Today in Supreme Court History: April 14, 1873

4/14/1873: The Slaughter-House Cases argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

According to online sources, the Slaughter-House Cases were decided (not argued) on this date.

Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (decided April 14, 1873): Fourteenth Amendment (states can’t abridge “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”) doesn’t prevent states from abridging state rights, only federal rights (which the Court refuses to give examples of) (upholding state’s police power to centralize butcher operations for public safety reasons) (in lecturing on this case my Con Law professor, who like many law professors was unaware of how he came off, kept spitting out the phrase “the BUTCH-ers of New OR-leans!” like they were mass murderers; as the son of a butcher I resent how people use the verb “butcher” to describe shoddy or violent mishandling)

Butler v. Whiteman, 356 U.S. 271 (decided April 14, 1958): jury in Jones Act case should have been allowed to decide whether decedent killed while cleaning tug boiler at wharf was in aid of navigation, was a seaman and whether defendant’s negligence was a factor (overruled by McDermontt Int’l v. Wilander, 1991), to the extent that non-seamen can sue under the Jones Act) (sometime after 1991 I defended a Jones Act case where plaintiff was injured when his truck tipped over while loading pallets onto a ship)

United States v. Adams, 281 U.S. 202 (decided April 14, 1930): double jeopardy to prosecute making false entry in bank book where already acquitted as to making false entry as to same transaction in another book

Miller v. McLaughlin, 281 U.S. 261 (decided April 14, 1930): Nebraska can regulate fishing on its side of the Missouri River; does not interfere with interstate commerce with Iowa

Walling v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., 331 U.S. 17 (decided April 14, 1947): Fair Labor Standards Act not violated by arrangement where employees (servicers of oil wells) sometimes have to work more than 84 hours a week to get overtime due to wildly varying hours worked weekly (often less than 20, but also often more than 100 hours/week!) (this decision provoked Congress into amending the overtime statute, 29 U.S.C. §207)

Crane v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 331 U.S. 1 (decided April 14, 1947): homeowner’s taxable gain or loss as to property is measured by its fair market value at the time of acquisition without subtracting for mortgage

United States v. Resler, 313 U.S. 57 (decided April 14, 1941): local ordinance requiring license for storing coal did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause even though coal destined for interstate sale; no “continuity of transit”

Wisconsin v. Illinois, 281 U.S. 179 (decided April 14, 1930): orders Illinois to quit stalling and stop diverting Lake Michigan water from Wisconsin as previously ordered (“If its Constitution stands in the way of prompt action it must amend it or yield to an authority that is paramount to the State”)

Kentucky v. Indiana, 281 U.S. 163 (decided April 14, 1930): fact that state (Indiana) is being sued by its own citizens in dispute over contract with another state (Kentucky) to build bridge (over Ohio River) is no defense to original jurisdiction suit (by Kentucky) for breach of contract

Matters v. Ryan, 249 U.S. 375 (decided April 14, 1919): Two women (one English and one American) claimed to be the mother of the same baby, who was brought in from Canada by the American woman. Instead of threatening to cut the baby in two, the Court holds that any federal question presented by the allegation that immigration laws were violated by a minor being brought into the United States by a non-parent is “frivolous”. (unknown what happened after this)

[John F. Carr]

Ryan asked for a writ of habeas corpus to resolve a custody dispute with Matters.

Now there is a Hague Convention which can get you into federal court to determine who gets to keep a minor brought into the country. The preference is for the courts of the minor's home country to decide but there are enough exceptions to keep lawyers busy.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A number of seemingly credible sources indicate the Slaughter-House cases were argued January 11, 1872, reargued February 3-5, 1873, and decided April 14, 1873.

A Noble Prize for identifying error in Today In Supreme Court History is awarded to captcrisis.

I expect the Volokh Conspirators to (1) change the content, including retroactively, without acknowledging the error or noting the change and (2) continue to pretend they don't read comments, mostly to avoid responding to comments such as captcrisis' comment.

[QuantumBoxCat]

The three cases that are listed under the heading "The Slaughter-House Cases" in the U.S. Reports were originally argued on January 11 & 12, 1872. On April 15, 1872 the Court continued the three cases and ordered re-argument at the next term. This was done because Justice Nelson was absent during the entirety of the 1871 December Term, so the cases were only heard by 8 justices. Given that the 8 present justices were split 4-4 in the final vote line-up, it seems likely they ordered the cases reargued so a 9th justice could break the tie, as opposed to simply affirming the lower court decision on a divided vote.

