Today in Supreme Court History: March 16, 1925

3/16/25: Pierce v. Society of Sisters argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (decided March 16, 1810): awarding land to purchaser in good faith, unaware that seller had obtained it by fraud

Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (decided March 16, 1953): not a denial of due process to detain "bad security risk" alien at Ellis Island without hearing where no other country would receive him (the story given of this man's wanderings and unexplained rejection by every country he visited, including communist ones, is remarkable -- was finally released in 1954 when Ellis Island closed down) (holding was superseded by statute, see Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 2020)

Williamson v. Daniel, 25 U.S. 568 (decided March 16, 1827): Marshall for once attributes some humanity to slaves by holding that, in a dispute over apportionment of a decedent's slaves, the child slaves follow their mother

Mason v. Matilda, 25 U.S. 590 (decided March 16, 1827): this time it's Johnson, ruling against a mother and her children suing for their freedom; Court holds in favor of defendant (widow of original owner), even though Virginia law provided for emancipation if no compliance with 60-day registration requirement for bringing slaves into the state; "constructive registration" (my phrase) because he had openly possessed the mother for 22 years, during which she had given birth to the three co-plaintiffs

United States v. Gooding, 25 U.S. 460 (decided March 16, 1827): upholding conviction for slave trade "abetting" even though ship not yet fitted out for slave transport

Ornelas v. Ruiz, 161 U.S. 502 (decided March 16, 1896): ordering extradition of men who crossed from Texas into Mexico, killed Mexican soldiers (apparently as part of a rebellion against the Díaz government), then came back into Texas; not a "political question" (I wonder if it's relevant that the United States supported Díaz)

Albertson v. Millard, 345 U.S. 242 (decided March 16, 1953): remanding to state court question of whether Michigan statute regulating Communist Party activities (state Attorney General prepared list, restricted access to space on ballot, etc.) was Constitutional (the Michigan Supreme Court then struck down the statute, holding that the field of anti-sedition legislation had been preempted by federal law, 345 Mich. 519, 1956)

Crancer v. Lowdon, 315 U.S. 631 (decided March 16, 1942): Are rings that protect pipe threads (thrown away upon use) "scrap iron" or "pipe fittings" for the purpose of ICC tariffs? Bench trial verdict was pipe fittings. Court affirms.

Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642 (decided March 16, 1914): convicted of stealing "$1,000 in lawful money of the United States", and then convicted of stealing "a check payable for the sum of $1,000 in money"; sounds like double jeopardy to me, but the argument was that there was no arraignment or plea before second trial, an argument the Court rejects

Grant Bros. Constr. Co. v. United States, 232 U.S. 647 (decided March 16, 1914): affirming a jury verdict for violating law prohibiting importing persons for contract labor; this was a civil action so a lot of leeway given to government on evidentiary matters (e.g., reading into evidence depositions of absent witnesses)

[John F. Carr]

Compare Mason v. Matilda to Shelby v. Guy (March 10, 1826). Both held actual possession for a long time would give at least a presumption of legal possession under Virginia law, and it was Virginia law as construed by the high court of Virginia that determined the outcome.

It has been argued that this presumption should be repelled by the ignorance, impotence, and continued state of duress in which the plaintiffs below must necessarily have continued from their state of bondage. But this also must have been duly considered by the learned judges of the Virginia bench, since the fact equally existed in the cases which were before them.
Practically, we know that they seldom want counsellors or aid of any kind, and that the leaning of Courts and juries is very much in their favour. Where any reasonable grounds can be laid hold of to sustain a verdict in their behalf, there is reason to believe that, on questions of right, considerations of every kind in favour of freedom will always have, at least, their full weight. On the other hand, the natural repugnance of man at remaining in that state is a consideration of great weight in sustaining the presumption from lapse of time.

(quoting from Mason)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, I summarized Shelby here a few days ago.

There is often a lot of cognitive dissonance in judicial opinions which rule against freedom.

[Hugh]

"Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children
under their control: as often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State."

I'm surprised the almighty Alito didn't overrule this decision and also Meyer v. Nebraska, since they also derive dreaded substantive due process rights from "emanations of penumbras" embedded in the 14th amendment regarding those dreaded rights.

[Krayt]

Wasn't that the Republicans trying to tell parents what parents could not teach their kids?

And now Democrats made loud statements recently parents had no say in what their kids get taught?

Asteroid, come smear this planet.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Slave law was an important part of American jurisprudence for the first 90 years of this nation's history. It is interesting because of its hybrid character. It's almost like the law of animals, as far as buying and selling, use, propensities for violence, etc. But you don't see cattle suing for their freedom, and like with the Williamson decision, there are glimpses of recognition of slaves as humans. Also there were not hundreds of cattle in the North voting, writing, and running for office.

[Michael D]

What are you talking about “conservative would like to sweep under the rug”? You are so full of BS, as usual. You make these bold and assertions based solely on your personal animus and bias.

[Michael D]

Your analogy to animals raised a question. You are basically describing a situation in which rights can only be in possession of a creature or entity that possesses the ability to exercise their rights.

However, the law recognizes and defends the rights of animals not to be harmed (so-called animal rights laws) and also for the protection of individuals lacking the ability or capacity to act on their own behalf.

So, while the cow cannot exercise their rights, neither can the infant. In their place, they usually have an advocate, a parent for the infant for example, an interested party for the cow, perhaps. But the ability to exercise rights cannot be said to be a minimum threshold for the possession of rights, can it?

Or do cows have no rights. And the term “animal rights” is a misnomer?

In any event, the ability to exercise rights cannot be the threshold for the determination of possessing rights, can it? I would say, obviously not.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Interesting points.

Did slaves have a right not to be beaten excessively? And if so, was there someone (perhaps a public officer) who had standing to sue to stop it? Was there a slave version of an animal rights law? It would be interesting to look up.

[Krayt]

There are misguided southernere trying to minimize it. Nobody is trying to ignore it.

There is resistance to taking blame for it, for contemporary politics, by people not responsible, and many whose ancestors were not even responsible. That isn't the same thing.

Trying a racial-based blaming is an insideous evil.

[David Nieporent]

Everything varied from state to state, but there were indeed laws in many parts of the south that were analogous to animal cruelty laws that applied to slaves. Calling these "rights" is a category error, I think. (We might call an activist an "animal rights activist," but the laws are animal cruelty laws, not animal rights laws.) The slave couldn't enforce them any more than a puppy can bring charges against its owner. And, as you can imagine, they were not actually enforced at all. (A jury of 12 slaveowners would likely be deciding the case!) There were occasional prosecutions for murder of slaves, but not for mistreatment. And you can count the convictions on one hand.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks -- as I suspected!