Today in Supreme Court History: April 17, 1978

4/17/1978: Penn Central Transportation Corporation v. New York argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (decided April 17, 1905): striking down New York statute setting maximum work hours for bakery employees as violating freedom of contract and not within police power; in Holmes's much-overrated dissent he says, "This case is decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain" (?? I don't see any mention of economic theory in the Court's decision); the dissent by Harlan (along with White and Day) is the more prescient one, arguing that the statute was indeed with the police power (this case was pretty much overruled by cases beginning with West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 1937)

Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. --- (decided April 17, 2018): federal court can consult lower state court decision as to why habeas was denied, where higher state courts did not explain why they were affirming (here, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim after a murder conviction)

United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (decided April 17, 1922): "Workhouses" still existed post-Dickens! Here, people convicted of failure to pay a debt were required to work there and their "earnings" given to the person owed. Defendant here was sentenced to six months for flouting child support order, with mother the beneficiary. The Court here holds that because defendant could have been sentenced to a year, this was an "infamous" crime under the Fifth Amendment so grand jury indictment required.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (decided April 17, 2013): The Alien Tort Statute Act floats over the United States like a many-tentacled squid, suctioning certain claims into U.S. courts. Who knows what it means? Here, the Court holds that at least it doesn't encompass claims made by foreigners against foreign entities concerning something that happened overseas (Nigerian nationals suing British, Dutch and Nigerian corporations over atrocities in Nigeria).

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. --- (decided April 17, 2018): Is burglary a "crime of violence" so as to allow deportation? Court holds that the statutory phrase is too vague for Due Process purposes and vacates removal order.

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (decided April 17, 2013): fact that alcohol metabolizes as the minutes pass can't serve as excuse for emergency warrantless blood test in every circumstance; case-by-case basis (here, there was time to get a warrant where trucker was apparently drunk and police officer took him to hospital for test)

Pabst Brewing Co. v. Crenshaw, 198 U.S. 17 (decided April 17, 1905): upholding Missouri's fee on inspection of incoming beer; did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause because Congress had specifically allowed states to impose such fees (i.e., it can regulate interstate commerce by giving some power over it to the states)

Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U.S. 5 (decided April 17, 1939): Japanese patentee (here, of lead powder used in making batteries) can invoke patent protection by showing date of actual invention, not just date of application for patent in this country; issue of fact as to whether patent was abandoned (by allowing others to use and sell it)

Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (decided April 17, 2000): bus passengers have reasonable expectation of privacy as to their bags on open overhead racks (Border Control officer squeezed overhead bag and felt hard surface which was a "brick" of meth; evidence suppressed because no warrant)

Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530 (decided April 17, 1991): Warsaw Convention (allowing suits against international air carriers) does not provide for mental distress claim absent physical injury (plaintiff frightened when plane headed for Bahamas almost crashed due to power loss and turned back to Miami)

[wolfefan]

The Kiobel summary sounds like you've captured the style of the IJ Short Circuit roundup! That feature is one of the highlights of my Friday, and I start my day with you every day. Thanks again for this.

[Syd Henderson]

I was thinking Cthulhu in the courtroom.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A concise (and free) summary of Penn Central v. NY is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Central_Transportation_Co._v._New_York_City

[Dr. Ed 2]

"United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (decided April 17, 1922): “Workhouses” still existed post-Dickens! Here, people convicted of failure to pay a debt were required to work there and their “earnings” given to the person owed. Defendant here was sentenced to six months for flouting child support order, with mother the beneficiary"

I don't see where the mother got wages, or that there even were wages paid. The potential punishment was "a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment in the workhouse of the District of Columbia at hard labor for not more than twelve months or by both such fine and imprisonment.' 34 Stat. 86."

I always thought that these work farms were supposed to be self-supporting, with the labor of the inmates supporting their food & board.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It's in Brandeis's dissent.

"the superintendent to pay to the mother for the support of the children fifty cents for each day's hard labor performed by him."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Interesting -- 50 cents/day is $15/month, and he was supposed to be paying $30/month, and was given a chance to do that and didn't. That's $523/month in today's money, he may not have had it.

Of course we still have debtors prison for this, and it's why I laugh at women complaining about 9 months of pregnancy, as this is at least a 216 month ordeal.

[Magister]

Corporations are persons, so for consistency, conservatives should insist that bankruptcy be outlawed to avoid any risk of ending the life of a person.

Of course, that pregnancy is almost never the result of any particular wrongdoing by the woman affected.

[John F. Carr]

Chapter 7 bankruptcy is death. Chapter 11 is like an abortion, getting rid of unwanted baggage and leaving the debtor alive.

[John F. Carr]

Moreland was tried in D.C., so the never-incorporated requirement for indictment applied to him. The split (5-3) was over whether the words "hard labor" made the crime "infamous", or the fact that the workhouse where he was sent was more like Club Fed than busting rocks made it... whatever the opposite of infamous is.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks

[Krayt]

Fake Thursday Thread -- Someone opposed to the war in Ukraine just got 25 years. Boy, it's a good thing we haven't adopted things like that in countries loaded with his fans.

[Nige]

What were they convicted of?

[bernard11]

I suspect Krayt is referring to this.

[Nige]

Ah, right. That's what a Strong Man does.

[SRG]

In Wilson, Gorsuch's dissent is alarming in its lack of concern for appellants. Among other things, it would incentivise appellate courts to provide no reason for their rejection of appeals, and it would significantly raise the bar - already too high IMO - for habeas corpus writs.

[David Nieporent]

I don't have time to go back and read it now, but from memory, I agree with you. IIRC, he was basically proposing a rational basis type test — rather than looking at the legislature's/court's actual justification for a law/decision, the federal court should just brainstorm the best possible justification it can, and if that passes muster, then the decision is upheld.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't understand that either. As noted, the majority opinion doesn't seem to rely on any theory, just freedom of contract.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I always wondered if NY could have responded to Lockner via taxation — imposing a tax on bread baked by bakeries where employees worked more than a set number of hours per week, or, conversely, tax all bread with the proceeds being a subsidy to those bakeries observing the max hours per week.

Either would make bread baked in bakeries which observed the hour limit cheaper than those which didn't, thus forcing compliance.

Today this would be along the lines of what Roberts decided in the Nobama Nocare case, but I’m thinking back then. That court *did* uphold the Federal Narcotics Act which started as a tax which the government would not let people pay, hence Opium became illegal.

[Brett Bellmore]

But the Court has long been enormously more deferential to federal claims of power than to state claims. So they're not necessarily going to let a state get away with some bit of sophistry just because they'd let the feds get away with it.

I'd say the theory that was actually relevant for Lochner was the theory Holmes was fond of; Economic liberty had long been a traditional liberty in the US, but theories of central planning were starting to catch on, and obviously wouldn't go anywhere if that traditional liberty were respected.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Holmes, not seeing a freedom of contract, such as the Lochner majority spoke of, in the Constitution"

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Though I think the 9th amendment is more on point, that liberty of contract was, as a matter of historical fact, one of the traditional rights of Americans which was not extinguished simply by not being enumerated.