Justice Nelson ultimately resigned his position on November 28, 1872, four days prior to the opening of the Court's 1872 December Term. Justice Ward Hunt replaced Nelson, taking his seat on the Court on January 9, 1873. The court then heard 4+ hours of oral argument in the three consolidated cases on February 3, 4, and 5, 1873. On April 14, 1873 the Court handed down its decision, with Justice Hunt joining the majority.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

Similar to when Douglas was absent for the entire 1949 term, after a horse fell on him, or (more seriously), debilitated for most of the 1974 and 1975 terms.

[Brett Bellmore]

Slaughterhouse represents possibly the single worst Supreme court ruling in history, in my opinion. The Court literally took a very important constitutional amendment, and 'interpreted' it so as to render it largely moot for generations.

And it's never really been overturned, just worked around. Our 14th amendment jurisprudence is still distorted by the decision to incorporate selectively via oxymoronic 'substantive due process' instead of just overruling Slaughterhouse on the reach of privileges and imunities.

[Michael P]

The usual description of the holding in the Slaughter-House Cases is that the 14A protects "federal" rights from infringement by states, but not rights granted or recognized only by a state. Why shouldn't a state be able to revoke or un-recognize a right that it creates or recognizes?

As an example, the federal government does not currently recognize a general right for a pregnant woman to get an abortion. If a state decides to grant or recognize such a right, should the 14A prevent that state from later withdrawing that grant or recognition?

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that the "federal" rights were rights against the federal government. Which was precisely, diametrically opposite the whole point of the amendment. There's no question at all that the Court deliberately misconstrued the amendment to render it largely moot.

Essentially, the purpose of the 14th amendment was to take Taney's parade of horribles in Dred Scott and make it real.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I agree Brett, but what else could the court have done?

This was way before the clean water act and the butchers were dumping all the blood and guts into the river (as was customary at the time) except they were doing it upriver of the city’s water intakes which were often clogged with the decomposing offal. And this was hot weather so bacteria counts were going through the roof and this was before water was chlorinated — they were having cholera outbreaks and everything else.

What else could the court have done? It couldn’t have prevented the state from addressing a situation that was KILLING people…

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Court could have simply held it was within the state's police power, a rationale it still uses at times. Instead it decided to eviscerate the 14A.

[Brett Bellmore]

Exactly. They didn't have to gut the 14th amendment, but they wanted to, the situation with the slaugherhouse was just an excuse to get it done.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It could be that nobody in front of them was making that argument; nobody was saying, "Whether it's prohibited by the 14A or not, it's within police power because people are dying."

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose that's possible, I don't have the oral argument to look at. I just think it's a bit unlikely. It really looks to me, if you look at multiple cases about the same time, that they were on a crusade to end Reconstruction.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The lawyer for the butchers was ex-Justice John A. Campbell, who was surely delighted at the evisceration of 14A.

[Dan Schiavetta]

But the butchers lost.

To continue this analogy . . .

The Court chopped the (eviscerated) chicken from the tail halfway through, clipped the end of the breastbone, removed it, then sliced the chicken in half, removed the heart and the giblets, then chopped each half just above the thigh, sliced the skin back to expose the “knee bone”, then cut through just below that bone to separate the leg without the marrow being exposed, then did the same to separate the breast from the wing. Then took everything off the block except the (rarely consumed) giblets and the (tiny) heart — what remained of the 14A.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

His clients lost, but the reasoning of the decision was music to his treasonous, confederate ears.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I wonder if he (like me) ever had to chop up animals, or whether he (like me) lost part of his finger in a slicing machine.

[Brett Bellmore]

Looking into it, the dissent actually specifically says that at least part of the law in question was justifiable as an exercise of the police power, to preserve public health. So it's not as though that weren't before the Court. But viewed that portion of the law as mere pretense to justify the establishment of the monopoly, which the dissent argued was a constitutional violation.

By the dissent's reasoning, the sanitary provisions, by themselves, would have been sustained.

"In the law in question there are only two provisions which can properly be called police regulations -- the one which requires the landing and slaughtering of animals below the city of New Orleans, and the other which requires the inspection of the animals before they are slaughtered. When these requirements are complied with, the sanitary purposes of the act are accomplished. In all other particulars, the act is a mere grant to a corporation created by it of special and exclusive privileges by which the health of the city is in no way promoted. ... The pretence of sanitary regulations for the grant of the exclusive privileges is a shallow one which merits only this passing notice."

