Today in Supreme Court History: June 24, 2013

6/24/2013: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin I is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin I, 570 U.S. 297 (decided June 24, 2013): all race based factors in college admissions are subject to "strict scrutiny"; case remanded the question of university's admissions policy to be reconsidered by the Fifth Circuit (which had accepted race factors if made "in good faith")

Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (decided June 24, 2004): Freedom of Information requests to Cheney's Energy Task Force were overbroad and likely to conflict with official duties; remanded to lower court to narrow requests (though Cheney argued that the requests should be denied in full) (suit was brought by Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club, an odd couple) (easy to see why oilman Cheney fought so hard against disclosure; leaks showed that even before 9/11 he was planning on toppling Saddam Hussein so as to open up the Iraqi oil market)

Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. --- (decided June 24, 2019): a crude but probably unavoidable offspring of Matal v. Tam, 2017, which had struck down on First Amendment grounds the USPTO Office's refusal on statutory "disparagement" grounds to trademark "The Slants", the name of an Asian-American band which wanted to "take back" that racial slur; here, the Court vacated the refusal to trademark the clothing line "FUCT" despite the "scandalous" name

Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (decided June 24, 1974): ruled that the film "Carnal Knowledge" was not obscene (I saw it as a teenager -- Ann-Margret was hot!! -- also, when I was back to having a free hand to hold the popcorn, I realized it was a good movie)

Hooper v. Bernadillo County Assessor, 472 U.S. 612 (decided June 24, 1985): Equal Protection violated by Arizona statute limiting Vietnam War veteran property tax deduction to those who were Arizona residents at the time

Pauley v. Bethenergy Mines, 501 U.S. 680 (decided June 24, 1991): permitted two extra restrictions agency placed on applicants for federal Black Lung Disease benefits because they were obvious (benefits denied if no showing that condition arose out of working in mines, or if applicant does not in fact have pneumoconiosis)

Dutra Group v. Batterton, 588 U.S. --- (decided June 24, 2019): applying admiralty common law, held that punitive damages not recoverable on claim of unseaworthiness (sailor injured by hatch blowing open)

Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (decided June 24, 2010): vacated conviction against Enron executive for "honest services fraud" because statutory language was vague and would include some legal activities; Skilling's conviction on other counts was not at issue so the case was sent back for resentencing (he also argued, unsuccessfully, that the jury was biased due to pretrial publicity)

[apedad]

Re: Cheney v. United States District Court, I'm a HUGE fan of the Freedom of Information Act and it's something all parties should robustly support.

Note: FOIA only applies to the Executive (so not Congress or the federal courts).

“Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection in an electronic format:

(A) final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases;
(B) those statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the agency and are not published in the Federal Register;
(C) administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public
(D) copies of all records, regardless of form or format—
(E) a general index of the records referred to under subparagraph (D); unless the materials are promptly published, and copies offered for sale. For records created on or after November 1, 1996, within one year after such date, each agency shall make such records available, including by computer telecommunications or, if computer telecommunications means have not been established by the agency, by other electronic means.

https://www.foia.gov/

Every state as a FOIA requirement too.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes. Though (at least in New York, where it's called FOIL) the problem is delay. It can take months and months and a full lawsuit eventually would have to be brought if still no response (if it's just a subpoena, no judge is going to order a large fine or jail time no matter how egregious the contempt).

[DaivdBehar]

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin I, 570 U.S. 297 (decided June 24, 2013): all race based factors in college admissions are subject to "strict scrutiny"; case remanded the question of university's admissions policy to be reconsidered by the Fifth Circuit (which had accepted race factors if made "in good faith")

The Justices protected its school, Harvard. They said the downrating of top Asian student by personal ratings of admissions officials was not racist, and so they could be excluded in favor of low performing diverses. The Swamp protecting its font of evil.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts started allowing attorney's fees for public records lawsuits a few years ago. I was going to sue over a denial but the lawyer got too busy to take the case and I did not find another one.

[DaivdBehar]

The Lower Merion School District spent $20000 on legal fees to block my request for the curriculum and the lesson plans about race and about sex education. Uvalde blocked requests for information about the shooting.

Shouldn't both sets of information be posted on the websites without all this pushback?

[DaivdBehar]

I only learned about their legal fees after another formal request for information under the Right To Know Law of PA.

[John F. Carr]

I was at an unclassified but not for attribution talk by an Army officer on military matters around 2005. On the war in Iraq he quoted from Dune: "the spice must flow".

[Dan Schiavetta]

ha!

[Bob from Ohio]

"(easy to see why oilman Cheney fought so hard against disclosure; leaks showed that even before 9/11 he was planning on toppling Saddam Hussein so as to open up the Iraqi oil market)"

You missed the memo. The Cheney family is good now. Please keep up.

[Reallynotbob]

In all future years, this entry will refer to Dodds v. Jackson Women's Health, whichever side one is on.

For me, the decision does great violence to stare decisis and the court's reputation--even if one agrees with the pro-life outcome.

[Dan Schiavetta]

True.

Dobbs will either be itself overruled in a few years with a change of Court membership or if not, will become the fountainhead of an explosion of abortion-related litigation. Or maybe I should say pregnancy-related litigation. Louisiana and other states now define the fetus as a person from the moment of conception. Other states will follow. So:

A visibly pregnant women gets very drunk at a public restaurant. Do the police have probable cause to arrest her for reckless endangerment? Would her doctors, neighbors, friends, become "required reporters" to a central child abuse registry?

The first paragraph of a long list of subjects for future S.Ct. decisions.

[John F. Carr]

In the absence of a statutory rule, what level of proof is required to sustain government action against a drunk or drugged pregnant woman? Is expert testimony required, to detain, charge or convict, or does allegedly common sense apply?

I only read Roberts' concurrence and found it persuasive, unlike most of his compromise opinions. The court would eventually have to decide whether to draw a line at a heartbeat or six weeks or 15 weeks, but that question can be put off until it is presented squarely.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"but that question can be put off until it is presented squarely"

From the perspective of the Court, only. In real life it is a question that will be presented tomorrow, to pregnant women in restaurants, and to police, and to bystanders.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Dobbs will either be itself overruled in a few years with a change of Court membership"

Check the ages. This is the youngest court in some time.

Absent sudden death like Scalia, its going to be more than a "few years" to get a lib majority. Roberts is not reversing Dobbs. So you need two more votes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"decision does great violence to stare decisis"

Excellent. A written Constitution should be the only binding precedent.

[ReaderY]

Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Woman’s Health Organization gets decided.

Any other case associated with this date is so comparatively trivial as not to be worth mentioning.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Noted for next year's comment!

[MoreCurious]

Today in Supreme Court history, the Court established for all time that it consists of six political, right-wing hacks.