Today in Supreme Court History: June 22, 1992

6/22/1992: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

hi

[Dan Schiavetta]

that "hi" was a test -- my daily attempt to post case summaries is getting blocked by some kind of antivirus thing

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Has Reason changed filters or anything which thinks your post is spam?

[Dan Schiavetta]

my attempts to post case summaries is being blocked today as a "potentially unsafe operation"

[apedad]

How do you search the cases?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I start by googling "Supreme Court" and "decided June 22". Then I read the case in justia or off the Court's own web site. To get up to 8 cases I usually have to resort to Lexis. Sometimes with old cases where the language is ornate and dense, I rely on the syllabus. Each day takes me about 15 minutes or so.

I prefer cases that are historically important, or have interesting facts, or seem weird to us (for example, cases dealing with slave law). In my area of the law no one ever cites the Supreme Court so to me this is an interesting expedition, reading cases I never heard of, and with the few that I have heard of, I often get surprised by what they actually say.

[DaivdBehar]

"I often get surprised by what they actually say."

Every turn of every page of every law book was like the shower scene in Psycho, chilling, shocking, wrong. The victim in the case of the lawyer is our country. Of course, the movie was based on a real case, where the psycho was protected, privileged and empowered by your scumbag profession. All of you are psycho killers who need to be stopped to save our country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WtDmbr9xyY

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Try posting the same summary but cut in half; you learn which half was flagged and can cut the offending half in half again until you narrow it down.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The problem seems to be in my summary of R.A.V., the case Josh talks about today.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I'm going to post one case at a time and see if that works.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (decided June 22, 1964): the obscenity case wherein Potter Stewart said, "I know it when I see it." At issue was a 1958 French film called "Les Amants" ("The Lovers"). (It's on youtube at www. youtube.com/ watch?v=_WMb1V4bhA8. There's no nudity or sex, though at 49:08 we see the lovers waking up in bed. Maybe the obscenity is in the dialog -- I don't speak French. The film seems mostly set in Algeria; see it just for the cinematography, which is beautiful.) Anyway, the Court held it to be not obscene.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Olmsted v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (decided June 22, 1999): ADA outlaws "segregation" of disabled people and was violated when "mentally retarded" and schizophrenic women were kept in institutions when they could have been placed in community based programs

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. --- (decided June 22, 2018): police who had properly received robbery suspect's cell phone records did not need warrant to search cell tower information which showed times and places of suspect's whereabouts

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (decided June 22, 1964): a pre-Miranda case excluding statements by an arrestee whose request to see his attorney was repeatedly refused and who was not advised of his right to remain silent

Jones v. Jones, 234 U.S. 615 (decided June 22, 1914): upholding Tennessee law that married slaves could pass their property to children but not other descendants, a rule which did not apply to other married couples (WTF!) (estate passed to widow of the decedent and not to his siblings as would have happened in this case with a white couple) (WTF!)

Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (decided June 22, 1981): police searching a house with a warrant have the right to detain anyone in the house in aid of the search (here, they found narcotics and arrested the guy they had ordered not to leave)

Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (decided June 22, 1987): struck down Arkansas rule prohibiting hypnotically refreshed testimony (here, murder defendant testifying that her gun in fact went off by mistake)

[Mr. Bumble]

So what was the problem? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The line in my summary of R.A.V. about cross burning got blocked. But on the second try it went through. Everything else went through fine.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Jones v Jones makes me wonder if a slave could marry a free non-slave; that law would be even stranger, working one way only.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who was a slave in 1914?

[Dan Schiavetta]

It was a will contest where the testator had been married while a slave.

[Syd Henderson]

In other words, he was pretty old.

[John F. Carr]

The former slave had died 25 years before and the 1914 suit was to clear title to land.

Per the decision: Under the common law slaves were like bastards in that they had no right to inherit. Neither could anybody inherit from slaves. (Possibly this only governed intestate succession.) When slavery was abolished lineal descendants of cohabiting slaves were legitimized as if the parents had been properly married. This change, on its face quite favorable to freed slaves, was the only substantial change to the antebellum rule. For property to pass to anybody other than a lineal descendant the former slave needed to make a will.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks

[John F. Carr]

A former coworker pointed out a way to use the anti-segregation rule of the ADA for another purpose. A frequently-opened door was letting in a cold draft. Proposed solution: put a handicap symbol on it. For the most part, parking being a notable exception, the symbol of access does not exclude anybody. Handicap-only entrances are strongly disfavored. But the average person, being neither disabled nor well informed about the ADA, might be turned off by the symbol. It was not our building and we never got to do the experiment.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Amusing idea, but what if a handicapped person tried to use it and couldn't get in because it was not actually a handicapped door?

[John F. Carr]

It was a conventional swinging door next to a revolving door. The door was close to the level of the parking lot and I think it qualified as accessible. Maybe it didn't have a button to press to open by a motor. When is a self-opening door legally required?

[Dan Schiavetta]

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (decided June 22, 1992): ordinance that prohibits display of a symbol

[Dan Schiavetta]

that "arouses anger, alarm etc. on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" was facially overbroad

[Dan Schiavetta]

and in violation of First Amendment freedom of expression

[Dan Schiavetta]

(defendant had burned a cross on the lawn of

[Dan Schiavetta]

the black family across the street) (I sure hope they got him on some other charge)

[Dan Schiavetta]

posting it line by line worked!
All done for today!

[John F. Carr]

Should be civil trespass, at least, but that is not very satisfying for the target.

[DaivdBehar]

Glad to see these cases are posted. I was about to complain to Eugene, an advocate of free speech.

[Syd Henderson]

There's an error in the listing of the Justices. Rehnquist is shown twice. The ninth Justice was Clarence Thomas, who joined in Scalia's decision.

[Jimmy the Dane]

RAV was supposed to be the end of "hate speech" codes, specifically those codes at colleges and universities. That, sort of, happened as they fizzled out into the late 90's. Not that they were not still on the books and occasionally enforced, but the big PC push for speech codes ran out of steam in 92 and 93 when it was clear the federal courts would not permit them at least at public schools.

Yet, fast forward to 2022, and it is like RAV was never decided. Why? The left will never give up an inch. They just went into hiding for 15 years and brought out the same playbook again. Difference is, this time it might actually work.

What is the lesson we should learn? The Left will never stop unless you make it abundantly clear that it is the end of the line. That is the only way to stop the slow, long, death march to cultural marxism.

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Rhoid. Great comment. You are wonderful in my book.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The left does like to call their various movement groups "by any means necessary" so.....

[Jimmy the Dane]

Or maybe firebombing pro-life centers and vandalizing 50 of them isn't enough to make national news. Or having one of those "by any means necessary" groups declare "open season" on pro-life groups. Or having a justice almost assassinated for the expressed purpose of changing a vote on a leaked decision. But, let's by all means, talk about the so-called "insurrection" so more, amirite queenie?