Today in Supreme Court History: March 9, 1937

3/9/1937: President Roosevelt delivers a fireside chat on his Court-packing plan.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (decided March 9, 1964): The foundation of current law on freedom of speech in the media. A public figure can’t sue for libel unless “actual malice”, i.e., knowledge of falsity. Here, an ad in the New York Times from civil rights leaders protesting police brutality provoked Alabama official Sullivan (who was referred to only obliquely) to sue for libel. Court vacates $500,000 verdict.

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (decided March 9, 1987): alien can on asylum grounds oppose deportation after overstaying visa not for “clear probability” of prosecution in her home country, but just a “well-founded fear” (applicant’s brother had been tortured in their native Nicaragua by those who knew she had escaped) (in my experience, overstaying a visa is the rational thing to do: show up in Federal Plaza in New York for an extension, or for any appointment for that matter, even a citizenship interview, and they take away your cell phone — back in the pre-cell phone era when my wife applied, there weren’t any pay phones there — and won’t let anyone accompany you, and you might find yourself put in handcuffs and flown back to Mexico on false pretenses, which is what happened to my neighbor, who had an American husband and three young children born in this country)

United States v. The Amistad, 40 U.S. 518 (decided March 9, 1841): Africans who had taken over Spanish slave ship which ended up off Long Island were freemen; kidnaped into slavery illegally and therefore Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819, which required return of slaves, did not apply, and were not “property”, so the Pinckney Treaty of 1795, requiring return of property, did not apply (case argued by John Quincy Adams — as Secretary of State, the “Adams” of the Adams-Onís Treaty — who could not have been as hammy as Anthony Hopkins in the 1997 movie, nor did he have to shout over any loud, inspiring John Williams music flooding the courtroom)

Wood v. Davis, 11 U.S. 271 (decided March 9, 1812): Marshall reverses a judgment of freedom, holding that a judgment that the mother was free does not mean that her children are free. Ah, good times . . . Francis Scott Key argued for the slaveowner. Gabriel Duvall (later on the Court) argued for those seeking freedom.

Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (decided March 9, 1987): statutorily permitted warrantless search was done in good faith and therefore evidence obtained is admissible even though this type of search was later found unconstitutional (search of autos in junkyard revealed that three were stolen; the next day, the local federal court in another case found the statute violated Due Process, 518 F. Supp. 582)

Department of Transportation v. Ass’n of American Railroads, 575 U.S. 43 ( decided March 9, 2015): Amtrak is a governmental entity and therefore has authority (along with Department of Transportation) to set national passenger railroad standards

Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (decided March 9, 2009): three-year wait did not violate Sixth Amendment “speedy trial” right; delays were due to defendant (who went through six court-appointed attorneys that he either fired or threatened to kill) (I was an intern in the Brooklyn D.A. office and, though I never heard of anything this extreme, I did notice that most defendants did not want a speedy trial, even though like this guy they were in jail the whole time; certainly their attorneys didn’t, delay gave them more time to prepare)

Kansas v. Colorado, 556 U.S. 98 (decided March 9, 2009): Original jurisdiction cases are so “sui generis” that the Court hates to make up special rules for them. Here, after a dispute over Arkansas River rights was resolved, the Court falls back on the “American rule” as to each side bearing its own attorney’s fees, and adopts the standard modest exception for attendance costs, 18 U.S.C. §1821.

Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (decided March 9, 1998): Confession of a nontestifying defendant is inadmissible if it also implicates the co-defendant (Bruton v. United States, 1968), even if a limiting instruction is given. Here the Court holds this is true even if the co-defendant’s name is redacted. (Evidence has to be adduced, as we trial lawyers say, “subject to connection”, and after the confession was read to the jury with Gray’s name redacted, the police officer testified that after getting the confession, he arrested Gray.)

Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155 (decided March 9, 1998): crimes on Army bases are not subject under the “assimilation” statute (18 U.S.C. §13) to local state law where a federal law specifically applies to same conduct (here, murder of a child, first-degree murder under Louisiana statute but second-degree under parallel federal statute)

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (decided March 9, 1953): established the “state secrets” privilege; suit brought by widows of civilians on ground killed in crash of B-29 bomber in Georgia; Air Force claimed its investigative report would reveal state secrets, so ordered not produced; remanded to District Court where case settled (years later it was declassified and showed nothing more than that the crash was caused by a fire in an engine, so relief was sought via coram nobis, which the Court denied(sub nom In re Herring, 539 U.S. 940 (2003)) and the Court also refused to hear the appeal of the Circuit Court decision holding that there was no “fraud on the court” (cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1123 (2006)) (even though, to me, the government’s assertion that this was a secret mission was irrelevant to the cause of the crash)

[John F. Carr]

On the parenthetical after Vermont v. Brillon, around five years ago I read an article in one of the liberal East Coast publications (i.e. not the New York Post) about the cruelty of NYC's policy of keeping people held on bail for minor crimes. The effect was to coerce guilty pleas, because you were going to spend longer behind bars waiting for trial than you would ever be sentenced to serve.

We don't have ludicrous bail amounts in Massachusetts. If a defendant is too dangerous to release on bail the court will order him held without bail rather than setting bail at eleventy gazillion dollars. Otherwise there is a preference for affordable bail or no bail.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm no financial expert, but (pending inflation) eleventy gazillion seems like excessive bail.

And IIRC, all but two states admitted to the Union after 1789 had constitutional provisions providing for bail in noncapital cases. Two of the original states had such provisions, the rest, I believe, observed that right in practice.

Sufficient to trigger the 9th Amendment? If not, what *is* the 9th amendment good for?

[apedad]

Re: United States v. Reynolds

Facts of the case

An airplane carrying several military personnel and several civilians crashed while conducting tests of "secret electronic equipment." The widows of the three civilians killed sued and asked for full disclosure of the Air Force's accident investigation report. The report included information pertaining to the secret electronic equipment. The Air Force refused to provide the information, saying that to do so would threaten national security. Absent the report, the District Court and Court of Appeals viewed the question of negligence in the widow's favor and ruled for the plaintiffs.

Question

If the government invokes privilege to withhold information in civil proceedings, must the trial court view the point on which evidence is withheld in the plaintiff's favor?

Conclusion

No. In a 6-3 opinion by Chief Justice Fred Vinson, the court held that cause for privilege must be reasonably demonstrated. As a result, the government may withhold information for reasons of national security even when that information is vital to the plaintiff's case. On remand, the plaintiffs lost. (oyez)

I would hope that if the same situation happened today that the govt could redact the sensitive information and release the rest of the accident report.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well . . . one can always hope. . .

[SRG]

So if, in effect, the defendant thwarts discovery, the court will then dismiss the plaintiff’s case. No moral hazard here...

[Krayt]

Especially since eventual revealations showed it was all a load of bs, and, after direct considetation of that, said tough luck anyway.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, if it was a secret mission, then the civilians would have had security clearances and what would that do to this? And where would worker's comp come into this?

[wolfefan]

I know that Josh and Randy are updating the book, as they should, but is Biden talking about an idea that hasn't and likely won't happen really more noteworthy than Sullivan?

[Syd Henderson]

The case they linked to is pretty important but it was decided on March 29.

[wolfefan]

Thanks, Syd. I hadn't clicked through since I didn't realize there was a case based solely on the remark about Roosevelt (not Biden. ACK!)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A fireside chat over New York Times v. Sullivan?

The Volokh Conspiracy: The Fox News (Or Is It Kevin McCarthy) of Legal Blogs

Carry on, clingers.

[Dan Schiavetta]

This is the man who wrote a song about "the land of the free".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Had Francis Scott Key lived a couple of centuries later, he likely would have been a Volokh Conspirator and a Story-Bator award winner.

[Frank Drackman]

So in addition to your "Alternative Lifestyle" now you're into Alternative Histories, hears one for you, What if your mother had any children who lived??

Frank

[Krayt]

DNF Does Not Follow, pols go with the flow. Teleport many here, they'd adopt woke screetching. Teleport moderns back, they'd support slavery.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I disagree. Some people -- fans of slavery, Confederate monuments, racism, etc. for starters-- are just no damned good, regardless of the times.

That is why it is so great that better Americans continue to kick the worthless, bigoted shit out of those deplorable losers in the culture war.

[Frank Drackman]

Admit it Jerry, you had your bifocals on crooked and thought this post was about Pete Booty-Judge's "Fudge Packing" plan

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is Prof. Volokh paying you by the word for this stuff, or by the comment?