Today in Supreme Court History: April 3, 1962

4/3/1962: Engel v. Vitale argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (decided April 3, 1944): political party (here, Texas Democratic Party) is a "state actor" and liable under the Fifteenth Amendment and §1983 (actually its predecessor statute) for refusing to let black man vote in primary election

United States v. "Old Settlers", 148 U.S. 427 (decided April 3, 1893): 1889 Act of Congress revived Cherokee claim under 1846 Treaty for reimbursement for taking their land; Court affirms calculation of amount

Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (decided April 3, 1978): trial judge refused request by attorney for three rape defendants for separate counsel due to conflict of interest between defendants; convictions vacated

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (decided April 3, 1972): unwed father of three children entitled to hearing as to his suitability as a parent after mother died; statute automatically making children wards of the state violated Equal Protection

Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (decided April 3, 1961): consent of owner (who smelled mash) in tenant's absence was not sufficient for warrantless search for illegal still (police found 1300 gallons of mash)

Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175 (decided April 3, 1995): state sales tax on bus ticket to out of state did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause

Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200 (decided April 3, 1950): must exhaust state court remedies before applying for habeas corpus (overruled by Fay v. Noia, 1963, which itself was overruled by Wainwright v. Sykes, 1977)

Collector v. Day, 309 U.S. 569 (decided April 3, 1940): federal government can't tax income of state officials (here, a state judge) (overruled by Graves v. New York, 1939; state can tax federal official)

Vilas v. City of Manila, 220 U.S. 345 (decided April 3, 1911): City of Manila is liable for debts incurred during Spanish colonial era

City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19 (decided April 3, 1989): "teen disco" (limited to kids ages 14 - 18) did not violate teenagers' right to associate (what? you mean I can't bring in my 37-year-old boyfriend to meet my best buds??)

[SMP0328]

Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200 (decided April 3, 1950): must exhaust state court remedies before applying for habeas corpus (overruled by Fay v. Noia, 1963, which itself was overruled by Wainwright v. Sykes, 1977)

Does this mean Wainwright v. Sykes overruling Fay v. Noia made Darr v. Burford good law again?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes.

There are wrinkles that I didn’t mention here, but that’s basically it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes. It was passed partly to avoid backsliding to something like Fay again.

Sorry — this is meant as a reply to John F. Carr.

[John F. Carr]

The AEDPA may have codified some rules rather than letting them evolve further.

[bernard11]

Collector v. Day, 309 U.S. 569 (decided April 3, 1940): federal government can’t tax income of state officials (here, a state judge) (overruled by Graves v. New York, 1939; state can tax federal official)

A 1940 decision overruled in 1939? And it looks like two different issues.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sorry — Collector v. Day is from 1871, 78 U.S. 113. I threw out a 1940 case I was going to summarize but I forgot to delete the cite.

If a state can tax a federal official, then it must mean that (contra the Collector case) the feds can tax a state official.

[Dr. Ed 2]

” political party (here, Texas Democratic Party) is a “state actor” and liable under the Fifteenth Amendment and §1983 (actually its predecessor statute) for refusing to let black man vote in primary election”

This is interesting in light of the Crucifixion of Donald Trump, something that even Bill Barr (who hates Trump) said: “It’s the very essence of the abuse of the prosecutive function, which is pursuing a person rather than pursuing a real crime.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/watch-bill-barr-calls-trump-indictment-an-abuse-of-the-prosecutive-function/ar-AA19o7Xo

The question I ask is if a *state* judge constitutes a “judicial officer” as defined by 42 USC 1983, and even then the meaning of “declaratory relief was unavailable” if the judge imposes a gag order. The rationale would be conspiracy to prevent Trump from running for President which a gag order would do. And naming the *national* Democrat party as well.

Now would this have to be brought in the SDNY if the effects of the deprivation of rights applied to other jurisdictions, i.e. preventing Trump from campaigning in, say, Texas. Wouldn’t that be a nexus to bring the injunction in the Texas Federal Court? What happens then?

