Today in Supreme Court History: April 18, 1775

4/18/1775: Paul Revere's ride.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (decided April 18, 1960): record of competency hearing too sparse to evaluate; conviction (for kidnaping girl and transporting her across state lines) vacated and new competency hearing ordered prior to new trial (no Double Jeopardy, apparently) (the psychiatric report, in 271 F.2d 385, seems complete to me and opines that he doesn't understand the nature of the proceedings)

Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (decided April 18, 1921): statute restricting conditions for eviction was exercise of police power and not a "taking" requiring compensation due to wartime housing shortage as declared by Congress ("a declaration by a legislature concerning public conditions that by necessity and duty it must know, is entitled at least to great respect")

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101 (decided April 18, 2017): trial court's sanctions against party for bad-faith litigation conduct is limited to award of legal costs; lawsuit was not "permeated" by refusal to produce test results re: allegedly defective tire

Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 566 U.S. 449 (decided April 18, 2012): only individuals, not nations or organizations, can be held liable under the Torture Victim Prevention Act (dismissing suit against Palestinian Authority, Israel, and the PLO for torture and murder of family members)

Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U.S. 431 (decided April 18, 2012): Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence apply to patent suits; federal court can be presented with evidence not presented before Board of Patent Appeals (the applicant, who was trying to patent his "Improved Memory Architecture" software, had forgotten to submit it to the Board)

Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (decided April 18, 2001): issue of fact whether redistricting was due to race (not o.k.) or political gerrymandering (o.k.)

Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (decided April 18, 1995): liability under Fair Debt Collection Act extends to collection lawyers, even after they bring suit (here, the infraction seems minor; in notifying defaulting car buyer of amount owed lawyer cited wrong cost of insurance bank had to obtain)

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (decided April 18, 1995): violation of separation of powers for Congress to require reopening (actually one should just say "opening") of final judgments (here, as to securities fraud suits)

Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (decided April 18, 1966): striking down loyalty oath on Free Association grounds because one can belong to a subversive organization for non-subversive reasons (e.g., membership in Soviet scientific society)

Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 (decided April 18, 1966): right to trial violated when counsel (not the defendant himself) agreed to guilty verdict if "prima facie" case made out by prosecution and no objection to damaging hearsay

[Commenter_XY]

Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (decided April 18, 1921)

In light of the pandemic, still relevant today, a century later. Why did the CDC rely on statute when Congress could have stopped evictions? (Am I reading that right...Congress can restrict the conditions a landlord can cite to evict a tenant and not pay)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wilson & Congress did a LOT of things during WWI that are questionable (and which were *not* done during WWII), starting with seizing the railroads and even the Cape Cod Canal.

A "wartime housing shortage"? -- We didn't really provide much ordinance or material to Europe during WWI, all we provided was manpower. It was during WWII that we had all the people moving to the cities for Defense jobs and the resultant housing shortage.

But courts are reluctant to question the government in time of war.

[Dilan Esper]

Actually, Block is a great example of exactly why courts defer to the political branches during emergencies. What if the Court is wrong and you end up with draft age men in homeless camps or something?

The notion recently litigated that government powers need to be strictly constrained during a pandemic can ONLY be understood as people pissed off that the government was taking the pandemic seriously at all and second-guessing THAT judgment. If you truly believe that even in a true emergency the government should have no power to stop people from being evicted, you have a very dangerous ideology.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Quite true.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me ask a possibly stupid question: Why didn’t the various governments just pay those people’s rent? Rather than requiring the landlords to have no recourse as they went unpaid?

On a state level it would have been unambiguously constitutional, and we’ve kind of gotten past the point where the courts actually care that it wasn’t within the reach of federal power. It might have been a little bit controversial, but it would have been a much different and less serious sort of controversial.

So, why go out of their way to make the landlords the fall guys, in a constitutionally dubious manner?

I suggest the reason is the same as the reason for a whole shitload of crap that various people in executive (And occasionally judicial!) positions pulled during Covid: It let them bypass a legislature that might have said “No”, in some cases already HAD said “no”. Actually paying the rent would have taken an appropriation, cheating the landlords didn't.

IOW, this isn’t about objecting to taking the pandemic seriously. It’s about taking gross usurpation of power seriously!

