Today in Supreme Court History: March 24, 2009

3/24/2009: Citizens United v. FEC argued for the first time.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (decided March 24, 1966): poll tax violates Equal Protection (though literacy tests are o.k.)

Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. — (decided March 24, 2022): execution stayed because defendant had valid argument that prohibiting his pastor from laying hands on him in the execution chamber violated First Amendment (state allowed pastor to lay on hands, and Ramirez was executed on Oct. 5, 2022)

United States v. George, 228 U.S. 14 (decided March 24, 1913): homesteader lied about his time of residence on land but residence by statute has to be proven by two non-homesteader witnesses; administrative rule only, so conviction for perjury vacated

Black v. Thorne, 111 U.S. 122 (decided March 24, 1884): nominal damages only for patent infringement (fuel formula for producing steam) because infringer did not save money on the production of steam, even if saved money overall

Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265 (decided March 24, 1919): Arizona law restricting working hours for women in hotels did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause; did not apply to employees in restaurants along train lines (i.e., interstate commerce)

Bank of Iron Gate v. Brady, 184 U.S. 665 (decided March 24, 1902): tort claim booted from federal court when death of defendant brought value of case below jurisdictional minimum

Kaiser v. New York, 394 U.S. 280 (decided March 24, 1969): wiretapped conversations (in pay phone in bar) were not illegal at the time so are admissible in state prosecution

Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (decided March 24, 1976): federal courts will abstain in state water rights dispute where federal government got dragged into state court by McCarran Amendment even though government sued in federal court first (McCarran Amendment gives automatic consent for federal government to be joined in any water rights suit) (this case is the source of the "Colorado River abstention" doctrine)

Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (decided March 24, 1976): This is Dr. Benjamin Spock, of “Baby and Child Care” (a very reasonable and sensible book for new parents — the first sentence is, “You know more than you think you do”). Here, Spock, running for president on the People’s Party and trying to distribute political literature at Fort Dix, fails in overturning a regulation prohibiting political speech (though not other types of the speech) at Fort Dix even if invited.

Houston Community College System v. Wilson, 595 U.S. — (decided March 24, 2022): no First Amendment retaliation claim when trustee of public college was censured by his board for “inappropriate” and “reprehensible” conduct; not an adverse action, and criticism comes with the territory (ironically, he was censured for bringing multiple lawsuits against the board)

[John F. Carr]

Was there no ancestor of 18 USC 1001 in effect at the time of United States v. George? Under modern law it matters little whether you are under oath when you make a false statement to the federal government.

[John F. Carr]

I would have ruled that the 24th Amendment implicitly condoned poll taxes in state elections.

[Syd Henderson]

I'd say it was silent. The decision was a 14th Amendment one.

[Gandydancer]

24A: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

Sure seems to imply that payment-of-tax qualifications for other elections are OK. But SCOTUS didn't go rogue just yesterday.

[David Nieporent]

tort claim booted from federal court when death of defendant brought value of case below jurisdictional minimum

That… doesn't seem right. Checking: "Beyond that nothing is suggested but a tort, and a tort by which the estate of the defendant was not increased and the estate of the plaintiff damaged only as an indirect consequence of the alleged wrongful act of the defendant. Such a tort does not, either at common law or by the statutes of Virginia, survive the death of the wrongdoer."

I guess so.

[Dan Schiavetta]

A quirky state law rule, which I don’t really understand. And it was in 1902. Maybe the law's changed since then. At least where I practice, the damages available in tort does not diminish with the death of the defendant (though the pocket you reach into to satisfy a judgment might get a lot smaller or even disappear).

[John F. Carr]

The case would be kicked out of court on other grounds now. The plaintiff was suing a tax collector acting under color of federal law.

In those days before the modern rules of civil procedure the plaintiff had to recite the one true name of his chosen remedy. A plaintiff could not mix tort and assumpsit any more than he could mix law and equity.

[John F. Carr]

Perhaps I meant "cause of action" rather than "remedy". That's the sort of mistake that would get you kicked out of court. Technical defects in pleadings could be death sentences.

[Gandydancer]

I haven't looked at Bank of Iron Gate v. Brady and am aware of various obvious ways to distinguish, but I happened to listen to this opinion mentioned in the last Short Circuit and offer this footnote for your consideration:

Consider, for example,
the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
“Events occurring subsequent to the institution of suit which reduce the amount
recoverable below the statutory limit do not oust jurisdiction.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co.
v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289–90 (1938). “[O]nce the district court’s jurisdiction is
established, subsequent events that reduce the amount in controversy to less than $75,000
generally do not divest the court of diversity jurisdiction.” Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). “Importantly, the jurisdictional facts
must be judged as of the time the complaint is filed; subsequent events cannot serve to
deprive the court of jurisdiction once it has attached.” St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v.
Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253–54 (5th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-40043-CV3.pdf

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks! I will add the St. Paul v. Red Cab case to the comment for future use.

[Frank Drackman]

Yay for the First Amendment!!!!!!