Today in Supreme Court History: October 26, 1774

10/26/1774: First Continental Congress ends its first session in Philadelphia.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Kurtz, 164 U.S. 49 (decided October 26, 1896): this mundane case concerns how a clerk's fee is to be calculated -- by transaction? by entire case? does entering jury information count? incredibly, there was already a body of case law on this question, some of it by the Court

Arciniega v. Freeman, 404 U.S. 4 (decided October 26, 1971): chatting with co-workers who happened to have criminal records was not a violation of parole

American Ry. Express Co. v. Daniel, 269 U.S. 40 (decided October 26, 1925): shipper bound by stipulation setting lower rate even though higher rate (because the goods were above a certain value) should have applied

[F.D. Wolf]

Parole was abolished in the federal system in 1987 (though I believe it still exists in the military justice system). Obviously, there were still individuals on parole then (I don't know if any still are), who remained under the jurisdiction of the United States Parole Commission. The Commission was set to expire in 1992, but its existence was extended in 1990. The Attorney General is required to submit annual reports to Congress regarding the continued cost-effectiveness of the Commission. Congress has since extended the existence of the Commission in 1996, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2013, and, most recently, in 2020. The Commission is currently set to expire in November 2022.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Commission is currently set to expire in November 2022.

Any bets on that happening?

[defaultdotxbe]

Someone who received a long sentence for a crime committed prior to 1987 would still be eligible to receive parole, even today. There aren't many of those (less than 2000) but I suspect the commission will exist as long as there is even 1 left.

[F.D. Wolf]

Thank you. You are certainly correct.

They are additionally responsible for local probationers under the D.C. Code, which I suspect make up the most individuals in their charge. In addition to military parolees, they are also charged with state parolees/probationers in the Federal Witness Protection Program and U.S. citizens convicted in foreign courts who, per treaty, are entitled to serve part of their sentence in the United States.

One might wonder if there are enough people under their jurisdiction to justify a separate government department, as opposed to, for example, putting them under the jurisdiction of U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services, but, as you suggest, it will likely be around forever, so long as one individual falls under their jurisdiction.

[David Nieporent]

Arciniega v. Freeman, 404 U.S. 4 (decided October 26, 1971): chatting with co-workers who happened to have criminal records was not a violation of parole

There's got to be more to this story. Arciniega must have pissed someone off, and they decided to get back at him, because the government's position was absurd. He worked at a restaurant/bar. The restaurant had two other ex-cons working there. That was the sum total of this particular parole violation.¹ (Not even "chatting." The government apparently did not present any evidence beyond the fact that they all worked for the same employer.) The Supreme Court, in a short per curium order, basically said, "Come on. Stop being douchebags."

¹The limited court record implies that there could have been other possible violations, but the Ninth Circuit upheld the revocation solely on this ground.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[Mr. Bumble]

Hmmm. Supreme Court History before there was a United States of America.

[Syd Henderson]

On the other hand, there doesn't seem to have been much happening on this date.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Research might -- likely would -- dispel that impression.

[5.56]

Knock knock - whos there?
Not John Fetterman. Not anymore.

😀

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe there are enough poorly educated, downscale bigots left in Pennsylvania -- it's a long drive of desolation from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh -- to elect Mehmet Oz.

But most of those desolate, uneducated, superstitious Republican towns have been emptying for decades, so maybe not.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

With respect to that debate, I though John Fetterman did relatively well for a stroke survivor engaged in a remarkably fast-paced exchange with sketchy captioning.

I also though Mehmet Oz did relatively well for an ass-kissing grifter and lying carpetbagger who cuddles with bigots and QAnon kooks.

[5.56]

Stroke survivors and people in early stage dementia may be representative of the democratic voter base when it comes to general cognitive abilities and therefore seem to have a good shot at getting elected by their blue constituents.

As someone who is enjoying the gradual decline of a decadent, out of touch, culturally fringe, economically unviable, obsolete democratic party, I am currently very optimistic.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That's probably true as to October 26. I couldn't find anything more significant the Court did that day.

However I do find it interesting how the Court sometimes gets roped into trivialities like Clerk's fees (maybe they didn't have the power of cert in those days as to such matters).

And it did matter to lots of parolees what was decided in the Arciniega case. Having supervised a murder-rape parolee back in the early 1980's who also turned out to be a friend, I know how someone who is newly "on the outside" is lonely and tends to find friends among ex-cons, if only by default.

Also it's interesting how a railroad can't hide behind ICC rate regulations after its mistake is discovered, a mistake the customer probably relied on.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What about Oct. 26 events -- a contract signed, a protest conduct, a law violated, a statute made effective, an injury sustained -- underlying important Supreme Court decisions?

[Dan Schiavetta]

That's partly the approach Josh takes (when he's not sending out posthumous birthday cards). Not that I'm trying to be the "anti-Josh" (though actually that's true), but I restrict myself to things the Court did on a certain day.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not believe it is your job to fix shoddy South Texas-Georgetown scholarship.

[David Nieporent]

I know how someone who is newly “on the outside” is lonely and tends to find friends among ex-cons, if only by default.

Yes, but the actual purpose of the restriction is to prevent those sorts of associations, on the theory that one should find a better social circle to keep one out of trouble. That's reasonable. (I mean, maybe it's empirically wrong, but it at least passes the rational basis test.)

The purpose is not to prevent parolees from tangentially encountering ex-cons in ways not even within their control. As SCOTUS noted, that would mean one could have to quit one's job if one's employer decided to hire an ex-con.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, understood.

[defaultdotxbe]

And of course these days a parolee's best (sometimes only) chance of getting a job is from an employer who goes out of their way to give ex-cons a chance. There are many who hire ex-cons exclusively.

[Mr. Bumble]

Today in Supreme Court History: October 26.2022.
Still no word on who was responsible for leaking the Dobb's decision.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I’d be satisfied just if the name of the leaker was leaked. I wouldn’t care who the leaker of the leaker was. Because it would have been such a big leak.

(Which reminds me of: among the very inventive graffiti in the boys’ room in my high school was a bull’s-eye someone had drawn way up near the ceiling — he must have been standing on top of a urinal to do it. Next to it he wrote, “If you can hit this, you should join the Fire Department.”)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe the Republicans who control the Court should hand responsibility and authority for the investigation to Democrats?