Today in Supreme Court History: June 17, 1963

6/17/1963: Sherbert v. Verner is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. --- (decided June 17, 2021): City could not require Catholic placement agency to accept same sex couples for foster care program; non-discrimination clause in contract had discretionary exception

School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (decided June 17, 1963): banned compulsory Bible readings in public school as violating First Amendment Establishment Clause (following up on Engel v. Vitale, 1962, which banned school-led prayer)

Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (decided June 17, 1963): denying unemployment benefits to Seventh Day Adventist because she refused to accept jobs where she had to work on Saturdays violated her free exercise First Amendment rights and no "compelling state interest" in forcing her to accept Saturday work (easy to see that; lots of jobs don't require weekend work -- but what if she was a Third Day Adventist and couldn't work on Tuesdays?)

Virginia Uranium v. Warren, 587 U.S. --- (decided June 17, 2019): state mining laws are not preempted by Atomic Energy Act (here, Virginia has flat ban on uranium mining)

Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Vogt, 354 U.S. 284 (decided June 17, 1957): upholding ban on picketing of gravel pit because purpose was not to punish owner but to coerce workers to join union, citing Wisconsin statute prohibiting picketing if no labor dispute

Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry, 374 U.S. 424 (decided June 17, 1963): New Mexico statute prohibiting advertising of optometrist prices applied to enjoin ads in New Mexico newspaper and radio station placed by optometrist located in nearby Texas

Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (decided June 17, 1968): trial court properly disallowed "I can't help it -- I'm an alcoholic" defense to charge of public intoxication (distinguishing Robinson v. California, 1962, which held that being a drug addict by itself is not a crime, because that's a status, not an act)

Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (decided June 17, 1974): no warrant needed for examining tire treads and taking scrapings of exterior paint of car impounded from public parking lot after owner was arrested for murder

[apedad]

Re: Powell v. Texas and Robinson v. California

I ran a sexual assault case in the early 90s and the defendant used the excuse that he was addicted to sex (IIRC, he was even in therapy).

Nope said the judge using the same reasoning as these cases; the addiction is a status and a person is still liable for any criminal acts regardless of their status.

[Dan Schiavetta]

interesting

of course, your case didn't involve a "victimless" crime

[apedad]

All crimes have a 'victim' and in the Powell case, the 'victim' is the community/state.

[DaivdBehar]

Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (decided June 17, 1968): trial court properly disallowed "I can't help it -- I'm an alcoholic" defense to charge of public intoxication (distinguishing Robinson v. California, 1962, which held that being a drug addict by itself is not a crime, because that's a status, not an act)

Everyone has a status, since all behavior is brain and biologically based. Half the prisoners have antisocial personality disorder. This is a biologically based handicap. The person is missing empathy, missing fear of punishment, missing fear. With some, you can put a gun to their heads, and not be joking, they feel no emotion. In addition, it has a physiological difference on a physical test. The lawyer profession is both crazy and stupid.

Yet, they excuse insane people. Whom would you prefer as a cell mate, for your safety, a mob paid assassin or a paranoid schizophrenic who refuses treatment? One gets executed, yet is far less dangerous. The other is treated as sick and gets disability payments. You are really stupid, lawyers. The schizophrenic murderer should get the fast track execution because he is far more dangerous, if the profession were not idiotic. These privileged lawyer clients commit 10% of the murders, including most rampage murders. Thank the lawyer idiot for all rampage murders, since typically, dozens of complaints against the protected, privileged, and empowered shooter went unanswered by the scumbag lawyer profession.

[DaivdBehar]

All crime should have strict liability. Sentencing authorities can then sort out the sentences and be held accountable in tort liability for their mistakes.

One hunter kills another after the other's wife paid him $10000. One hunter kills another thinking him a deer. One gets the chair. The other goes home. That is crazy. How do you know the drunken hunter you sent home will not crash into a bus carrying 30 kids to hemophilia camp? You are crazy and stupid, lawyers.

[apedad]

Here's another one:

Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of New York, Inc., decided 17 Jun 2002.

Facts of the case
The Village of Stratton promulgated an ordinance that prohibits canvassers from entering private residential property to promote any cause without first obtaining a permit from the mayor's office. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses that publish and distribute religious materials, brought an action for injunctive relief, alleging that the ordinance violates their First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion, free speech, and freedom of the press. The District Court upheld most provisions of the ordinance as valid, content-neutral regulations. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the Village's interests in protecting its residents from fraud and its desire to prevent criminals from posing as canvassers in order to defraud its residents were sufficient bases on which to justify the regulation.

Question
Does a municipal ordinance that requires a permit prior to engaging in the door-to-door advocacy of a political cause and to display upon demand the permit, which contains one's name, violate the First Amendment protection accorded to anonymous pamphleteering or discourse?

Conclusion
Yes. In an 8-1 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the ordinance's provisions making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violate the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills. The Court reasoned that the village's interest in preventing fraud could not support the ordinance's application to the religious organizations, to political campaigns, or to enlisting support for unpopular causes. Dissenting, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that the Court decision deprived Stratton residents of the degree of accountability and safety that the permit requirement provides.
(oyez)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. I should have put that in instead of Abington v. Schempp.

It was hard to make the Witnesses go away, at least politely. They would not take "no" for an answer. But my old girlfriend did it by answering the door naked. That always worked -- they fled immediately. And she was protected by the First Amendment.

[apedad]

1981-82, Rome NY.

My roommate and I would answer the door with Old Milwaukee beer and Jack Daniels shots, and invite them in.

They always declined for some reason.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ha ha

(though if you laid out some $$ and offered Samuel Smith's Oatmeal Stout and Johnny Walker Black, they might hesitate a second . . . )