Today in Supreme Court History: January 30, 1939

1/30/1939: Justice Felix Frankfurter takes oath.

Justice Felix Frankfurter

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Southern Pacific Co. v. Gallagher, 306 U.S. 167 (decided January 30, 1939): California's Use Tax did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause because it applied only to use or storage of property in-state after interstate sale was completed

United States v. Durkee Famous Foods, 306 U.S. 68 (decided January 30, 1939): can't bring second indictment after statute of limitations has run (first one was quashed)

H.P. Welch Co. v. New Hampshire, 306 U.S. 79 (decided January 30, 1939): New Hampshire statute prohibiting driving more than 12 hours a day for hire was not preempted by federal regulation

Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86 (decided January 30, 1939): directional antenna is patentable even though it merely rearranges wires in different lengths and directions in accordance with publicly known formula

Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U.S. 501 (decided January 30, 1922): state can't tax income from lease of protected Indian lands (overruled by Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 1938, insofar as applied to other government-protected lands)

[Area Man]

They overruled a case? How did their legitimacy survive?

[Dan Schiavetta]

They've even overruled their own overrulings, notably in death penalty cases, and on other issues too.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It wasn't a supercase.

[Area Man]

Supercase: Able to leap the Constitution in a single bound!

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Turn any case into a procedural question.

[apedad]

Southern Pacific Co. v. Gallagher is similar to the current National Pork Producers Council v. Ross case (CA law that bans the sale of pork in California unless pregnant pigs are allowed at least 24 square feet [2.2 square meters] of space - regardless where the pigs are, even in other states), in that CA is ONLY enacting a law about activities within its borders.

Any upstream effects (which admittedly may require pervasive changes to the pork production industry nationwide), are not a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-55631/20-55631-2021-07-28.html

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks! (translated: Oink!)

[Bob from Ohio]

Per captcrisis summary:

"after interstate sale was completed"

Current law affects pigs while still in interstate commerce.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Bob:

The facts are a little different in the pig case but a case I commented on here on May 8 of last year seems similar to it:

Mintz v. Baldwin, 289 U.S. 346 (decided May 8, 1933): state does not violate Dormant Commerce Clause by requiring cattle being transported into state to be accompanied by a certificate showing free of disease.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

After four cycles through this often flawed, sometimes off-topic series of "facts," Today In Supreme Court History resembles a more famous series of repetitive reports.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I knew someone would eventually post this. Wonderful!

[Area Man]

My dream is to one day play this for a jury during voir dire to explain beyond a reasonable doubt in a circumstantial-evidence case.

[LawTalkingGuy]

An extremely dry recitation of this by a judge as their circumstantial evidence example while reading jury instructions would also be pretty funny.

[Dilan Esper]

I know a lot of conservative legal thinkers take the pork producers' side in the SCOTUS case. But it strikes me that this is a classic example of something that can be left to the political branches. If conservatives are right that it will be impossible to comply with the law, Californians will be faced with paying $25 for an Egg McMuffin and will almost certainly revolt and repeal the statute. On the other hand, if it is possible to comply with the law, then people will comply with the law. I don't see the great threat to interstate commerce here.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Your Highness:

The Court did say, “It cannot be maintained, therefore, that the order so unnecessarily burdens interstate transportation as to contravene the commerce clause.” But you’re right, the thrust of the opinion was preemption.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts politicians rescued voters from themselves when eggs were about to be impossible to find. Voters had demanded cage free eggs with 1.5 square feet of floor space per hen. Egg producers were not going to meet that standard because Massachusetts is a small market. A last minute compromise law reduced the space to 1 square foot in some cases to be consistent with other “cage free” states.

I saw a sign in the grocery store a year ago:

To Our Valued Customers:
Due to Bill S.2470 Passing in MA
Effective January 1, 2022 All Eggs Sold In
Massachusetts Are Required To Be
Cage Free
We Apologize For Any Inconvenience
Thank You

[David Nieporent]

But it strikes me that this is a classic example of something that can be left to the political branches. If conservatives are right that it will be impossible to comply with the law, Californians will be faced with paying $25 for an Egg McMuffin and will almost certainly revolt and repeal the statute.

Also, nobody disputes that (at least as the commerce clause is currently interpreted) Congress could step in. We don't need to guess about the operation of the dormant commerce clause if there's an active commerce clause.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don’t see the great threat to interstate commerce here."

You aren't an Iowa pork producer.

California obviously consumes a lot of pork [it has a lot of people] but it produces less than 1% of US pork. It has little impact on California farmers but will badly hurt framers in the midwest.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I know a lot of conservative legal thinkers take the pork producers’ side in the SCOTUS case.

Were it principle rather than partisanship and reflexive backwardness, conservatives would have objected to (rather than arranged) Texas' downscale influence with respect to textbooks.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and if complied with affect pork prices to all US consumers.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would you be OK with pork producers shifting the whole cost of compliance to only that pork sold in CA?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I mean, they can, for things actually happening within their state. The problem here is that the pork isn't being produced inside California, and they're regulating the production process, not the end product. You literally can't tell the difference between pork that complies with their regulations, and pork that doesn't, there isn't any difference in the pork. That's why they have to send inspectors to other states to see what is done; The pork itself isn't any different.

So they're regulating out of state conduct, not in state conduct.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Circumstantial? (a) there would be payroll records of him being "on the clock" at the time, operating that vehicle. IANAA but is proof that you were in possession of the vehicle at the time relevant?
(b) at least one of them would have seen him getting out of the vehicle, and a store would have video of it as well.

[Dr. Ed 2]

California is different because it is a 2 hour drive to Nevada, but with most of Massachusetts being within 30 miles of another state, I wondered how long it would be before people simply shopped there.

