Today in Supreme Court History: March 26, 2012

3/26/2012: NFIB v. Sebelius is argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (decided March 26, 1962): federal courts have jurisdiction over suits alleging disproportionate redistricting in violation of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection (on remand the District Court approved mixed by county/by population plan, 206 F. Supp. 314, probably would not pass muster under later case law)

United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (decided March 26, 2014): prior misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence qualified as "use or attempted use of force" so as to criminalize gun possession under 18 U.S.C. §922 (taking guns out of the hands of wife-beaters, per §922, was recently declared unconstitutional by a Texas appeals court, United States v. Rahimi, March 2, 2023, as being inconsistent with "historical tradition")

Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (decided March 26, 2002): upholding eviction of family from public housing based on violation of lease provision prohibiting illegal drug use by household member, even though drug use (by grandchildren) was blocks away and unknown to lessees; unanimous decision

Barnett Bank of Marion County v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (decided March 26, 1996): Florida prohibited banks from selling insurance, but preempted by federal law permitting it

United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (decided March 26, 1991): dismisses suit against federal regulators for negligent supervision of an S&L association which went belly-up; regulators' informal methods were within Federal Tort Claims Act's "discretionary function"

EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (decided March 26, 1991): Title VII (can't discriminate based on race, religion or national origin) doesn't apply overseas; American employer can discriminate against its American employee (superseded by statute, see Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 2006)

Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (decided March 26, 1986): stationing extra security officers in front row of spectator section did not deprive defendant of fair trial (he was being tried with four others)

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869 (decided March 26, 1985): charging out-of-state insurers higher tax rate violated Dormant Commerce Clause; "promotion of domestic business by discriminating against nonresident competitors is not a legitimate state purpose". Opinion by Powell, who according to my legal writing professor was the clearest writer on the Court at the time.

Huddleston v. United States, 415 U.S. 814 (decided March 26, 1974): Another 18 U.S.C. §922 case, this time the provision criminalizing false statements made to registered gun dealers. In redeeming gun his wife had pawned, husband falsely told pawnbroker that he had never been convicted of a felony (redemption was "acquisition" under the statute).

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 587 U.S. --- (decided March 26, 2019): under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, when suing foreign country can't serve papers on embassy in United States; must serve foreign minister's home office (suit for personal injuries due to terrorist attack)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Opinion by Powell, who according to my legal writing professor was the clearest writer on the Court at the time.”

Tallest midget.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ha!

My professor referred to Cardozo’s summary of facts in Palsgraf, often admired, but preferred Powell because Cardozo’s style is “too ornate for the modern reader”. Of the current Justices I think Gorsuch is the clearest. (In Palsgraf, Andrews in dissent actually gives a more succinct factual summary, as well as his opinion being more lively and a more correct statement of the law.)

Why do lawyers write so badly? It’s because people prefer it, especially clients. They don’t want plain English. They prefer legalese. And it makes you look like you’re worth the $600/hr they’re paying you.

[bernard11]

I don't think it's the clients' fault.

IANAL, but I have been a client on a number of occasions, and have had to rewrite the occasional paragraph to make it comprehensible, to me, anyway.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good for you!

Most clients are not that sure of what they want.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Baker v. Carr solved one problem and created another -- every state but Nebraska had a bicameral legislature that is largely modeled on the US Congress -- some form of a system where representation in the State Senate was based on geography and representation in the State House was based on population.

What this did was balance the competing interests of urban and rural areas. Sixty years later, we have places like Northern Maine, Northern New Hampshire, and Western Massachusetts that talk about seceding -- and Eastern Washington that very well may join Idaho.

[John F. Carr]

In ancient times every incorporated town in Massachusetts had a representative in the legislature.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What this did was balance the competing interests of urban and rural areas."

Can't have that. Besides your examples add everything in NY north of Putnam County and everything in Illinois south of Cook County. Plus eastern California.

All de facto denied any say in their state governance.

[David Nieporent]

What this did was balance the competing interests of urban and rural areas.

"Areas" don't have interests; people do.

[Frank Drackman]

Good Old Wishy Washy Charley John Roberts Brown, he's a clown, that Charley John Roberts Brown, Lucy Elena Kagan always pulls the football away (See King v Burwell) at the last second

[Frank Drackman]

My Bad, that Clown, Charlie Brown, did vote with that Lesbo Kagan, of course he did have to admit that the law written by Congress didn't mean what the law written by Congress said, and wrote'
"Interpreting the law as written by Congress would be embarrassing to Barry Hussein Obama, so we don't interpret the law as written by Congress"

Frank

[David Nieporent]

Yes.