Today in Supreme Court History: January 18, 1873

1/18/1873: Bradwell v. Illinois argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (decided January 18, 1989): The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 created the Sentencing Commission (appointed by the President w/Senate approval, three of seven members being federal judges) which sets binding guidelines. Here the Court holds that this arrangement does not violate separation of powers nor is an excessive delegation of authority by Congress. (I'm puzzled by the phrase, "Congress decided to locate this Commission in the Judicial Branch", which is also what the official site says, http://www.ussc.gov. What does that mean exactly? The Chief Justice is the head of the Judicial Branch and the Commission doesn't report to him. It seems to be Executive Branch, no matter what anyone says.)

Golan v. Harper, 565 U.S. 302 (decided January 18, 2012): Copyright Clause allows Congress to give copyright protection to works formerly in public domain (as part of a reciprocity arrangement; these works enjoyed copyright protection in their countries of origin) (suit was brought by conductors, orchestras, publishers) (my cash-poor amateur orchestra is forced to play only old works because they can be downloaded free)

Missouri v. Iowa, 165 U.S. 118 (decided January 18, 1897): boundary between Iowa and Missouri had to be redrawn because the original markers couldn't be located. One had been described as being between two trees (an oak and an elm) which had fallen. A long report from the special master showing efforts to find markers from 1850 and interpret mysterious "blaze" marks left on trees, which are reprinted in the decision. (Someone mischievously inclined could have put in false markers misleading the field investigators so that the border, instead of being a straight line, formed a profile of a naked woman lying on her back, with breasts extending north to Bloomfield, Iowa and knees poking up to Mt. Ayr, butt curving down to Mercer, Mo.)

Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78 (decided January 18, 1909): In 1903 the Governor of Colorado called out the National Guard to break a miner's strike and arrested Moyer on the basis of "military necessity". Here the Court affirms dismissal of Moyer's suit, holding that that the Governor's claim of "insurrection" cannot be questioned and Moyer had no redress in the judicial system against a use of police powers. (In other words, Moyer would have to resort to violence . . . )

Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (decided January 18, 2012): habeas allowed despite blowing deadline on state court appeal where attorney flew the coop without informing defendant

[Dilan Esper]

“Congress decided to locate this Commission in the Judicial Branch”, which is also what the official site says, http://www.ussc.gov. What does that mean exactly? The Chief Justice is the head of the Judicial Branch and the Commission doesn’t report to him. It seems to be Executive Branch, no matter what anyone says.)

Scalia said it was a Junior Varsity Legislature. I love that phrasing, and agree with him. The Sentencing Guidelines should have been struck down twice, first in Mistretta and again in Booker.

[Dilan Esper]

(BTW, the Sentencing Commission and Golan v. Holder are in some ways the worst and best parts of Justice Breyer's jurisprudence. With his law and economics background, he basically hated juries and thought that "experts" would do a far better job in determining exact sentences based on a set of pretty inflexible factors. OTOH, he understood copyright well and always wrote excellent opinions in copyright cases-- in the case of Golan, in a dissent joined by Alito.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks for these interesting comments!

[Krayt]

If the SC overrules the commission, including the three mandartory judge members, he’s overruling those three fractionally in their role as executive branch operatives, not judicial? The justices have no secret boss order channel to them as judges.

Like the way Protestants were worried Kennedy would obey the Pope instead of doing what was best for the nation, if push came to shove.

[apedad]

Re: Mistretta v. United States

Facts of the case

Congress created the United States Sentencing Commission under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. This Commission was to attack the wide discrepancies in sentencing by federal court judges by creating sentencing guidelines for all federal offenses. It was to be part of the judicial branch, with members appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. John Mistretta (convicted of three counts of selling cocaine) claimed that the Act violated the delegation-of-powers principle by giving the Commission "excessive legislative powers." This case was decided together with United States v. Mistretta.

Question

Did the Act violate the nondelegation doctrine of the Constitution?

Conclusion (8 - 1)

The Court found the Act to be valid because although Congress cannot generally delegate its legislative power to another Branch, the nondelegation doctrine does not prevent Congress from obtaining assistance from coordinate Branches. The test of validity is that an "intelligible principle" must be established by the legislature where the agency of the delegated authority must adhere to specific directives that govern its authority. The delegation to the Commission was sufficiently detailed and specific to meet these requirements. The Commission was given substantial authority and discretion in setting the guidelines; however, Congress established a classification hierarchy for federal crimes that the Commission was to use as an outline for its work. (oyez)

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Chief Justice is the head of the Judicial Branch and the Commission doesn’t report to him."

It doesn't report to the President either.

Its a Constitutional bastard. The S/C erred in upholding it.

