History: June 1, 1925

6/1/1925: Pierce v. Society of Sisters is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (decided June 1, 1925): struck down Oregon statute requiring all children to go to public school as infringing liberty right of parents to decide how to educate their children, and property right of Catholic school plaintiff which would lose business

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (decided June 1, 1931): striking down on First Amendment (Fourteenth) grounds statute allowing state to enjoin newspaper publishing of "malicious, scandalous or defamatory" material (articles at issue named gangsters and law enforcement who were suspiciously not pursing them)

United States v. Cooley, 593 U.S. --- (decided June 1, 2021): tribal officer had power to conduct (otherwise legal) search and detention of non-Native American driver on public highway running through reservation (Breyer's opinion notes that "most people living on Indian reservations are not Indians" -- I honestly never knew that)

Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942) (decided June 1, 1942): government not required to provide attorney for criminal defendant who can't afford one; affirming conviction for robbery (overruled by Gideon v. Wainwright) (one assumes Mr. Betts acted as his own lawyer at trial but one Jesse Slingluff is listed as his lawyer before the Court)

NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288 (decided June 1, 1964): this entertaining opinion blows to bits the b.s. reasons the Alabama Supreme Court upheld an order forbidding the NAACP to do business in Alabama, from rejecting a brief which was in fact punctiliously drafted, to claiming the right to "oust" the organization for not paying a licensing fee when state rules provided merely for issuing a fine

Dunbar v. Dunbar, 190 U.S. 340 (decided June 1, 1903): agreement to pay alimony not in the form of a court order but still not dischargeable in bankruptcy

Mifflin v. R.H. White Co., 190 U.S. 260 (decided June 1, 1903): (at issue were articles published in The Atlantic written by plaintiff's predecessor in interest, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.; it's odd that Holmes Jr. didn't recuse himself) author is not protected by copyright in publisher's name (superseded by Copyright Act of 1909)

Ebeling v. Morgan, 237 U.S. 625 (decided June 1, 1915): chronic ripper of mail sacks chargeable separately for each sack (three years prison time per sack x 5 sacks = 15 years) (arguably overruled by Bell v. United States, 1955, which rejected the formula of 2½ years per woman x 2 women = 5 years)

[John F. Carr]

_ NAACP v. Alabama_ is interesting reading. Makes Roy Moore look like a liberal. But it's also just an extreme example of how judges can selectively enforce procedural rules to give the home team a victory.

[Dilan Esper]

This is a pretty big day in SCOTUS history. Blackman's choice of Pierce is defensible, but there are a lot of big June 1 cases.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I consider this a compliment. Thanks!

For my age group, Near v. Minnesota is the case with the most resonance. It (and the issue of "prior restraint") was mentioned much in 1971 during the Pentagon Papers affair.

[Dilan Esper]

Absolutely, Near is huge. And Betts and NAACP v. Alabama were blockbuster cases too.

[Bob from Ohio]

"(overruled by Gideon v. Wainwright)"

I was assured that stare decisis doesn't affect settled law.

[John F. Carr]

I didn't know until today that _Gideon_ overruled such a recent precedent. I learned about the case when somebody at my high school left a copy of _Gideon's Trumpet_ lying around. I probably just read the cover blurb, maybe a few pages, which was enough to tell me what the case said and why it was important.

[Sarcastr0]

Sussman verdict is why true believer prosecutors are bad for everyone involved in the end. Unlike media blow-hards and politicians, they eventually have to convince real-life people of a real-life case.

[Cal Cetín]

In the same sense that Lovell v. City of Griffin, a landmark First Amendment case from 1938, formed the basis for Citizens United - in that Citizens United cited the earlier case.

But in reality the key takeaway from the Pierce decision is

"The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/268/510

I'm sure you'd agree.

[Seamus]

Makes sense, though. If you have the right to educate your children, just stands to reason you have an equal right to kill them in utero.

[Seamus]

Melissa Harris-Perry wouldn't.