And can Congress subpoena a state judge for hearings?

[bernard11]

the Crucifixion of Donald Trump

The New York Young Republican club says:

“President Trump embodies the American people — our psyche from id to super-ego — as does no other figure; his soul is totally bonded with our core values and emotions, and he is our total and indisputable champion,” the statement reads. “This tremendous connection threatens the established order.”

Cult, anyone?

[Frank Drackman]

No thanks, 8 years of Barry Hussein was enough for me

[Krychek_2]

That's funny; I just saw a news story that there's a new poll out showing a majority of Americans approve of the indictment, even though they also think politics was involved in it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Link to the story or poll?

[Frank Drackman]

It's up in Krychek's rectum

Frank "Rectum?? damn near killed em'"

[Krychek_2]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/03/politics/cnn-poll-trump-indictment/index.html

And Frank, if you're looking for your head up my ass, I'm quite certain it's not there.

[John F. Carr]

You would see similar numbers if you asked about Donald Trump in the abstract. Between a third and a half of people love him no matter what. Most of the rest hate him no matter what.

[Krychek_2]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I also think polling is irrelevant to the propriety of an indictment. I was responding to the quotation Bernard posted above about how Trump embodies the soul of the American people, which sounds like something I would have expected out of North Korea about the dear leader.

[John F. Carr]

Trump embodies the soul of one third of the American people.

[Krychek_2]

Now that's a scary thought.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't think Biden embodies the soul -- let alone the "id to superego" -- of Democrats. In fact most would respond, "Ewwwww!!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That third will contribute to American progress.

By being replaced.

By better Americans.

Carry on, clingers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And cnn did the poll -- bias anyone?

[Krychek_2]

Fine, feel free to offer competing numbers from somebody else's poll.

[David Nieporent]

CNN did not do the poll, but as usual, another insightful comment by Dr. Ed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They paid for it....

[Sarcastr0]

You don't know how polls funding works if you think CNN $ mean it's a push poll.

[Gandydancer]

“Sixty percent of Americans approve of the indictment of former President Donald Trump, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS…”

If you think there are any Trump non-haters in this lineup feel free to prove it: https://ssrs.com/research-team/

[Sarcastr0]

That’s not how the burden of proof works, Gand.

[Frank Drackman]

CNN, about as far up the Rectum as you can get

[Krychek_2]

Still looking for your head, I see.

[Gandydancer]

I doubt if you actually see Frank no matter how hard you look in your warm dark place.

[Brett Bellmore]

They approve of the indictment, and they don't even know what he's been indicted for yet. That kind of says it all, doesn't it? It's like the polls right after Trump's inauguration showing that a majority of Democrats thought he should be impeached... Though they had no idea what for!

He's guilty as hell of having an R after his name, that's enough to result in damned near every Democrat favoring his indictment for anything at all. Even the Democrats who think it's political are actually OK with that. That's the point we've arrived at.

Seven years of unremittingly bad press coverage is enough to push the total over 50%, but mostly it's just that he's guilty of that "R".

He's not going to be unique in that regard, he's just the President who happened to be in office when Democrats finally lost their tolerance for Republicans holding office. Every Republican President going forward is going to get the same treatment.

[Nige]

'They approve of the indictment, and they don’t even know what he’s been indicted for yet'

'He’s guilty as hell of having an R after his name, that’s enough...'

Hmm.

Also: 'Lock her up.'

[Dr. Ed 2]

At this point, we probably should....

[Nige]

Wait till the indictment is unsealed.

[Gandydancer]

"Lying to the Feds" worked against Flynn, so creating and inserting the Steele "Dossier" ought to work against Rodham. Then there's the Clinton Foundation tax fraud. For starters.

[Nige]

Investigate Trump as thoroughly as she was, by all means.

[Pooblius]

Ew, Nietchze. The 9th grade boy's choice.

[John F. Carr]

A state judge is a judicial officer under 42 USC 1983, which only applies to state officials. The judge can order Trump to shut up under penalty of jail, and even if the order is plainly unconstitutional Trump's remedy is to appeal.