Ever notice how Nashua (NH)'s retail has already expanded to the state line? (NH has no sales tax, MA has a 6.25% one.)

[Mr. Bumble]

An example of Ilya Somin's "foot voting"?

[John F. Carr]

The Pheasant Lane Mall was built right up to the state line in the 1980s. As the legend goes, a corner of an otherwise rectangular building was cut back to avoid crossing the state line into the higher tax jurisdiction. The legend goes on to say everything in the mall would have been taxed by Massachusetts if even a sliver of the building crossed the state line, which I doubt is true.

For a while there was a law saying border towns in Massachusetts could sell liquor on Sunday when the rest of the state was observing the blue laws.

[Dilan Esper]

It's a lot more than 2 hours from ANY seriously populated part of California to Nevada, except maybe Sacramento.

[LawTalkingGuy]

1. Payroll records would be circumstantial evidence. It doesn't directly prove that he was operating the vehicle....just that the was paid for that day by the employer. But a reasonable person could use that fact as an inference that he drove the car that day i.e. making a logical conclusion from circumstances.

2. Any person who actually saw him drive the car into the store and get out of the car would have direct evidence of him being the perpetrator. Video that clearly showed him would also be direct evidence.

3. The skit is a perfect explainer of the power of circumstantial evidence. Nobody there actually saw Tim drive the car into the store! Because we see the empty car after the crash and then him in the crowd and they want to find the driver. They correctly conclude it is him because he's dressed like a hot dog, not because they saw him.

[John F. Carr]

Much like the FDA regulates the process followed by foreign drug and medical device manufacturers in their foreign factories. The FDA is obsessed with process. A drug for which all the paperwork is not in order might as well be cyanide with a dash of polonium. If a company in Germany or India wants to sell to the United States it has to permit FDA inspectors in its factories.

[David Nieporent]

and they’re regulating the production process,

They are not regulating the production process or out of state conduct. Everyone on the planet outside the state of California is free to do whatever they want with their pigs. (Get your mind out of the gutter!) The only thing they're regulating is what can be sold in the state of California.

[Mr. Bumble]

Apples and oranges?

Does the USDA inspect foreign food processors?

[David Nieporent]

Does the USDA inspect foreign food processors?

Yes.

[Mr. Bumble]

That can't be right since the USDA does not have enough inspectors to cover existing US food processors.

[Life of Brian]

Does the USDA inspect foreign food processors?

Yes.

FDA does (actually just reserves the right to, and also reserves the right to put you on a naughty list and/or not let your food in if you refuse or don't respond to an inspection).

USDA relies on the regulatory/inspection regime of the facility's country for the facility itself, but may inspect the food when it reaches the USA.

[David Nieporent]

That can’t be right since the USDA does not have enough inspectors to cover existing US food processors.

They don't do it full time, but they do send inspectors from time to time. (They mostly assess the foreign regulators, and if they believe those regulators meet USDA standards, that's good enough.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

His behavior is also suspicious.

But is his naked display of shoplifting relevant? And his apparent larceny of the car at the end?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem I have with all of this is that were I there (and neither injured nor with a more compelling issue (e.g. wellbeing of a child), I'd have gone for the ignition before he had a chance of getting out of the vehicle. Shut it off so we don't have a fire, and then presume that the operator has something medically wrong with him -- and attempt to render aid.

I understand that not everyone else is like this -- I understand that 90% of people will "freeze" and not be able to act, but if I reached into the vehicle and shut it off, and then attempted to evaluate the operator, I'd like to think that my testimony would be credible as to whom it was that I was evaluating, at least to clothing, body size and the rest...

[Area Man]

His behavior and apparent larceny of the car are definitely relevant. They both show his state of mind. If it wasn't his car why was he putting stuff in it? The fact that he flees at the end would also allow the jury to rationally infer that he was guilty.

The shoplifting, I think, while a closer call, is also relevant because it shows a motive for running the car through the store. It might be a dumb way to burglarize a store, but the plan's likelihood of success doesn't really affect its relevancy in showing motive. Motive itself is, of course, not an element of the offense, but it helps prove other elements, most notably the applicable mental state.

[Dilan Esper]

Unlikely. If it's so expensive to comply with, there will be $25 McMuffins in California and $2 McMuffins everywhere else, until the voters revote and repeal it.

If it isn't expensive to comply with, it may add 25 cents to the cost of a McMuffin nationwide.

Either way, this is not a big deal.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they ARE regulating the production process, because the end result of the process is the same pork, whether the California regulations are followed or not. Compliance with the regs isn't a property of the pork.

[David Nieporent]

No, they're not regulating the production process. Here's what regulating the production process looks like: "You may not raise pigs this particular way. If you do, you get shut down/go to jail."

Here's what they're saying: "Raise pigs however you want. But if you raise them this particular way, you can't sell them in our state."

So what if it isn't a property of the pork? That doesn't change the fact that you're free to raise the pigs however you want; they're not telling you otherwise. The only act being regulated is the sale within the borders of the state of California.

[Brett Bellmore]

So the penalty changes it from a regulation of the production process, to a regulation of the pork itself? The penalty dictates this, not the conduct being regulated?

The sad thing is, I'm willing to believe you think that makes sense.

[David Nieporent]

So the penalty changes it from a regulation of the production process, to a regulation of the pork itself? The penalty dictates this, not the conduct being regulated?

No, that's not it at all; you still misunderstand. The "conduct being regulated" is the sale of the pork in California.

There isn't a penalty for producing pigs the wrong way. That's what makes it not a regulation of the production process.