Today in Supreme Court History: April 12, 1945

4/12/1945: President Harry Truman's inauguration. He would make four appointments to the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Vinson, and Justices Burton, Clark, and Minton.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (decided April 12, 1937): in an early demonstration of the "switch" of 1937, upholding Constitutionality of National Labor Relations Act (and actions of NLRB) (forcing major steel producer to bargain with union)

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (decided April 12, 1869): holding, mostly, that Texas is a state over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, and secondarily, that it had jurisdiction over suit against Texas for recovery of bonds issued pre-Civil War (limited to its facts in Morgan v. U.S., 1885)

Gerende v. Board of Supervisors of Elections of Baltimore City, 341 U.S. 56 (decided April 12, 1951): upholding state statute requiring candidates for public office to declare they are not subversives

Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. Chero Cola Bottling Co., 271 U.S. 19 (decided April 12, 1926): wharfboat (always tied to wharf, used as office, warehouse, etc., connected to city's water, electric and telephone systems, never carries cargo) was not "vessel" within meaning of traditional rule limiting owner's liability to value of ship plus cargo; therefore owner not liable for plaintiff's merchandise lost when wharfboat sank

Liberato v. Royer, 270 U.S. 535 (decided April 12, 1926): Italian parents could not recover compensation due deceased son upon whom they were dependent under Pennsylvania no-fault scheme which expressly disqualified foreign parents from recovery; treaty with Italy extended only to right to bring suits alleging fault

People v. Wilson, 318 U.S. 688 (decided April 12, 1943): habeas remanded to state trial court because state's highest court had changed the law in the meantime (issue was whether conviction could be vacated where guilty plea had been obtained fraudulently, Lyons v. Goldstein, 290 N.Y. 19)

Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103 (decided April 12, 1937): another early "switch" case, this one holding that news gathering organization was involved in "interstate commerce" and subject to NLRB jurisdiction

Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Marcus, 213 U.S. 288 (decided April 12, 1909): plaintiff's case (fell when train jerked while she was crossing between trains via their vestibules; allegation was train should have given her notice that it was about to move) should not have gone to jury

Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 237 U.S. 251 (decided April 12, 1915): no "taking" when Congress established new harbor line for expanded Navy yard which destroyed wharves of private owners

Massachusetts v. New York, 271 U.S. 65 (decided April 12, 1926): Massachusetts, incredibly, claimed land in western New York, citing a pre-Revolutionary War grant (you know, like the one that gave Connecticut part of what is now California, https://mieummedia.com/2019/04/10/that-time-connecticuts-borders-extended-to-the-pacific-ocean-explained/); it supposedly had sold it in 1786 to Nathaniel Gorham, at the time the "president" of the Articles of Confederation Congress, who the next year chaired the formative Committee of the Whole weeks of the Constitutional Convention)

[John F. Carr]

Evansville was cited in living memory in the case of Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013). Lozman returned to the Supreme Court in a similarly captioned case in 2018, a feat which must put him in rare company among natural persons. Forty years ago Terri Lee Halderman made it twice but she was a respondent and the lead plaintiff in a class action.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks.

When I read this case I thought of the movie "Pickup on South Street", 1953, where Richard Widmark, as a pickpocket, helps in a good cause to defeat a Soviet undercover agent (played with weird over-the-topness by Richard Kiley). As I recall there was a wharfboat where they hung out, usually to get a cold beer from an underwater basket, but finally to get "the goods". I remember the look on Widmark's face as he goes to the microfilm room of the New York Public Library (it's still there!) and sees that the tape he had stolen was in Russian.

[John F. Carr]

I don't know what became of Halderman, but her lawyer David Ferleger is still alive and active. He took on the Pennhurst case in 1974, just a couple years out of law school.

[Dilan Esper]

Eugene Debs.

The Williams of Nix v. Williams and Brewer v. Williams.

Anna Nicole Smith.

There are some others obviously.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts v. New York interpreted a 1786 treaty granting Massachusetts the right to private ownership of land in western New York. I often drive over a bit of land owned by the city of Cambridge, but situated in Waltham and Lincoln. It is not part of Cambridge. Cambridge happens to own some land outside its borders. The legal question was whether formerly submerged but now dry land could be owned by Massachusetts under the treaty. The answer was no. Private parties do not generally own navigable waters. Here in Massachusetts we have a distinction between small ponds which may be privately owned and "great ponds" which belong to the public.

[apedad]

Re: Texas v. White

Facts of the case

In 1851, Congress authorized the transfer of $10 million worth of United States bonds to the state of Texas. The Reconstruction government claimed that the bonds had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. When the Reconstruction government tried to reclaim the bonds, Texas filed suit directly in the United States Supreme Court, which retains original jurisdiction in certain cases in which a state is a party.

Questions

Was Texas eligible to seek redress in the Supreme Court?
Could Texas constitutionally reclaim the bonds?

Conclusion

In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit. The Court held that Texas had remained a state, despite joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision. The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state. (oyez)

Oyez is a little sparse on details so here's some more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[Dan Schiavetta]

P.S. I do think that states can unilaterally secede, but the secession of the slave states was not a true test of that proposition.