I was thinking yesterday about the Dukes of Hazzard. Them Duke boys were not allowed to leave the county. I wondered if the judge could impose the traditional bail condition that the defendant not leave the court's jurisdiction. Trump can run for President from Manhattan.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm thinking that it would have been a better option to fight extradition from Florida.

If Trump was required to remain in Manhattan and not permitted to campaign nationally (or even attend his party’s convention), and Biden won, that WOULD provoke a Second Civil War because the 2024 Presidential Election would be considered illegitimate by at least a third of the population — and that’s more than enough to start a war.

Scary….

[Frank Drackman]

He probably won't be allowed to possess baseball bats

[John F. Carr]

Even actual innocence is not a legitimate reason to refuse extradition. Fighting annoys the prosecutor and delays the inevitable.

The court may require Trump to waive extradition in advance to leave New York after indictment. Such waivers are often enforceable. I know they are sometimes enforceable and I don't know of any situations where they aren't.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My con law prof said that some states refused to extridite to georgia when it had a chain gang. If the governor wont sign the order -- desantis said he wouldnt -- then....

[Krychek_2]

Then a federal judge will order DeSantis to sign it in no time flat.

[John F. Carr]

I'm not sure about "in no time flat" – Trump's case is not so important that it needs to be rushed – but in the long term New York is entitled to an order granting extradition. Just like Texas is entitled to order the governor of Massachusetts or California to return somebody to face trial on abortion charges.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And yet Maryland *refused* to return Willie Horton to Massachusetts -- they still have him.

[Krychek_2]

They refused to return him because he's serving two life sentences in Maryland. If and when he is ever released from the Maryland prison, and Massachusetts still wanted him back, Maryland would not be able to block it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He was an escaped felon before MD convicted him of anything.

[Gandydancer]

Where do you find this "because we're holding him" exception to the Extradition Clause?

[Frank Drackman]

Great reason to have "Chain Gangs" (I thought Shysters were supposed to use words precisely, every NFL game has a "Chain Gang" most college games too) discourages people from committing crimes, encourages the ones who did to stay out of state. Funny, I'm not a Mr. Goody 2-shoes, but never been convicted (never convicted) of any felonies, hence, never have had to worry about Felony sentences,

Frank "pretend someones always watching you (they are)"

[David Nieporent]

I’m thinking that it would have been a better option to fight extradition from Florida.

On what grounds, that he's actually John Barron rather than Donald Trump?

[Frank Drackman]

that we don't extradite peoples to race-ist dictatorships, would you have extradited Einstein to Germany in 1940 for some bullshit civil suit??

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not feeling much about Trump, but watching Ed's increasingly sweaty alegal apocalypsism is pretty fun times.

[Mr. Bumble]

How far would Bragg and the judge be willing to push things?

[Frank Drackman]

I hope Bragg doesn't push anything, he's (literally) one Big Mac away from "The Big One" (HT F. G. Sanford)
that's a "STEMI" (ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction) as we say in the Medical Biz, or just plain old "MI" if you have the cheapo Hussein-o-care insurance, or "Heart Attack" if you're just stupid,
and you watch, when Bragg dies, they'll blame "45"

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

On a serious note, what happens to indictments when the DA who brought them dies? Can the next DA simply Nulle Prosq them or is there an obligation to present the case to the court?

[John F. Carr]

Prosecutions are brought by the government with a prosecutor acting as the government's lawyer. Death or replacement of a lawyer does not terminate the case. The original DA or his successor can drop charges at any time for any reason or no reason.

There are occasional statutory exceptions to "no reason". Depending on the jurisdiction the prosecutor might be obliged to make a statement on the record explaining why a rape or DUI case is being dropped. Then the case can be dropped for any reason.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

even Bill Barr (who hates Trump)

Barr auditioned aggressively for a job working with Trump, then aggressively ran interference for Trump (to the point of promoting “stolen election” bullshit). Barr is foremost a partisan, establishment Republican and religious rightster; his statements and conducts concerning Trump — and just about everything else — seem to be controlled by that point.

