Today in Supreme Court History: June 19, 1992

6/19/1992: New York v. U.S. is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (decided June 19, 1961): exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment applies to state prosecutions as well as federal (in my view the most important case decided on this date)

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (decided June 19, 1992): New York's Tenth Amendment challenge against the United States (not an original jurisdiction case, probably because two N.Y. counties were co-plaintiffs) dismissed as to federal statute allowing states to receive money to house out-of-state nuclear waste, and to refuse waste that does not meet guidelines, but Tenth Amendment does prohibit requirement that state take title to undisposed internal waste

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. --- (decided June 19, 2017): trademark properly denied as "disparaging" for name of Asian band which was an anti-Asian slur ("The Slants") even though band's purpose was to "reclaim" the term

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (decided June 19, 2000): Establishment Clause prohibited student selected by student counsel from reciting prayer over public address system before each home football game (suit was brought by Catholic and Mormon parents)

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (decided June 19, 1961): Maryland could not require notary oath to include belief in God

Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (decided June 19, 1972): rejected Curt Flood's antitrust challenge to the reserve clause even though other professional sports are not exempt from antitrust (I remember the New York Times editorial criticizing this decision; it was entitled "misty-eyed justice" and pointed to the flowery paean to baseball in Blackmun's opinion) (this suit in effect ended Flood's career; he got the Colin Kaepernick treatment afterwards)

Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. --- (decided June 19, 2017): striking down on First Amendment grounds a statute prohibiting convicted sex offenders from using social media

Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (decided June 19, 2008): trial judge properly refused schizophrenic murder defendant's request to be his own attorney and appointed counsel (the judge in the Colin Ferguson trial should have done this)

[Harvey Mosley]

Sounds like a great start to your new blog.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks but I’ve only written about 300 summaries. If I go the whole year it will be about 3000. I just made a big mistake, as SMP0328 pointed out.

[DaivdBehar]

Cappie. Please, stay here. Continue this great service.

[DaivdBehar]

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (decided June 19, 1961): exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment applies to state prosecutions as well as federal (in my view the most important case decided on this date)

The Exclusionary Rule. More pro-criminal denial of reality. Just who is being punished by it? The public of course, after a vicious criminal is streeted. The alternative is to fine the police for the violation. Take the fine from personal assets since violating the constitution is not part of the job description. Which would be more effective at enforcing the constitution, lawyer dumbasses?

[DaivdBehar]

Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (decided June 19, 2008): trial judge properly refused schizophrenic murder defendant's request to be his own attorney and appointed counsel (the judge in the Colin Ferguson trial should have done this)

In severe mental illness, the organ of decision making is impaired. The legal system must look out for those people in parens patriae. That applies to involuntary commitment and treatment. I support the British commitment laws. They should be enacted by Congress as a standard for the states. Clinicians determine illness, and the person gets treated. In the US, the person must be ill, have done something dangerous, then gets a trial employing 3 lawyers. The school rampage killers qualify for involuntary treatment only after many have died in the US, instead of before.

[DaivdBehar]

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (decided June 19, 1961): Maryland could not require notary oath to include belief in God

A decision complying with the constitution. Refreshing.

[DaivdBehar]

Happy Father's Day to everyone. The lawyer destroyed the American family. In the 2010 Census the bastardy rate in the black family was 70%, and 40% in the white family. Who knows what it will be in 2020. The feminist lawyer did what kidnapping from Africa, slavery, war, discrimination, poverty could not do, destroy the Black family. Before the War on Poverty, racial disparity in social pathologies were small, like 10% worse. After the feminist lawyer got through, it soared to 400%. Now, the social pathologies will spread to the white population. Thank the lawyer profession, the most toxic occupation in the country, 1000 times more toxic than organized crime.

Children who grow up without fathers are fucked. Remarriage and step fathers raise the risk of abuse.

https://www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistic

[SMP0328]

The Supreme Court ruled that denying a trademark for being disparaging violated the First Amendment in Matal v. Tam.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You’re right! I really should check Wikipedia first before I try to swim through the full decision (!).

Thanks for pointing this out!

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Queenie. What a great point.