Today in Supreme Court History: January 13, 2014

1/13/2014: NLRB v. Noel Canning argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

One, Inc. v. Olsesen, 355 U.S. 371 (decided January 13, 1958): citing its recent decision in Roth v. United States, Court reverses Circuit Court and affirms obscenity conviction despite First Amendment challenge. The Circuit Court decision, 241 F.2d 772, is a pleasure to read. It is an essay on our changing ideas of obscenity: "morals are not static like the everlasting hills, but are like the vagrant breezes to which the mariner must ever trim his sails". The material at issue was a groundbreaking magazine called "One" which had fiction, articles and photographs dealing with homosexuality (both sexes). An article on "One" is at https://daily.jstor.org/one-the-first-gay-magazine-in-the-united-states/ (BTW, Roth was overruled in 1973.)

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (decided January 13, 1988): First Amendment did not preclude school board from redacting on privacy grounds pages of high school newspaper on the lives of its pregnant students (even though names were changed) and on inappropriateness grounds mentions of sexual activity and birth control (the board's action probably resulted in more pregnancies)

Cochnower v. United States, 248 U.S. 405 (decided January 13, 1919): Secretary of the Treasury had no power to cut custom official's compensation (from $5 to $4 per diem) because statute empowered him only to "increase and fix" compensation, not reduce it (from the lower court opinion we see that the cut was not punishment but the result of "reorganization and reclassification")

Babcock v. Kijakazi, 595 U.S. --- (decided January 13, 2022): years spent by un-uniformed techician in assisting National Guard was not "years in uniformed service" so as to avoid reduction of Social Security benefits under dual-pension "windfall" rule

Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (decided January 13, 2009): conviction for failing to report to prison for violent offense was not itself a "violent felony" as an aggravating sentencing factor under the Armed Career Criminal Act (overruled by Johnson v. United States, 2015)

[Commenter_XY]

Wow...would Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier come out the same way, today? I wonder. Seems like an appropriate case for today, given the controversy around free speech and censorship.

[Dilan Esper]

It probably would. The school newspaper is curricular. Students have the least free speech rights in a curricular situation. (E.g., to give you a super-common example, a high school public speaking teacher can prohibit speeches about any topic of religion as completing its persuasive speech in front of the class assignment.)

[John F. Carr]

Johnson changed the legal standard under which Chambers was decided but the result of Chambers would be the same under the new standard.

[John F. Carr]

I must find where I put my old book about sex and the law. It has a chapter on homosexuality prosecutions in the 1950s, when even the hardened court staff was reluctant to say out loud the name of the crime.

[apedad]

Re: One, Inc. v. Olesen

One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court for LGBT rights in the United States. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that the gay magazine ONE violated obscenity laws, thus upholding constitutional protection for pro-homosexual writing. (wiki)

This case along with Brown v. Board of Education (1954, SC ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional), are huge cases coming out of the 1950s.

The Warren Court...wow!

Loving (interracial marriage)
Miranda (rights warning)
Gideon (right to counsel)
Several cases which incorporated amendments to the states
etc.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Got another one wrong! Thanks!

I should have read the Circuit Court opinion better. It has that thoughtful passage on what is obscene and then says the magazine is “obscene and filthy”. And Roth was never overruled. I must have gotten it confused with another case.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Looking at this again, and at my comment on October 8 on Roth, I'm confused. Roth affirmed an obscenity conviction, and was in effect overruled by Miller v. California in 1973; Westlaw doesn't say so, but reading Miller one sees that Brennan had abandoned his earlier analysis. Yet in throwing out an obscenity conviction in One, Inc., the Court cited Roth.

?

[Dilan Esper]

Yes, the Miller/Paris Adult Theater three part test is at the least a significant modification of the Roth test.

[apedad]

And that's why 'Make America Great Again' is so popular. . . . well among a certain portion of the population.