Today in Supreme Court History: March 28, 1955

3/28/1955: Williamson v. Lee Optical decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (decided March 28, 1949): Krulewitch and a woman brought another woman across state lines for prostitution. They were arrested for conspiracy under the White Slave Traffic Act and the other woman told the prostitute that "it would be better for us girls to take the blame" rather than Krulewitch. At Krulewitch's trial the prostitute's testimony as to this statement (hearsay) is not admissible as a declaration of guilt because not made in furtherance of the conspiracy.

United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (decided March 28, 1966): Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman, civil rights activists, were lynched in 1964 near Philadelphia, Mississippi (which since then has been a symbolic place for politicians to give speeches). The Court here holds that the nonofficial men who assisted the Deputy Sheriff in the abduction and murder were "acting under color of state law" and could be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. §242 (the criminal counterpart to 42 U.S.C. §1983).

Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (decided March 28, 1955): not a denial of Equal Protection for Oklahoma to regulate opticians but not drug stores selling ready-to-wear glasses

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (decided March 28, 1898): Fourteenth Amendment bestows citizenship on nonwhite children born here to foreign-born parents domiciled here

United States v. Coronado Beach Co., 255 U.S. 472 (decided March 28, 1921): prior Mexican grant, not California claim to submerged land, determined ownership of North Island and surroundings (eminent domain by the United States to become a naval air station, still in existence, though island was later joined to the mainland)

Sester v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (decided March 28, 2012): dual sovereignty not violated by federal sentence (for meth possession) to run concurrently with anticipated state sentence (for probation violation)

Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (decided March 28, 2000): anonymous tip (that young black man on corner in plaid shirt was carrying a gun) was too vague to support Terry stop (vacating conviction for carrying concealed weapon without license)

Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159 (decided March 28, 1995): color of press pads (used in dry cleaning) could be trademarked (such that competitor using same color might confuse dry cleaners)

Clemmons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738 (decided March 28, 1990): Due Process and Eighth Amendment not violated by state appellate court salvaging death sentence arrived at by invalid aggravating factor by reweighing proper factors or conducting harmless error review, but it has to say which one of these it is doing

United States v. Culbert, 435 U.S. 371 (decided March 28, 1978): Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §1951, covers all extortion, not just "racketeering" (which is mentioned in legislative history but not the statute); affirming conviction of solitary man who got money from bank president by threat of force (I wonder if it would cover Dick York's actions against Philip Coolidge in the Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode, "The Dusty Drawer"?)

[Mr. Bumble]

Re: Wong Kim Ark. Is this the basis for "birth right citizenship" as it now seems to be understood?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Perhaps. The 14A phrase was put into place to ensure that former slaves (and their children) would enjoy the rights of citizens, and there must have been dispute as to whether it applied to anyone else. This decision, which followed a period of animus against Chinese immigrants, settled that dispute. It's interesting that the Court has no problem referring to the parents as "subjects of the Emperor of China".

[Gandydancer]

Red Indians, even on reservations in the US, are however NOT born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US… which makes no sense if Wong Kim Ark WAS.

And of course a treaty with China prohibited doing this.

[Dilan Esper]

We can argue about what "subject to the jurisdiction" means (I think it's basically diplomats, and might have meant Indians of federally recognized tribes before they were given full citizenship as well), But in no universe are children of ordinary people born here not subject to US jurisdiction- they can obviously be prosecuted for crimes, subjected to regulations, etc. "Subject to the jurisdiction" simply does not do what the anti-immigrant movement wants it to do.

[F.D. Wolf]

Your opinion of what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means is at odds with the opinion of the man who originally authored the phrase, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, who wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1866, in which the phrase first appears, and which the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to constitutionalize, in case the Supreme Court struck down the Act as exceeding Congress' authority:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Others in Congress affirmed this understanding. In 1873, Attorney General George Henry Williams, who had been a Senator when the Civil Rights Act and Fourteenth Amendment had been enacted, in an official opinion addressing questions from President Grant, reiterated this understanding:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.

(14 Op. Atty-Gen. 296, 300.)

The concept of dual (or multiple) citizenship was explicitly and repeatedly rejected by Congress until the Supreme Court essentially forced its recognition in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967). An alien in the United States remained an alien unless and until he was naturalized. Likewise, the children of such an alien would have the same citizenship of their alien father. The concept of "birthright citizenship" is quite a novel one, a Google Book search suggesting the first appearance of the phrase was in 1982.

[David Nieporent]

Red Indians, even on reservations in the US, are however NOT born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US… which makes no sense if Wong Kim Ark WAS.

It does if you understand that Indian tribes were considered quasi-sovereign countries at the time. Indians were sui generis under U.S. law.

And of course a treaty with China prohibited doing this.

Nope. Nothing in the treaty even addressed that issue. The treaty said that nothing in the treaty conferred naturalization on citizens of either country in the other country. It did not "prohibit" anything, and of course didn't apply to WKA since he was a U.S. citizen from birth, not naturalized.

[John F. Carr]

In the 1990s I bought CDs that came in a green jewel case with a warning saying the colored container was trademarked by Rykodisc. As limited edition items those cases have some value now.

Also in the 1990s my company tried to order some paint to put on our product. The maker said the color was trademarked and didn't accept the order. Yes, but... it's trademarked by us!

[Dilan Esper]

I'm pretty pro-defense and also skeptical of laws against prostitution, but Krulewitch sounds wrongly decided to me. Since when is conspirators agreeing as to who will take the rap not part of the conspiracy?

And substantively, this works just as badly as it does in theory. It basically privileges criminal conspirators who want to designate an agreed upon fall guy. The Mob must have loved this decision!

[Dan Schiavetta]

The two women were engaging in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, which would be a separate charge. At least that's how it seems to me.

[Dilan Esper]

But isn't a statement as to who takes the rap also part of the conspiracy to commit the crime?

Bank robbers drive back to the safehouse. They hear the cops are on their way. So they decided that Robber A will hold the bag and take the rap. He does, and the government tries to prosecute the other robbers and introduce the statements as to Robber A taking the rap to prove that the other robbers were in fact involved and were co-conspirators. How the dickens is that not admissible?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t know.

As my father used to say, “That is a question for greater minds than ours.”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

*White* slave traffic?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Now called "human trafficking". In a sense the women (and girls) were were being "sold".

[Syd Henderson]

I believe the Oklahoma law is still in effect. At least, my optician requires a current prescription from my ophthalmologist, but Wal-mart and other stores sell ready-to-wear glasses.