Today in Supreme Court History: January 25, 1819

1/25/1819: Thomas Jefferson charters the University of Virginia. 176 years later, the Supreme Court would decide Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995).

The Rehnquist Court

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (decided January 25, 2016): Miller v. Alabama, 2012, declaring that life without parole for juvenile offenders is "cruel and unusual punishment", is to be applied retroactively

Richardson v. Lawrence County, 154 U.S. 536 (decided January 25, 1864): holder of bonds could recover par value even though railroad sold them at 64 cents on the dollar, where county had authorized railroad to sell them only at par

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, 577 U.S. 250 (decided January 25, 2016): no equitable tolling of statute of limitations for tribe suing on claim that federal government breached contract by failing to pay support costs for Indian-run health service; tribe mistakenly believed that there was a toll until a related class action was decertified (the case law on that issue is muddled -- they should have been "better safe than sorry")

Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (decided January 25, 1993): no "attempted monopolization" (§2 of the Sherman Act) where there was no "dangerous probability of success" (this had to do with a new shock-absorbing polymer used in athletic products; manufacturer's switch to new distributor put old distributors out of business) ("The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market")

Virginia v. American Booksellers Ass'n, 484 U.S. 383 (decided January 25, 1988): certifies question to Virginia Supreme Court as to applicability of new Virginia statute criminalizing display of sexually explicit materials where juveniles could see it insofar as it would apply to juveniles of different ages (Virginia court answered that books in question were not "sexually explicit" as defined in the statute, 236 Va. 168) (books included "Ulyssees" and "The Witches of Eastwick")

[F.D. Wolf]

As the Court more recently said, in Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct. 1307 (2021), a juvenile offender can be given a sentence of life without parole, so long as the sentence was not legally mandatory, and the sentencer had discretion to consider the defendant's youth as a mitigating factor.

[SRG]

Because they're authoritarian cunts.

[Frank Drackman]

C-words consider the C-word as bad as N-words consider the N-word.
and are a juvenile "offenders" Victims any less victimized?? Look how many people Michael Myers killed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No need to pull punches with respect to slurs at this blog, Mr. Drackman. This blog welcomes them and publishes them regularly.

[apedad]

Cunts and niggers are minor-league victims compared to the white, American, male, educated, experienced, accomplished VC bloggers and readers who complain about quotas and classifications and equality and diversity.

Those poor guys **** tear runs down my cheek ****

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It’s only a question of paying a small stamp tax, stop being such a victim.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks (this is to F.D. Wolf, obviously, not SRG)

[Bob from Ohio]

"mitigating factor"

Does a murderer consider any mitigating factor before murdering?

"Oh, this woman has kids, better not rape and kill her" or "Maybe this clerk had a drunk for a father who beat him, better not shoot him"

[John F. Carr]

Think of capital punishment as theater and you won't be as disappointed. Judges refuse to ban it because that would be unpopular with one group and they refuse to let it be used because that would be unpopular with another group. I don't count the very slow trickle of executions as letting it be used. So much ink is spilled over the difference between almost no executions and no executions at all, while so much effort is put into excusing extrajudicial capital punishment.

[apedad]

Re: Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia

Facts of the case

Ronald W. Rosenberger, a University of Virginia student, asked the University for $5,800 from a student activities fund to subsidize the publishing costs of Wide Awake: A Christian Perspective at the University of Virginia. The University refused to provide funding for the publication solely because it "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality," as prohibited by University guidelines.

Question

Did the University of Virginia violate the First Amendment rights of its Christian magazine staff by denying them the same funding resources that it made available to secular student-run magazines?

Conclusion (5 - 4)

Yes. The Court, in a 5-to-4 opinion, held that the University's denial of funding to Rosenberger, due to the content of his message, imposed a financial burden on his speech and amounted to viewpoint discrimination. The Court noted that no matter how scarce University publication funding may be, if it chooses to promote speech at all, it must promote all forms of it equally. Furthermore, because it promoted past publications regardless of their religious content, the Court found the University's publication policy to be neutral toward religion and, therefore, not in violation of the establishment clause. The Court concluded by stating that the University could not stop all funding of religious speech while continuing to fund an atheistic perspective. The exclusion of several views is as offensive to free speech as the exclusion of only one. The University must provide a financial subsidy to a student religious publication on the same basis as other student publications. (oyez)

I agree with the decision (and am a little surprised it was only 5 - 4).

UVA's decision was based on content, which they shouldn't have done.

[Reallynotbob]

I struggle with separating "don't establish religion" from "don't publish only the atheistic perspective."

I ask because some folks on this blog are far better versed in 1A religion doctrine than I am. Does the Court view "atheism" as a religion and "secularism" as the absence of a religious viewpoint? I assume a University can impose viewpoint-neutral content-based restrictions on student publications ("no genitals," "no N-word," "no advocating for violence"). So if the government is restrained from establishing any religion, why is the rule "fund all religious advocacy equally" and not "don't fund religious advocacy?" How is equal funding closer to the Framers' intent than withholding funding?

[Jerry B.]

"Thomas Jefferson charters the University of Virginia."

But we now recognize that he was a racist and enslaver, so none of his works are worth maintaining. Besides, UVA is, as noted, a charter school, and thus unworthy.

[Seamus]

I thought it was the General Assembly of the Commonwealth that chartered the University, even if Mr. Jefferson (the University's first rector) was a major moving force in persuading the General Assembly to do so.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He was the "father" of the University of Virginia - says so on his tombstone.

https://images.findagrave.com/photos/2001/222/jeffersonthomas.jpg

[Dan Schiavetta]

He was very proud of his accomplishment, and it's a lovely campus and nowadays a prestigious university.

But he created it because Columbia, Harvard, etc. were in the North and he wanted a place where Southerners could get higher education without that "contamination".

[Bob from Ohio]

William and Mary existed.