Today in Supreme Court History: March 29, 1937

3/29/1937: West Coast Hotel v. Parrish decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

West Coast Hotels v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (decided March 29, 1937): The Big Switch by Justice Roberts, breaking with the “Four Horsemen” and voting to uphold a state minimum wage regulation. From now on he would vote against them. Was this vote coerced by FDR threatening to “pack” the Court? This decision came out shortly after the court-packing plan was announced, but Roberts had already declared his vote at the December 19, 1936 conference, after Chief Justice Hughes sat down to talk with him after FDR’s 1936 landslide victory. I don’t know if there were noises at that time to pack the court, but maybe in light of the landslide they saw it coming. In the 75th Congress the Democrats had a 79 – 16 edge in the Senate, and were 345 – 89 in the House.

Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (decided March 29, 2011): D.A. can’t be liable under §1983 for failure to train A.D.A.’s based on one screwup (failure to turn over exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland which led to conviction for armed robbery based on which defendant decided not to testify in later murder trial which led to murder conviction; both convictions consequently vacated due to Brady violation); opinion by Thomas, 5 – 4 decision

Mays v. Hines, 141 S.Ct. 1145 (decided March 29, 2021): habeas for ineffective assistance of counsel should not have been granted because though defendant and his girlfriend would have testified that he was at motel to have an affair and not to murder the victim who was found in the next room, evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and the jury would not have bought their story

Astra USA v. Santa Clara County, California, 563 U.S. 110 (decided March 29, 2011): medical facilities are not third-party beneficiaries of contracts between drug manufacturers and federal government under which manufacturers get Medicare reimbursements; if facilities are overcharged, they can’t sue but have to alert the Secretary of Health who will order restitution

City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (decided March 29, 2000): upholding local ordinance prohibiting nude dancing, which required the girls to put on pasties and G-string (they’re probably grateful for that on cold nights); protected by First Amendment but ordinance is content-neutral; O’Connor, who wrote plurality opinion, has a dry sense of humor: “Even if Erie’s public nudity ban has some minimal effect on the erotic message by muting that portion of the expression that occurs when the last stitch is dropped, the dancers at Kandyland and other such establishments are free to perform wearing pasties and G-strings. Any effect on the overall expression is de minimis.”

Illinois v. Abbott & Assocs., 460 U.S. 557 (decided March 29, 1983): Clayton Act allows Attorney General to hand over federal antitrust grand jury materials in state antitrust suit but state A.G. still has to show particularized need (at issue was bid-rigging in Illinois construction contracts)

United States v. Topco Assocs., 405 U.S. 596 (decided March 29, 1972): regional purchasing association for small/medium sized supermarkets which had virtual veto power in their own locality was violation of Sherman Act even though prices achieved allowed them to compete with national chains

Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532 (decided March 29, 1971): Equal Protection not violated by Louisiana statute precluding inheritance by “illegitimate” children even if acknowledged (I learned a new word, “tutrix”, a female guardian) (statute later declared unconstitutional by Louisiana Supreme Court, 388 So.2d 1151, 1980)

Moore v. New York, 333 U.S. 565 (decided March 29, 1948): record did not support contention that having black men tried for murder by special jury violated fair trial right (no evidence that blacks were excluded from special juries or that conviction rates were higher for black defendants) (special juries, screened for education and good morals, were abolished in New York in 1965)

Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507 (decided March 29, 1948): striking New York obscenity statute which on its face was impermissibly broad even though construed narrowly along First Amendment lines by New York’s highest court (defendant was selling magazine with lurid/lascivious crime stories)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“(special juries, screened for education and good morals, were abolished in New York in 1965)”

So what *are* they screened for, and why is it “special” to screen for good morals? (as for education, I put less weight on that, because a high-school dropout mechanic can have as much to contribute to a jury as a PhD literature professor).

[Dan Schiavetta]

As you point out, education is not necessarily an indicator of being a good juror. I suppose that's why the special juries were abolished.

There is something to be said for juries specialized in a particular field. For example, if it's a computer code copyright case, you want a jury with some knowledge in that.

[apedad]

RE: West Coast Hotels v. Parrish

Facts of the case

Under Washington state law, the Industrial Welfare Committee and Supervisor of Women in Industry set a minimum wage of $14.50 for each work week of 48 hours. Elsie Parrish, an employee of the West Coast Hotel Company, received an amount less than this wage. Parrish brought a suit to recover the difference between the wages paid to her and the minimum wage fixed by state law. In ruling for the hotel, the lower court relied on Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923), in which the Court struck down a minimum wage law for working women.

Question

Does a minimum wage law for women violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion (5 - 4)

In a 5-to-4 decision written by Justice Charles Evans Hughes, the Court held that the establishment of minimum wages for women was constitutional. Echoing Muller v. Oregon (1908), the majority ruled that the state may use its police power to restrict the individual freedom to contract. The decision overruled Adkins and marked the Court's departure from the expansive view of the freedom to contract. The decision is generally regarded as having ended the Lochner era, a period in American legal history in which the Supreme Court tended to invalidate legislation aimed at regulating business.

While Justice Hughes wrote the opinion, the stark doctrinal shift resulted from Justice Owen Josephus Roberts changing his perspective on this issue. According to Hughes, President Franklin Roosevelt's reelection in 1936 and the impressive achievements of the New Deal caused Roberts to abandon his affiliation with the Court's conservative justices.

