The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: October 12, 1977
10/12/1977: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke argued.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
United States v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1 (decided October 12, 1976): after conviction based on marijuana found in car, the Circuit Court (in another case) created an exclusionary rule which was retrospective; defendant demanded a hearing which resulted in suppression of the evidence and vacating the conviction. Here, the Court held that Double Jeopardy does not bar Government from appealing the suppression finding, because if the appeal is successful, it merely means the guilty verdict is reinstated.
Prunty v. Brooks, 528 U.S. 9 (decided October 12, 1999): one of several orders that day either imposing sanctions on compulsive filers of pro se certiorary motions or requiring them to pay full fees instead of proceeding in forma pauperis; Prunty himself was on his tenth filing, all frivolous; it is noted that all were on non-criminal matters
Patterson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 269 U.S. 1 (decided October 12, 1925): amendment of Interstate Commerce Commission rate regulation power specifically applying to rates of short vs. long hauls also applied to rates of through vs. aggregate hauls; through rate being higher than aggregate rates is per se unreasonable, just as is short haul rate being higher than long haul rate
Lower courts should follow the Supreme Court’s example. In courts, especially state courts, serial frivolous filers impose real costs on their victims. It costs them nothing because they’re their own “lawyer” and also the court waives fees because they’re poor. At minimum, a per se rule that each pauper only gets one free suit per year and has to pay filing fees for subsequent suits, refundable if he wins, would do the trick. Even a pauper can have a legitimate grievance, but if a pauper is filing multiple suits in a year he’s probably just a nuisance.
I’ve had two experiences with multiple pro se filers.
One was a woman who had lost her wrongful death case against our client (a pharmaceutical company). She kept on filing handwritten motions to reargue. I think the truth was she could not face up to the fact that her mother had been taken from her and felt like someone else (namely our client) had to be to blame. Even my boss, from the “real tough guy” school of lawyering, thought our client should pay her a few thousand if only to make her go away and feel better.
The other instance was when I was managing partner and the pro se filer was driving the associate crazy. I told him to just take it with good humor. Plaintiff, age 82, specialized in going to the Appellate Division for extensions of time to appeal. I went once and met his wife, who shrugged at me with a smile. Being annoyed and running around making motions was what kept him active and in a way happy.
Since these posts have no content and are only headlines for things you have to click to view, I think they ought to be rewritten in the form of clickbait.
“Bakke sued the University of California for discrimination and what happens next will shock you!”
IANAL and I approve this message.
Or Prof Volokh could invite captcrisis to do this officially. He and I sure don’t agree on much, but he does a bangup job on these.
Thanks!
If you want to see the awesome real world implications of government racial discrimination (sometimes called ‘affirmative action’) do an internet search for the guy who was admitted instead of Bakke.