“Emergency powers” are executive powers, typically. They represent dabbling in dictatorship, and you always have to worry that it won’t stop at dabbling.

[Dilan Esper]

They did pay landlords. Congress passed extensive economic subsidies to keep landlords afloat.

[Artifex]

The notion recently litigated that government powers need to be strictly constrained during a pandemic can ONLY be understood as people pissed off that the government was taking the pandemic seriously at all and second-guessing THAT judgment.

No, this is utter nonsense and logical fallacy. I can certainly think that the pandemic was serious and think that the government still needs constraints.

Cough. cough. Korematsu. I can still think surprise attacks and imperialism by the Japanese are about as serious as it gets and at the same time believe that the US government has no business imprisoning people based on their ethnicity. So obviously by your logic, if I am against Korematsu, I MUST not be taking the Japanese threat seriously because that is the ONLY reason I would object.

So your point is that if you think the government shouldn't have this power you are a dangerous ideologue ? I think we are a bit divided over "who" is the dangerous ideologue actually. Take a good look at what you are advocating.

[Nige]

Nah, at the end of the day it's about staking out a political position that emergencies should not be taken seriously because one party has become addicted to conspiracy theories.

[Brett Bellmore]

My position is that acting unconstitutionally doesn't demonstrate that you take an emergency seriously. It demonstrates that you don't take the rule of law seriously.

[Nige]

This would sound quite good if it were coming from people who took the rule of law seriously. But you voted for Trump. So mostly it just seems about preventing the government from responding to emergencies using whatever tools are available.

[Dilan Esper]

I can't stand Korematsu, but despite what Roberts said in Trump v. Hawaii, I am sadly confident that if the issue arose again, the case would come out the same way.

Again, what are courts really going to do when the military tells them having these people there are a security risk and could result in sabotage and even a military defeat?

Korematsu is a blight on the Roosevelt Administration, because they lied to the courts to justify a racist policy. But courts are always going to defer in those situations, as terrible as that is.

[Artifex]

Again, what are courts really going to do when the military tells them having these people there are a security risk and could result in sabotage and even a military defeat?

How about just say "No!" ? If it really is an emergency, you will have a consensus among all the branches quickly. Roosevelt had an almost unanimous declaration of war within 24 hours. If you don't have full consensus, your argument that you have to have emergency powers is simply not good enough to set aside civil rights.

[John F. Carr]

Dusky was not subject to double jeopardy because competence to stand trial is not an element of an offense. The analysis could have been different in 1960. The formalism of identifying elements that had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt was not fully developed.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You mean -- there's no bar to subjecting an incompetent person to trial after trial?

[John F. Carr]

I know of no limit other than the rule that insufficient evidence bars a retrial and certain prosecutorial misconduct bars a retrial. A prosecutor once told me in his jurisdiction the government got only three chances. If the third guilty verdict was vacated the defendant went free. As far as I know that is not a general rule.

[Dan Schiavetta]

What does Double Jeopardy mean then?

[John F. Carr]

It means something complicated. If you've been acquitted you can't be retried, except maybe if you did something awful, but if you've merely been convicted then unconvicted you can be retried, except maybe if the prosecution did something awful.

The first exception is based on Harry Aleman, who was convicted of murder on retrial after bribing a judge to acquit him in a bench trial. Aleman v. Judges of Circuit Court, Cook County 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Watching captcrisis run rings around Profs. Barnett and Blackman most days must make the dean at Georgetown so proud.

The dean at South Texas is probably too busy worrying about falling even lower in the rankings -- better than precisely six of the 200 or so American law schools in the most recent ranking -- to notice.

[Mr. Bumble]

4/18/1775: Paul Revere's ride.

Was that when he spread the news of the Dobb's decision before it was announced?

[hobie]

Since this post has nothing to do with the Supreme Court, my comment should be too. I'm thinking of paying Dylan Mulvaney to endorse the AR-15. That aughtta do it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Let me join in with an equally unrelated comment.

Perhaps it's my age group, but I greatly preferred Roger Moore to Sean Connery. Connery was too serious. The whole setup was so ridiculous -- the beautiful but deadly women after him, the gadgets, the supposedly deadly but comically ineffective villains, the huge penis that women supposedly swoon for, martial arts fighting in a tuxedo -- that I just couldn't suspend disbelief. I couldn't stop the giggles and the eye-rolling. "Get Smart" and Austin Powers were the inevitable results.

