Today in Supreme Court History: October 6, 2010

10/6/2010: Snyder v. Phelps is argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Lopez v. Smith, 574 U.S. 1 (decided October 6, 2014): Court grants cert and upholds state murder conviction where prosecution switched theories at end of trial (defendant aided and abetted murder of wife instead of directly wielding metal bar that killed her); Ninth Circuit had relied on its own precedent, which prohibited such practices, in granting habeas, but 1996 statute restricting habeas only to where state court misapplied federal law refers only to federal law established by the Court (which has been silent on this issue) (this strikes me as odd; Thomas, who wrote the opinion, seems to be saying only SCOTUS can declare federal law -- but if a federal law issue is totally settled and universally accepted, it might never have gotten considered by SCOTUS because no one bothered to litigate it, or there never was a split of authority for the Court to resolve)

[John F. Carr]

I wonder what issues are totally settled and uncontroversial as a matter of federal law, so there is no Supreme Court precedent, but are openly defied by a state court of last resort.

The courts of Massachusetts see the First Circuit as persuasive authority on the meaning of federal law. If the question is close they would rather not have forum-dependent outcomes. The red states out West might not see the Ninth Circuit as persuasive.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trial courts in one Circuit are not bound by Court of Appeals decisions from another Circuit.

I do have a lot of experience in researching a universally accepted point of law (stated by trial and intermediate appellate courts) and being frustrated in that the state’s highest court has never spoken on the issue.

[apedad]

Re: Snyder v. Phelps

Facts of the case The family of deceased Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder filed a lawsuit against members of the Westboro Baptist Church who picketed at his funeral. The family accused the church and its founders of defamation, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress for displaying signs that said, “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “Fag troops” at Snyder’s funeral. U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett awarded the family $5 million in damages, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the judgment violated the First Amendment’s protections on religious expression. The church members’ speech is protected, “notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words.”

Question Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?

Conclusion Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. The Court held that the First Amendment shields those who stage a protest at the funeral of a military service member from liability. Justice Stephen J. Breyer filed a concurring opinion in which he wrote that while he agreed with the majority’s conclusion in the case, “I do not believe that our First Amendment analysis can stop at that point.” Justice Samuel Alito filed a lone dissent, in which he argued: “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.” (Oyez)

Whatever happened to those happy-go-lucky folks from Westboro Baptist Church?

IIRC, WBC then sued the family and they ended up paying WBC for attorney and court costs!

[John F. Carr]

Fred Phelps died in 2014. I haven't heard much about WBC since then.

[Dan Schiavetta]

What WBC did was not as bad as what Trump’s friend Alex Jones did to the Sandy Hook families, unfortunately with all too many Republicans taking Jones’s side.

[apedad]

Big differences though.

WBC was demonstrating and shouting general statements where Alex was making specific allegations.

WBC got off (rightly so) and Alex got nailed (also rightly so).

[Syd Henderson]

The WBC case seems somewhat analogous to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie which was a 5-4 decision as opposed to 8-1 in the WBC case. I think both cases were rightly decided and help preserve the freedoms of less unpopular groups.

[John F. Carr]

Jones was found liable as a sanction for discovery-related misconduct.

[Bob from Ohio]

"all too many Republicans taking Jones’s side"

Name one.

A prominent one, not some rando person in Outoftheway Montana.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Marjorie Taylor Greene. At least that's what I found in my first ten seconds of searching.

[RENATA the rational]

This separation of Church and State has backfired. If we strengthened religion we would see decent people shunning Westboro into silence. Now people expect the State to take care of the Church, hence the lawsuit. It has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. This is like the Cross-burning example used by Clarence Thomas to show that some actions irrespective of words and statements is meant to inflict harm

My background is about as religious as one could be but I deplore Westboro and I blame it on the separation of Church and State fanatics. We know have to collapse decent and moral and civilized into 'legal'

[Krychek_2]

You've just identified the problem with "strengthening" religion. Which religions would you strengthen, and by what objective standard?

Westboro is a religion. It may not be a religion you like very much, but there is no serious claim that it's not a religion. So when Westboro then comes along and says, "We're a religion, so strengthen us," do you really want the state to be in charge of deciding if it's a good religion or a bad religion? And if not the state, then whom?

[defaultdotxbe]

Either the court is becoming more favorable to the 1st amendment, or WBC is more likable than Nazis.

I'd say 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

[RENATA the rational]

Just because speech is involved doesn't automatically make it a 1A case. We are doing the same thing with guns now. Find a gun somewhere and it's a 2A case.

When we valued marriage, just to give an example, we had laws like the Alienation of Affections, a perfectly good law. But now because marriage is just a commodity no one says that someone's wrecking a marriage is a bad thing except if they do it 'illegally' !!