In dissent, Justice George Sutherland implicitly criticized Roberts for changing sides and argued that politics and public opinion should not impact the Court’s understanding of the Constitution. (oyez)

I don't understand the Question; how can a minimum wage law violate Due Process?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I suppose it forces employers to pay a higher wage, in spite of their calculations as to supply and demand and their judgment as to how to run their business. They were being forced to pay 30¢/hour instead of (just a guess) 15¢/hour, and that extra $ was being taken from them without an individualized “process of law”.

[Gandydancer]

What -I- don't understand is that nonsense about "the impressive achievements of the New Deal". As of 1937? The Great Depression lasted until about 1939.

Also, if Parrish lost below why isn't the appeal "Parrish v. West Coast Hotels"?

[defaultdotxbe]

Parrish lost at the trial court, but won at the Washington Supreme Court, so the case was appealed to SCOTUS by the employer.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t understand how some courts reverse the caption on appeal and some don’t. In New York they don’t, and as far as I know, in federal court they don’t. Maybe it depends on whether they customarily refer to the appellant as "plaintiff in error".

[defaultdotxbe]

Apparently SCOTUS typically will flip, placing appellant first and respondent second. I guess its just a preference of the particular court, or possibly even the clerk that enters the case.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t understand the Question; how can a minimum wage law violate Due Process?

The same way a law banning contraception can: it infringes on a basic liberty.

[defaultdotxbe]

For a minimum wage law that only applied to women I would think it would be an equal protection thing.

[John F. Carr]

One of the early civil rights laws gives everybody the same right to make contracts that whites have. Arguably that discriminates against whites. You can be more generous when dealing with blacks, but not with whites. It was enacted when whites were expected to have most favored race status forever. On the minimum wage front, women were given lesser pay for the same work into the 1960s. The law while de jure discriminatory could be de facto neutral.

[defaultdotxbe]

The 14th amendment says "equal protection of the law" not equal protection of the de facto outcome of the law. If men were already making above the prescribed minimum wage why not just make it a flat minimum for all workers?

There is evidence that early implementations of minimum wage laws were motivated not by a desire to ensure a living wage, but rather to discourage employers from hiring certain classes of people who would be seen as less valuable than others. I wonder if this law had a similar motivation. After all, if you were required to pay a woman $14.50 a week, but could theoretically hire a man to work for $12 a week wouldn't that encourage you to prefer men when hiring?

[David Nieporent]

Equal protection was not interpreted to apply to sex back then.

[Gandydancer]

That's not a legitimate Due Process Clause issue either.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not a legitimate Due Process Clause issue"

No its not. Its trying to graft "substance" onto a procedural right.

[SMP0328]

In 2012, history repeated itself with another Justice named John Roberts switching his vote to save a Democratic President's legislation.

[Gandydancer]

It occurred to me too that maybe confirming any Justice named Roberts might be a bad idea.

Why do we still have Obamacare if it can no longer claim to be a tax with any credibility whatsoever?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

"Any effect on the overall expression is de minimis."

This kind of argument has always annoyed me. If it's so "de minimis", then why does the decision favor the government? Surely it would be just as "de minimis" for the government to lose.

Kid used to sell the Navy Times on my ship, 20 cents. Give him a quarter, no nickel back. Ask him for it, he'd whine "it's just a nickel", I'd tell him, great, lower the price to 15 cents, it's just a nickel. "Don't I get a tip?" Yeah, don't join the effin' Navy.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I was too flip with my summary. Pasties and a g string might seem “de minimis” to O’Connor, but the difference between that and total nudity is huge, insofar as the girls’ income. They make much more dancing nude. Partly it’s because nude clubs usually don’t allow alcohol, so $ that would go to the bar goes to the girls (though of course they still have to give half of their take to the club). Partly it’s because of the psychological attraction of a girl who is willing to show “everything”, and once in the booths the guys already have a “head start” on what she will do for them.

Also far fewer girls are willing to do it, so while the “demand” is greater the “supply” is limited. For many, it’s a mental barrier; a g string is still “covering”, maybe like a tiny bikini bottom you might see at the beach, but total nudity is a different world.

I can speak with some knowledge because in the 1980’s I was involved with a couple of women who did this for a living (no, that’s not how I met them). Both would drive into Connecticut occasionally to dance nude (sometimes I drove her there and pretended to be a customer, feeding her 5’s so as to shame the other guys who were giving her 1’s). One danced nude with hesitation because she didn’t want the guys to see her butthole.

[John F. Carr]

In the city where I used to live there was a restaurant with belly dancing, a higher class activity that the powers that be are willing to bless with a liquor license.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You’d think that, contrariwise, something is of a higher class if it's performed for guys who are sober.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Wait, officer, it's all a mistake, I thought this place had *ballet* dancing!"

[Dan Schiavetta]

There actually was a club in Brewster, New York, which tried to disguise itself as a dance studio, the "Bevona Performing Arts Center". It was eventually "exposed" (probably by the mother of an aspiring six-year-old ballerina who walked in and got quite a jolt).

[Mr. Bumble]

Thankfully she didn't get a job.

[defaultdotxbe]

When I was a kid a neighboring town had a strip club that the village board was trying to get rid of. Their first attempt was to deny renewal of their liquor license, but this ended up allowing the club to switch from topless to full nude, and start allowing 18-20yo customers.

They did end up closing about a year or two later, I never found out if they lost business due to not having a liquor license or if the village found another procedural way to shut them down.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"no nickel back"

Sounds like a good rule to follow.