[apedad]

Meh. . . that's just a classroom (or barroom) topic of discussion, i.e., it ain't gonna happen.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If the South hadn't fired on Fort Sumpter, would there even have been a war?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Lincoln, from the first, took the position that the Confederacy was not legitimate — that there was only one legitimate United States, with its capital in D.C., and the most that could be said was that the southern states were in rebellion. This is why his First Inaugural (delivered before Sumter) made no mention of abolishing slavery — if he had said at that point that slavery would be abolished, that would have given the southern states the argument they needed to leave (and also would have resulted in Maryland, a slave state, also seceding, which would have necessitated relocating the national capital, delegitimizing the Union).

Obviously a rebellion has to be dealt with. But he also wanted the Confederacy to be seen as the aggressor, and they played right into his hands with Sumter.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...and they played right into his hands with Sumter."
A dangerous game considering the location of Washington DC and one he almost lost in the early stages of the war.

[Dan Schiavetta]

True.

Lincoln is criticized for curtailing civil liberties, but what??? At one point in 1863, he only had to look from the White House to see the smoke from Confederate General Jubal Early’s guns across the Potomac.

[Frank Drackman]

It's "Sumter"
so Yes, sincre there was no "Fort Sumpter" so the South couldn't have fired on it, wait, What??

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember that's how Andrew Johnson became President -- he was a Senator from Tennessee which had seceded to join the Confederacy, but Johnson remained in DC as Senator -- and the Union had to recognize him as such as it didn't recognize the secession of Tennessee.

Lincoln replaced Hannibal Hamlin (of Bangor, ME) with him on the ticket in 1864 and the rest is history.

The problem the union had was that in not recognizing the secessions, it had to proceed under the legal myth that it didn't exist.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Union did recognize that the southern states were "in rebellion". See my comment above.

[Frank Drackman]

Which was the only area Slaves were "Emancipated" in, the areas "In rebellion"
i.e. the areas where they wouldn't actually be "Emancipated" because the States, were "In rebellion"
pretty sure Abbot & Costellos "Who's on First" Started with this,

"So Abbot, tell me about the Slaves who were "Emancipated"? "Only in the areas still in Rebellion", "What about our Slaves here in Kentucky?" "No, they're still Slaves, Kentucky isn't in rebellion"
"What about the Slaves in Georgia?" "Well they're free, because Georgia's in rebellion, but because Georgia's in rebellion, they aren't following Lincoln's "Proclamation"
"Third Base!!!!!!!!!!"

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

“Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. Chero Cola Bottling Co., 271 U.S. 19 (decided April 12, 1926): wharfboat (always tied to wharf, used as office, warehouse, etc., connected to city’s water, electric and telephone systems, never carries cargo) was not “vessel” within meaning of traditional rule limiting owner’s liability to value of ship plus cargo; therefore owner not liable for plaintiff’s merchandise lost when wharfboat sank.”

NO, this was an attempt to limit the liability to JUST THAT of the ship plus cargo — and that was thrown out. Hence the owner could be held liable for MORE damages to appellees -- I presume in a state suit.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The lower court found for no jurisdiction and the Court affirmed. Will clear that up for next time.

The decision is confusingly written.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Agreed. This is the key line though: "Appellant filed a petition in admiralty for limitation of liability." and this was the appeal -- when admiralty appeals went directly to SCOTUS.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Massachusetts v New York is because of overlapping land grants caused by very poor knowledge of geography. Remember that all of New Hampshire was put in the middle of Massachusetts, which is why NH only has something like 18 miles of frontage on the ocean, and how Maine was part of Massachusetts.

Well they also didn't know that if you went due west from Boston, you'd eventually hit the Hudson River -- that the northern and southern borders of what is now Massachusetts if extended indefinitely (which they initially were) would go through New York.

Vermont was a similar issue, it was initially claimed by both New Hampshire and New York, with both states selling the same parcels of land to different persons, which led to turmoil.

The 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the American Revolutionary used "the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut River" as the border between Quebec and New Hampshire. It seems that there are three streams up there and it wasn't clear which was the main one, with the British using the southern one and New Hampshire using the northern one (the current border).

This led to the Indian Stream Republic, an independent self-governing country of about 300 people which existed 1832-1835 on the land between these two streams, and is now Pittsburg, NH.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks!

[Syd Henderson]

A larger example of sloppiness resulted in the Aroostook War between Maine and New Brunswick. There were exactly two battle casualties, both British or Canadian soldiers injured by bears. There were 38 non-battle deaths. Sensibly the US and UK split the difference on the disputed territory like we did in Oregon a few years later. No word on how the British settled with the bears or why the bears got involved in the war.

[Bob from Ohio]

3 of 4 appointees replaced by the next president, then Ike made 2 horrid, horrid picks.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In fairness, Earl Warren was the Republican Governor of what was then a sane and reliably Republican state, and Warren had supported the relocation of the Japanese Americans during WWII. How was Eisenhower to know.

And as an aside, it was Governor Reagan who introduced bilingual education.... Reagan...

[Dan Schiavetta]

Reagan also signed into law the most liberal abortion law in the country at that point.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Mark Regan was awarded a Noble Prize for achievement in identifying error in Today In Supreme Court History on April 12, 2021 (Professors Barnett and Blackman referred to the nomination of "Thomas Clarke;" -- Mark Regan noted that the former justice was Thomas Clark).

After Mr. Regan identified the error, the scholars who produce Today In Supreme Court History edited their content without acknowledging their mistake or noting the change.

Congratulations, Noble Prize awardee Mark Regan!