Moore had it right, playing the part like a subtle joke, winking at the audience. He said that when he agreed to take the part, "The first thing I realized was, this guy's not a real spy. Not when everyone recognizes him, knows his name, and even knows what his favorite drink is."

[hobie]

Agreed. Sean Connery should have stuck with the Darby O'Gill franchise. But the handsome devil couldn't leave well enough alone.

[Mr. Bumble]

OK. Now do Bond villains.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Famke Janssen, whose character had an orgasm every time she killed someone.

[Mr. Bumble]

Future villain?

Jeff Bezos as Dr. Evil type character featuring his penis shaped rocket and Lauren Sanchez curled up in his lap.

[John F. Carr]

There is an old saying, "the golden age of science fiction is 12." I met James Bond around that age and found him very entertaining. The submarine-eating ship, the space shuttle taking off from the back of the 747, those were great.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Quite true!

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Gomar Explorer and our partial recovery of a sunken Soviet sub was real.

[Mr. Bumble]

That would be Glomar Explorer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“The first thing I realized was, this guy’s not a real spy. Not when everyone recognizes him, knows his name, and even knows what his favorite drink is.”

The "Head of Station" is usually well known and protected because he is attached to the embassy. I've heard of one such person taking random rides on the Moscow subway system, just to screw with the KGB and tie up their resources.

[wolfefan]

Moore's work in The Saint carried over into the Bond franchise so well. I agree with your assessment. Some of the plots in the Moore years went too far over the top, and my fave film of the franchise is From Russia With Love, but Moore's interpretation fits better.

[DonP]

The trade up, from the Volvo P1800 to the Aston Martin was a definite improvement as well.

Saw a YouTube video on Jay Leno's Garage (?) with the man who bought the Roger Moore/The Saint Volvo. Apparently the producer's of The Saint tried to get Jaguar to provide an XKE for the show, but Jaguar didn't think Roger Moore was a big enough star at the time and Jaguar turned it down. So the P1800 was the second choice.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Moore’s interpretation fits better."

Disagree. Bond, while charming, had a vicious streak that Sean and Daniel Craig have but Moore certainly did not.

Nobody was cooler than Sean paired with Jack Lord in Dr. No.

[John F. Carr]

I agree, Sean Connery fit the books' Bond better. When I met Bond the plots of Moore's movies had little or nothing in common with the books.

[SRG]

Sean Connery for me – more brutal and direct. Roger Moore may be a better deliverer of witty lines but, relatively, was a lightweight. Fleming liked Connery enough to modify the later books to fit him even more.

If you think that the films are ridiculous, though, the books are IMO more so – and have aged worse than the films. But Bond is hard to carry off – Timothy Dalton, a far better actor than Connery or Moore, was nonetheless a worse Bond. To my own surprise I found that Daniel Craig is overall the best, and I grew up with Connery.

Favourite Bond girl: Claudine Auger from Thunderball.

[Bob from Ohio]

Favorite Bond girl: Eunice Gayson from Dr. No and Russia with Love with honorable mention for Honor Blackman from Goldfinger

[Dan Schiavetta]

Diana Rigg. Though perhaps she transcended the series.

Patsy Kensit (Lethal Weapon 2) would have made a great Bond girl.

Talisa Soto, just for her looks (a terrible actress).

Maude Adams in Octopussy.

Lois Chiles had a great smile (Moonraker).

[Bob from Ohio]

"huge penis that women supposedly swoon for"

Not sure which versions you were watching.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I’m thinking of the scenes where he drops his pants and she says with delight, “James!!”

In real life she would get a bullhorn and announce: “Attention! . . . Stay . . . where . . . you . . . are! . . . Do . . . not . . . come . . . any . . . closer! . . . Repeat: . . . Stay . . . where . . . you . . . are!!” At least that’s how my niece put it recently.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Phrasing?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I didn’t express it very well in text form, but when my niece cupped her hands over her mouth and did that bullhorn voice, it was funny. She cracks up any room she’s in.