Other than that, though, great comment!

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Jerry, saw that S-s-s-s-s-s-tuttering J-J-John Fetterman is on "Therapeutic Leave" from Walter Reed, must be doing better, even has his belt and shoes with laces, may be a good time to submit your Commutation "Package", before the Senator R-R-R-R-elapses (you know there's gonna be a Re-lapse)

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would have guessed that an autistic culture war casualty and antisocial misfit might be more sympathetic to Sen. Fetterman.

But then I remembered the type of bigoted, un-American malcontents this white, male blog cultivates as its target audience.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Read barrs book

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why? I get all of the obsolete, discredited right-wing bullshit I need at the Volokh Conspiracy, from Fox News, from The National Desk, and on Newsmax.

[apedad]

". . . the Crucifixion of Donald Trump. . . . "

Thanks for confirming what was pretty obvious; that Trump's your Lord and Savior.

That explains a lot.

[Purple Martin]

While Bill Barr always held Trump and his followers in deep contempt, he found Trump as President useful in serving his own career-long obsession of converting America from a democratic representative republic, to a Theocratic Authoritarian Police State.

Looking at his career since his 1980's popularization Unitary Executive theory of as head of DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), and his early 1990's defense of GHWB's Iran-Contra pardons, nearly all Barr's efforts fit into three buckets:

1) Increasing power of the Executive Branch and especially the Chief Executive, at the expense of the Legislative and Judicial branches.
2) Establishing militarized police forces and domestic intelligence agencies under the control of and directly accountable only to the executives of local, state, and federal government; and freeing these government-directed civilian paramilitary militias to use force in support of Barr's favored factions.
3) Weakening the 1st Amendment's separation of church and state while freeing from any government restraints, his own sour strain of ultra-conservative Catholicism (he detests the Church's direction under the current Pope).

With election defeat ending Trump's usefulness, Barr hoped to retain a modicum of credibility in a post-Trump future. He calculated a public rejection of what he knew to be election fraud fantasies, would help by triggering his own firing. Which he did and it did. That worked well enough that he was treated to a triumphant book tour lionizing the fantasy of his heroic stand against Trump.

So, attacking efforts to hold a Chief Executive to legal account (even a former one he considers contemptuous) perfectly aligns with Objective #1.

Although he would have liked another four MAGA years to further lock-in his anti-democracy ideals, Bill Barr is likely satisfied with what—through Trump-manipulation—he managed to advance his holy crusade of America's march toward theocracy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We were closer to a theocracy in the 1950s -- I think Jimmy Carter is the last President who went to church weekly, while it would have been a scandal had a President missed church in an earlier era.

Trump wasn't the first Divorced President -- Reagan was.

[Purple Martin]

That's funny! Neither Jimmy Carter nor Donald Trump were at all interested in Theocracy (though for different reasons: Carter understood Separation of Church and State, while Trump's desires would be far better filled by a Kakistocracy).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Has it ever been confirmed that Barr is one of those Opus Dei assholes?

[Purple Martin]

A member? I don't think so. Fellow Traveler probably describes it better. Per this, published on WBUR's website:

William Barr's Crusade For 'Traditional Moral Order'
May 09, 2019. Laura Murray-Tjan

Barr remains a member of the Knights of Columbus, an organization he joined in 1984, and where he served for years as a “Supreme Board Member.” One of the Knights’ primary objectives is to reduce abortion by funding pro-life pregnancy centers.

Barr also recently served on the board of directors for the Catholic Information Center, which is managed by priests from Opus Dei, a wealthy and influential conservative group. (An Opus Dei priest was once Barr’s speechwriter.)

Barr’s five-year tenure on the board of directors for the Ethics and Public Policy Center — an anti-abortion think tank dedicated to framing public policy along religious lines — rounds out his profile.

Lot of embedded links to original sources in the article.

[Pooblius]

Trump arguing that Smith v. Allright nullifies his prosecution would be... I might die laughing.