Today in Supreme Court History: March 30, 1875

3/30/1875: U.S. v. Cruikshank argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

I did my usual post but, unusually, it’s “awaiting moderation”. — whoops, I see it’s up now, though I still see a “waiting for moderation” message (even though the standard message above that says “we do not moderate comments”, which is obvious)

[John F. Carr]

It is only visible to you. You must have included a link to a suspicious site, or some spam words. When Blackman reads his post's comments he will approve it.

On this day in Supreme Court history, nothing happened.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Josh never reads the comments.

I'll delete one of the links and re-try.

[Dilan Esper]

Since this is a legal site, it should say "under submission" instead of "awaiting moderation".

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417 (decided March 30, 1885): granting habeas; being sentenced to 15 years of hard labor (for counterfeiting) is an “infamous crime” which should have been prosecuted via grand jury indictment (Fifth Amendment)

Pecheur Lozenge Co. v. National Candy Co., 315 U.S. 666 (decided March 30, 1942): suit over wrapper design was common law trademark infringement (I didn’t know there was such a thing), not registered with Patent Office as alleged, so local law applied in diversity action (candy cigarettes, just what the world needed, https://www.kevinsavagecards.com/lot-84452.aspx, I remember those as a kid)

Georgia Ry. & Electric Co. v. City of Decatur, 297 U.S. 620 (decided March 30, 1936): not denial of Equal Protection or uncompensated Taking to require streetcar company to pave rest of road at its own expense

CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., 589 U.S. — (decided March 30, 2020): tanker operator was entitled to reimbursement from charterer pursuant to charter warranty for cleanup of 264,000 gallons of crude oil when tanker hit abandoned anchor on bottom of Delaware River 900 feet from refinery dock

Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5 (decided March 30, 2016): government can’t freeze “innocent” (i.e., not fraud-related) assets defendant needed to access to pay for her lawyer (this was Sila Luis, who defrauded Medicare of $45 million, almost all of which she had already spent; ended up being ordered to pay that amount in restitution, though by then I don’t know how she would do that, see https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/owner-two-miami-home-health-agencies-sentenced-more-six-years-prison-role-74-million-medicare)

Jones v. Harris Assocs., 559 U.S. 335 (decided March 30, 2010): investment advisor to mutual fund is liable under Investment Company Act of 1940 for charging fees that were “disproportionately high” (not explained why they couldn’t find someone cheaper)

Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, 544 U.S. 228 (decided March 30, 2005): older police officers receiving lower raises than younger ones did not state age discrimination complaint when there was rational reason for disparity (the need to retain good younger officers) (there’s something not right about that idea)

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (decided March 30, 2005): Rooker-Feldman doctrine (state court losers can’t bring suit in federal district court to nullify results on Constitutional grounds) does not require federal court dismissal if there are concurrently brought suits and state suit goes to judgment

United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (decided March 30, 2004): no warrant needed to search gas tank in vehicle entering United States (driver at border crossing did not have reasonable expectation of privacy; drugs found there) (they’ve tightened up since Henry’s day, see NRPS's song of that name, on youtube)

United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp., 425 U.S. 164 (decided March 30, 1976): Philippine shipper can’t sue for damage caused by U.S. Naval vessel even though Suits in Admiralty Act appears to allow it; precluded by Public Vessels Act because Philippines offered no reciprocity

[Dilan Esper]

Common law trademark infringement is definitely a thing. Unlike the Copyright Act, the Lanham Act contains no preemption clause, so states can apply their unfair competition torts to trademark cases. They are usually duplicative but some states allow punitive damages in excess of the trebling allowed by federal law.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[QuantumBoxCat]

The link to Josh's book states that the decision in this case was 5-4, with the majority affirming the decision of the lower court. This appears to be incorrect though. My reading of the opinion puts the decision at 9-0, with Justice Clifford writing a concurring opinion for himself.

The opinion in Cruikshank (92 U.S. 542) was authored by Chief Justice Waite, with the reporter writing "Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court" (p. 548). The Court's decision affirmed the decision of the lower court. The decision in the lower court, United States v. Cruikshank et. al. (25 F. Cas. 707, Case No. 14,897) was authored by Justice Bradley. Josh's link lists Justice Bradley as being in the dissent in the Supreme Court's opinion. I find it hard to believe that Justice Bradley would vote to reverse his own decision from the lower court, especially given that there is nothing in the opinion that indicates he dissented.

After Chief Justice Waite's majority opinion, the reporter states, "Mr. Justice Clifford dissenting" (p. 559). However, the opening line of Clifford's opinion states, "I concur that the judgment in this case should be arrested, but for reasons quite different from those given by the court" (p. 559). On my reading, the reporter incorrectly listed Clifford's opinion as a dissent, when, by Clifford's own words, it is clearly a concurrence.

I have no idea where Josh's 5-4 vote line-up could have come from, as there is nothing in the opinion indicating 4 justices dissented (I do see that Wikipedia has the vote at 5-4, so maybe it was just copied from there). Alas, Josh "doesn't read the comments," so a 9-0 decision, with a concurring opinion, will remain a split 5-4 decision in his textbook.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That apparent mistake has been mentioned before. It has not, so far as I am aware, been addressed. (That is a recurring issue.)

These right-wing culture warriors obviously don't give a shit about accuracy.

It seems harsh to hold Georgetown to account for one hiring mistake, but Prof. Barnett's years-long failure to address the many examples of shoddy scholarship with respect to Today In Supreme Court History should not be ignored.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The decision was 9-0 to "arrest the judgment" but Clifford didn't agree with the Court's decision regarding the scope of the fourteenth amendment and the validity of the Enforcement Act. He thought the indictments were too vague. So it is a dissent on the main constitutional holding of the case. It is unclear where the vote totals come from, however. The printed US Reports imaged by the library of congress doesn't list the vote and only identifies Waite and Clifford as writing.