Today in Supreme Court History: July 8, 1941

7/8/1941: Justice James Byrnes takes oath.

Justice James Byrnes

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

We're getting into the Court's summer recess now. Few, if any, opinions on full appeals at this time of year. Should I report on decisions granting/denying cert? The Court used to say that such decisions have no precedential effect, e.g., Darr v. Buford, 339 U.S. 200, 226 (1950); see also United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490 ("The denial of a writ of certiorari imparts no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times") (Holmes J.). But in these days of motion calendar (a/k/s "Shadow Docket") opinions, it obviously does. As do the Court's decisions on motions for a stay, injunction, etc.

Secretary of the Navy v. Avrech, 418 U.S. 676 (decided July 8, 1974): soldier busted down to private for publishing a "disloyal" statement; Court refused to hear case because service personnel do not enjoy full First Amendment rights (citing Parker v. Levy, 1974)

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. --- (decided July 8, 2020): "ministerial exception" to First Amendment (as to teachers of religion) precluded age discrimination and disability discrimination lawsuits (I don't know of any Catholic doctrine that says old people or disabled people can't teach religion -- in fact the Church has long been happy to be guided by decrepit and disabled Popes)

Little Sisters of the Poor SS. Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. --- (decided July 8, 2020): upholding federal exemptions allowing religious institutions to opt out of Affordable Care Act's contraceptive insurance coverage requirement even though not promulgated in accordance with Administrative Procedure Act

Pennsylvania v. Trump, 591 U.S. --- (decided July 8, 2020): companion case to Little Sisters v. Pennsylvania

Wardlow v. Texas, 591 U.S. --- (decided July 8, 2020): denying stay of execution and rejecting psychiatrists' opinion that youth of defendant prevented his full knowledge of crime; Wardlow (who at age 18 had killed someone during a burglary) was executed by lethal injection 28 minutes after decision came down

Sutherland v. Illinois, 418 U.S. 907 (decided July 8, 1974): refusing to review judgment that flag with peace symbol displayed on private property was protected by First Amendment; issue already decided in favor of flag bearer via Spence v. Washington, 1974

Farrell v. Iowa, 418 U.S. 907 (decided July 8, 1974): denying certiorari in case involving flag desecration as part of political speech (citing Spence)

Cahn v. Long Island Vietnam Moratorium Committee, 418 U.S. 906 (decided July 8, 1974): affirming decision upholding prosecution for placing the "Peace Symbol" upon the Flag (citing Spence)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Correction: in Cahn, it should say "vacating" not "upholding".

[DaivdBehar]

JUSTICE JAMES FRANCIS BYRNES. Did not attend an Ivy law school. Apprenticed with a lawyer, as lawyer fav, Lincoln did.

[Frank Drackman]

and a "Strict Constructionist" I mean "Segregationist", boy that FDR was just the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cal Cetín]

I don't like his segregationism, but one thing which stands out about his career is he served for just a year on the Court before going on to other political positions. He didn't hang on to the Supreme Court gig for the remainder of his active life has been known to happen in many cases.

Many justices seemed to regard their justice positions as the culminating point of their cursus honorum. They thought they had no further to rise.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Byrnes was a very useful guy for FDR and Truman. He did all kinds of jobs. He left the Court at FDR’s request to help the war effort. What a resume.

At Yalta he saved an awkward moment when the (by then not very sentient) FDR unintentionally offended Stalin by calling him “Uncle Joe” in front of everybody.

[F.D. Wolf]

I have read that Byrnes was actually offered the opportunity to keep his seat on the Court while heading the Economic Stabilization Department, taking a "leave of absence" of sorts. He declined, citing the need to keep the executive and judiciary separate and that both that the positions each needed someone fully committed to them, not one man splitting his duties.

I'm not sure how true that is, but, regardless, he voluntarily gave up a prestigious position with lifetime tenure, one that most attorneys would consider the pinnacle of their profession, because his country (or at least his President) called. Regardless of what other faults the man may have had, that seems laudable to me.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Quite true! Imagine giving up an extremely prestigious lifetime job that you can’t be fired from.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Regardless of what other faults the man may have had "
. . . none of which right-wing bigots seem eager to address.