Today in Supreme Court History: January 6, 1964

1/6/1964: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan argued.

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

A decision that will live (lives) in infamy.

[David Nieporent]

So you side with segregationists trying to silence critics. Not surprising, but good to see you admit it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

There were plenty of ways to curb the segregationists without rewriting the libel laws.

Hard cases make bad law.

[Mr. Bumble]

Always grateful to have you around to tell people what they said.
As Margrave says below: bad cases make bad law.

[Sarcastr0]

Less free speech, to address when it's disinformation, eh Bumble?

Consistency ain't your strong suit!

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (decided January 6, 1997): court can take into account preponderance of evidence of illegal possession of guns in sentencing for cocaine offense, even though acquitted of gun charge (where beyond reasonable doubt standard had been applied)

Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews, 375 U.S. 361 (decided January 6, 1964): Florida can't require ice cream makers to buy milk in-state (violates "Dormant Commerce Clause")

Heikkinen v. United States, 355 U.S. 273 (decided January 6, 1958): vacating conviction for disobeying deportation order because 1) no evidence that any country was willing to receive him and 2) never told where to report for deportation (deportation was based on Communist Party membership)

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (decided January 6, 1936): what Congress called a "tax" is not really a tax and is outside the Taxing Power (this was a "processing tax" which served to shift expenses of complying with agricultural regulations from farmers to food processors) (the Court later abandoned this restrictive view of enumerated powers, see citations in 403 F.3d 272 n.65)

[Mr. Bumble]

And in other SC news:

Supreme Court Justice PB&J (the first Black ?woman?) to serve on the Supreme Court will be writing a memoir tentatively entitled "Lovely One".
“Justice Jackson invites readers into her life and world, chronicling the experiences that have shaped her,” the announcement from Penguin Random House reads. “From growing up in Miami with educator parents who broke barriers during the 1960s to honing her voice as an oratory champion to performing improv and participating in pivotal student movements at Harvard to balancing the joys and demands of marriage and motherhood while advancing in Big Law — and, finally, to making history upon joining the nation’s highest court.”

I'm sure this will be a NYT's best seller.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You preferred Justice Alito's limited edition work, 'Hobby Lobby Will Like It And I Will Write It"?

[Mr. Bumble]

Let me know where I can get a copy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let me know where I can get a copy.

A good detective would start looking at Federalist Society gatherings . . . focusing on donors to the Supreme Court Historical Society.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess you've dealt with alot of Detectives the last 20 years, Jerry.

[Bob from Ohio]

"entitled “Lovely One”

Wise Latina and Lovely One. They do have high opinions of themselves.

[Bob from Ohio]

Funny thing about Sullivan is that is has been bad for media overall. Allegations are rushed to print/broadcast without any real checking, resulting in too many turning out false or overblown. Result is declining respect for media.

[Mr. Bumble]

..but few successful libel claims so they don't care.

[Bob from Ohio]

They are dumb. Declining respect equals declining revenue which equals declining employment.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm carrying an umbrella until your point has finished passing above me.

[Bob from Ohio]

"people making serious claims"

AKA people lying.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you think that's a bad thing?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. I think public figures using lawfare to try to shut down criticism is a bad thing. Trump and Nunes in particular already badly abuse the court system to try to punish their enemies, even with the protections of Sullivan.

[Mr. Bumble]

You don't think that some in the media use Sullivan as a shield to make claims that would have been libel pre Sullivan.
Also, hard to claim (especially for a lawyer) that using the courts to address a perceived grievance is lawfare. Doesn't seem to have gotten Trump or Nunes or Palin very far.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm not looking for some special privilege for myself or anyone else. If I or anyone else breaks the law they should expect to face the consequences. In the case of libel, it seems that Sullivan turned the law on its head.

[Mr. Bumble]

"This is the guy complaining about middle school level comments."

I have but like you I carve out an exception for myself.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Arrangements to effect your deportation are being made", he was told. He was ordered to apply to Finland (which I think is a proper order), but was waiting for further forms/instructions from our Government, which I suppose would clear things with the Finnish authorities, but they never came.

[defaultdotxbe]

You don’t think that some in the media use Sullivan as a shield to make claims that would have been libel pre Sullivan.

That's kindof a tautology. Of course once you protect a right (or find that it extends to a particular area) of course people are going to exercise that right in those areas.
How many people use Heller/McDonald/Bruen as a "shield" to keep and carry handguns in places where it would have been illegal before those cases?
How many states use Dobbs as a "shield" to pass abortion restrictions that would have been illegal pre-Dobbs?
You can apply that logic to just about any SCOTUS case.

[Bob from Ohio]

Why not? Works both ways, Texas juries on NYT articles.

Opinions would still be protected, made up facts should not be.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The media you like is the least professional and trained out there."

I look at the local paper's web site and the rest I get from twitter links to various outlets, left and right. Even NYT on occasion when the link bypasses the paywall.

"better protect public officials and figures"

public officials and figures should be treated the same as anyone else

You want special privileges for media.

[apedad]

"You want special privileges for media."

Um, the First Amendment would like to talk with you.

[Ed Grinberg]

I know it's what I always say, but: Queenie, you're a moron.
In order for something to be "libel," it must be false. The "mainstream media" libels people far more frequently than the "rightwing outlets" that bother you so much. Here's one (relatively) recent example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation#Defamation_lawsuits