[CJColucci]

Of course, Bond wasn't nearly as capable as he appeared:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-it-be-james-bonds-martinis-were-shaken-alcoholic-tremor/

[Dan Schiavetta]

That’s funny. How could anyone who drinks vodka martinis like water be such a good shot? In “Skyfall” it’s finally noted that Bond is an alcoholic.

I drink real martinis (gun + vermouth) and I like them stirred. Shaken, it’s a lot of bits of ice and you can’t really taste it. Also I like them “wet” — 2 parts gin to 1 part vermouth.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I meant to say "gin" and vermouth. Good God, what a typo.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Moore had it right, playing the part like a subtle joke, winking at the audience."

Eh, I never found Moore's joking to be all that subtle. It was barely a step ahead of Casino Royale.

I certainly agree that Bond wasn't a realistic spy. I guess he might have started out as one, in the very beginning of the franchise.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Paul Revere never made it.

Both he and William Dawes rode (via different routes) out to Lexington to warn John Hancock and Samuel (not John) Adams that the British were coming to arrest them, and then on to Concord to seize a brass cannon and other weapon stores.

They were joined by Samuel Prescott, a Concord MD who happened to be in Lexington — all three men were stopped by British troops in what is now Lincoln, on the road to Concord. Revere was captured (the other two escaped) and was taken at gunpoint back to Boston.

Only Samuel Prescott actually made it to Concord in time to warn that the British were coming. (He lived there and probably knew the back roads.)

As an aside, this demonstrates the extent to which Boston was subsequently expanded by landfill — for those familiar with the city, the British essentially rowed the length of the Gilmore Bridge, from somewhere downriver of “Prison Point” (where Bunker Hill Community College is) to Lechmere Point (where the Lechmere Green Line station now is).

Even more than this, one can stand on the corner of School Street, where Revere did, and see the Old North Church in the distance — except that all the water in the valley below has been filled in and the land developed.

The actual British losses were in what is now Arlington, then called Metamouy or something, with everyone along the road taking pot shots at them from the woods --kinda like Vietnam. Arlington is between Lexington and Boston.

[Mr. Bumble]

This lesson in American history is brought to you by Mr. Know It All.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, this correction -- I'm not the one who said that this event, some 14 years before the US Supreme Court even existed, had anything to do with the history of the Court.

But if it does, let's at least get it *RIGHT* and not take Longfellow's revised version of it!

[John F. Carr]

As an educator his job is to appear omniscient.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and as seen above he just can't stop.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Please forgive me for objecting to the Chamber of Commerce version of History -- it was Prescott who warned Concord, not Revere, and the "Salem" witches actually lived in Danvers.

[Krayt]

I recall some historian claiming decades back that Paul Revere never even rode, but was drunk in a bar.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Just him and his horsey and a quart of beer

I wonder – what was the name of Paul Revere’s little horsey?

[John F. Carr]

There is a small plaque off Route 2A in Lincoln marking the spot where Revere was captured. Quoting the National Park Service (https://www.nps.gov/places/paul-revere-capture-site.htm):

This monument marks the location where Paul Revere’s midnight ride came to an end. It was here that Paul Revere, William Dawes, and Dr. Samuel Prescott ran into a patrol of British officers who were out on the road to stop any express riders from Boston. They captured Revere (and let him go a few hours later without his horse). Dawes turned around and escaped; and Samuel Prescott made it through the ambush and delivered the alarm to Concord.

In Longfellow’s famous poem, “Paul Revere’s Ride,” Revere is the sole rider spreading the alarm to “every Middlesex village and farm.” In reality Paul Revere was part of a larger system established by Patriot leaders to alarm the countryside and muster the minute men and militia. This was the work of the Committee of Safety, a part of the Provincial Congress.

In March of 1775 they established “watches” to be kept at Roxbury, Cambridge and Charlestown in order to give early warning of any British movement. Couriers were designated to carry the alarm to the towns where the magazines were located. Designated men in those towns, like Col. James Barrett, were likewise instructed to send riders out when they received the news of a British march.

[Goju]

Dawes' and Prescott's biggest problem is not having a close relative who became America's leading poet of the times.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Adam Yauch?

[Estragon]

“ Revere was captured (the other two escaped) and was taken at gunpoint back to Boston.”

This does not appear to be accurate.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[comment relocated]