[SRG]

Maples v Thomas featuring another vile dissent from Scalia, where he tortures the facts to find some reason to deny Maples his out-of-time habeas appeal.

The case also illustrates the extreme extent to which appeals in the US "justice" system are about process and procedure, with justice having little to no part to play.

[Bob from Ohio]

"vile dissent"

Maples shot two people for no reason. Now that is "vile" but you are upset about a dissent.

You're right about one thing, there was no justice in letting this scum live.

[apedad]

Bob,

“A society should be judged not by the way it treats its outstanding citizens, but by the way it treats its criminals.” Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Just like John Adams served as counsel for the defense in the trial of eight British soldiers accused of murder during a riot in Boston on March 5, 1770, the Maples decision is about us, not Maples.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-63

[Bob from Ohio]

John Adams, yawn. Adams was mistaken as I've said many times.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How should the culture war's victors treat the culture war's defeated, bigoted, superstitious, disaffected, worthless losers?

[SRG]

You clearly don’t understand fundamental principles of jurisprudence, or indeed, civilisation.

Further, you don’t appear to understand that Supreme Court decisions are not just about the instant case, but have implications for other cases and other appellants.

I note that Injustice Thomas is wont to spend pages in his dissents laying out the crimes of the appellant before providing the reasons for the dissent, because he wants to get people like you thinking, “yeah, the sumbitch deserved it” before providing some feeble or morally bankrupt rationale for the dissent that you lot cannot analyse critically because now you’ve been primed to think of the appellant as someone who deserves what’s coming, the law be damned,

It is unjust for a convict to be deprived of legal and constitutional rights under the circumstances described in Maples. Sure, Maples himself is a murderer. But we know that not everyone convicted is guilty, and the clear attitude of the happily dead Scalia and regrettably alive Thomas is that guilt is irrelevant if process is followed, and their narrow view of what is acceptable process would not be inconsistent with that of Torquemada or Ximenes.

I want a process that allows a convicted innocent to get an acquittal on appeal, and a guilty person nonetheless not deserving a death sentence not to be executed. Scalia did and Thomas does not, IMO, care, and neither, it seems, do you.

[Bob from Ohio]

You want judges who issue opinions you disagree with to be beaten, so spare me your indignation about Scalia and Thomas.

"guilty person nonetheless not deserving a death sentence"

All murderers deserve a death sentence.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What should un-American insurrections get?

[SRG]

Exaggerate some more, why don't you?

[David Nieporent]

(I’m puzzled by the phrase, “Congress decided to locate this Commission in the Judicial Branch”, which is also what the official site says, http://www.ussc.gov. What does that mean exactly?

It means that Congress said, “There is established as an independent commission in the judicial branch of the United States a United States Sentencing Commission”

Yeah, I know that’s not what you meant, but it’s the answer: it means Congress declared that the thing was part of the judicial branch. Nothing more, nothing less.

But yeah: at least while the guidelines were mandatory, it’s hard to see it as judicial rather than quasi-executive, quasi-legislative.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It’s an anomaly.

There are “independent agencies” in the Executive Branch but they report to the President.

This Commission reports to no one.

It’s as if Congress created a commission to oversee the national production of chocolate chips and said, “Yeah, we’ll . . . um . . . locate this in the Legislative Branch.”

[David Nieporent]

I suppose there may be collateral effects of saying something like that. If (and this is hypothetical) FOIA applies to the executive branch but not the judicial branch, then by saying "This is in the judicial branch" it automatically excludes USSC from FOIA without having to say so.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good point! Maybe that was intentional?

[Dilan Esper]

[duplicate]

[Syd Henderson]

Trying to establish a permanent boundary on the basis of blazes on trees seems remarkably silly.

[Dan Schiavetta]

In the wilderness, traveling light, there might be no other way to do it. Maybe they assumed others would re-mark the boundary sooner than actually happened.

[defaultdotxbe]

Not quite as bad as the treaties that say something like "Where X intersects Y" only to find out later that X never actually does intersect Y

[Dan Schiavetta]

I still think that Chicago, Omaha, Salt Lake City and parts of the Pacific coast should be part of Connecticut. See
https://connecticuthistory.org/from-the-state-historian-the-map-that-wasnt-a-map/

[David Nieporent]

Someone mischievously inclined could have put in false markers misleading the field investigators so that the border, instead of being a straight line, formed a profile of a naked woman lying on her back, with breasts extending north to Bloomfield, Iowa and knees poking up to Mt. Ayr, butt curving down to Mercer, Mo.)

Not clear how one could tell from such an exercise that the woman was naked.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Someone with a more creative mind than mine could probably think of something!

[Its_Not_Inevitable]

Strategic placing of bushes and blueberry hills.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ha!