"The question presented is, therefore, one of the gravest importance not merely to the parties here, but to the whole country. It is nothing less than the question whether the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution protect the citizens of the United States against the deprivation of their common rights by State legislation. In my judgment, the fourteenth amendment does afford such protection, and was so intended by the Congress which framed and the States which adopted it."

[wolfefan]

I wonder if your prof was referring to The New Orleans Axe-man, who I think IIRC has been described as The Butcher of New Orleans. Bill James has a good primer on the cases in his wonderful book The Man From The Train.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It would have been funny if a student had asked if he was talking about that guy.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes.

It’s a lot easier than humans “voting with their feet”. Moving from place to place is what fish do.

[Brett Bellmore]

But that was perfectly reasonable: Look at the text of the 14th amendment: "No state shall.. nor shall any state..." The 14th amendment, textually, IS only applicable to state actors. Never private actors, unless they're acting on behalf of a state.

It's questionable that it even is applicable to the federal government, given that language. But private individuals? Not even a close question.

The key problem in Cruikshank was a violation of the equal protection clause. "Getting out of the way and letting the mobs do their work" is a clear EP violation, it is literally what this clause targets: Failure to equally extend the protection of the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, Slaugherhouse rendered the P&I clause moot, and Cruikshank rendered the EP clause moot. That Court really was actively determined to undo the 14th amendment.

It really is a puzzlement to me why the Court didn't just overturn Slaugherhouse, rather than inventing 'substantive due process'. Was it too painful to admit that a previous Court had been that wrong, and deliberately so? Or did they just not want to be forced into wholesale incorporation? SDP did allow them to treat the Bill of Rights like an ala carte menu, after all.

[Brett Bellmore]

The radical Republicans only really had the votes to be in charge so long as the South was at least partially disenfranchised. So it's hardly surprising that they lost a lot of gains once the occupying troops left.

But the Court vastly facilitated that, by gutting the Reconstruction amendments, because that allowed the South to disenfranchise the newly enfranchised blacks whose votes were electing Republicans in the South.

Then the weakened Republican party struck a deal, the "Corrupt Bargain" of 1877, to end Reconstruction entirely in return for resolving the 1876 Presidential election in their favor.

I honestly think that if the Court had enforced the Reconstruction amendments, the Radical Republicans would have held onto power long enough to make Reconstruction stick, and American history would have been VERY different today in terms of race relations.

So, yeah, I really despise that Court.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment also created a segregated school system in Washington DC; I don’t think they knew what they were getting into in the long term."

Under the original, (Non-Cruikshank!) understanding of equal protection, it didn't actually prohibit segregation. It prohibited the failure of states to afford the protection of the law to particular groups in equal measure as the majority got it. If somebody would be prosecuted for robbing a white man, then, they had to be prosecuted for robbing a black man. And so forth. Separate but equal would have been just fine under this understanding.

The understanding of EP as prohibiting segregation was a product of the long history following, which demonstrated conclusively that separate never WAS going to be equal, because the people who wanted separate were determined that it not be equal. That it not be equal was the actual purpose of the separation!

I think the Radical Republicans would have been fine if the Reconstruction amendments had been enforced, because the freed blacks of the South voted almost exclusively Republican. They only lost power when Reconstruction ending allowed those Republican voters to be disenfranchised.

[Sarcastr0]

The Radical Republicans were not in it for the votes.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, but they needed the votes if they were going to actually accomplish anything.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Radical Republicans were not in it for the votes."

Sure they were. They were politicians desiring power.

I'd agree they also had good "equality" or "justice" motives but votes were absolutely part of it.

Most of them were also just as prejudiced in their personal views as any ex-slaveowner. "Race mixing" was ok for the South, not New England or Ohio.

[CJColucci]

"Race mixing" had always been OK in the South, at least for white men.

[Gandydancer]

"They only lost power when Reconstruction ending allowed those Republican voters to be disenfranchised."

And white, formerly Confederate, voters to be re-enfranchised.

It's not as if much of the South had black majorities.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, but remember that it's also not as though all the white people in the South were slave owners, or invested in slavery.

Mississippi and South Carolina were majority black, some of the other Confederate states were pretty close to even. When you figure that basically every black would have been voting Republican, and the whites would not have been uniformly Democratic, yeah, the Radical Republicans were in a very strong position until blacks were disenfranchised after Reconstruction.

But, yes, Confederates did end up disenfranchised during reconstruction to some extent, though not nearly to the degree blacks were after it ended. It was mostly the disenfranchisement of the blacks, not the reenfranchisement of the whites, that killed Radical Republican prospects in the South.

[David Nieporent]

On the other hand, fish probably have a harder time voting with their feet.