Today in Supreme Court History: June 4, 1923

6/4/1923: Meyer v. Nebraska decided.

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. --- (decided June 4, 2018): First Amendment protected cakeshop owner's refusal on religious grounds to create a same-sex wedding cake

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (decided June 4, 1923): struck down on due process grounds state law prohibiting teaching of foreign languages to children before eighth grade (10-year-old child was taught German at a Lutheran religious school) (in those days most older Lutherans were German speakers; they were prosecuted for passing on their native language)

Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Comm'n of Florida, 496 U.S. 91 (decided June 4, 1990): lawyer was not misleading clients with letterhead identifying him as certified in trial advocacy by the NBTA (National Board of Trial Advocacy) despite impression some might get that NBTA was a governmental entity; censure vacated

Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (decided June 4, 2007): trial judge has first hand knowledge of juror's demeanor and should be deferred to as to whether he can be excluded based on suspicion that he would refuse to follow the law in reaching a verdict (here, whether he could apply the death penalty)

Madera Sugar Pine Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 262 U.S. 499 (decided June 4, 1923): rejected employer's claim that paying worker's compensation death benefits to family of resident alien residing in Mexico denied it Equal Protection

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (decided June 4, 1928): wiretapping a telephone was not a "search" under the Fourth Amendment (overruled by Katz v. United States, 1967)

Walling v. Harnischfeger Corp., 325 U.S. 427 (decided June 4, 1945): incentive pay structure for piecework (electrical components) had effect of evading Fair Labor Standards Act §7(a) which requires overtime to be 50% of regular rate

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (decided June 4, 1951): Smith Act (forbidding attempt to overthrow government through violence) does not violate First Amendment because it is restricted to speech advocating plan of violence; affirmed convictions of Communist Party-USA founders

[John F. Carr]

Is _Dennis v. United States_ still good law? Was it overruled by _Brandenburg v. Ohio_?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t think so. In Brandenburg, involving a pro Klan rally, the speaker didn’t explicitly advocate violent overthrow.

[Gandydancer]

Thx for explaining Meyer better than the nearly content-free video did.

[Syd Henderson]

Well, after Holmes was on the side of the angels a day or so ago, what was going on in Meyer? Simple ethnic prejudice on his part?

People should be able to have their children learn their own language, but even more, children pick up languages easier when they are young. Not sure how due process works here.

[Gandydancer]

"Holmes wrote that he differed with the majority "with hesitation and unwillingness" because he thought the law did not impose an undue restriction on the liberty of the teacher since it was not arbitrary, was limited in its application to the teaching of children, and the State had areas where many children might hear only a language other than English spoken at home. "I think I appreciate the objection to the law, but it appears to me to present a question upon which men reasonably might differ and therefore I am unable to say the Constitution of the United States prevents the experiment being tried." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_v._Nebraska

[Gandydancer]

I will add that the idea that "due process" is in any way implicated here is of course ludicrous, but only in the way that a lot of Constitutional jurisprudence is ludicrous. The idea is that if the state has no authority to enforce a law then "due process" is violated when the law is enforced regardless of the form and actuality of the process. Which is utter nonsense. If a law violates, e.g., the 2nd Amendment then it violates the 2nd Amendment, not the Due Process Clauses.

[Syd Henderson]

I note that several opinions here came down from the Taft court, including Meyer v, Nebraska. Taft has a good reputation for making the Supreme Court more workable. (He pretty much had the Bully Pulpit as Chief Justice. In other words, he spoke and people listened.) How did his court do? Buck v. Bell was the most atrocious of their decisions, and Taft was in the majority but he was on the right side here and other place. But when did he dissent? I don't see it in any of the cases listed here.