Today in Supreme Court History: April 23, 1985

4/23/1985: Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (decided April 23, 2008): not a Fourth Amendment violation to arrest rather than issue summons as required by state law (for driving with suspended license) (drugs found incident to arrest) if police had independent "probable cause" suspicion (though I can't find anything in the opinion that indicates why police had probable cause)

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. --- (decided April 23, 2020): can recover profits from infringed trademark (Lanham Act) even when infringement was unintentional (magnetic snap fasteners for handbags, recently very trendy) https://fineartamerica.com/featured/new-yorker-september-24th-2007-paul-noth.html?product=metal-print

Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (decided April 23, 2003): ineffective assistance of counsel argument (did not ask for continuance to evaluate surprise evidence as to bullet found in victim's car) can be raised on motion to attack sentence, 28 U.S.C. §2255, even though not raised on direct appeal

Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (decided April 23, 2001): "I hear that making love to you is like making love to the Grand Canyon." Not a tactful comment to make to a female co-worker (at least one who isn't Storm Large). But no evidence that she was punished for complaining about this (though I hope the commenter got some serious grief). Title VII retaliation suit dismissed.

Holly Farms Corp. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 392 (decided April 23, 1996): NLRB reasonably held (Chevron deference) that truckers hauling chickens to slaughter were not "agricultural workers" exempt from NLRB jurisdiction; therefore they're entitled to union representation

Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (decided April 23, 1985): This is a weird case. The Secretary of Labor claimed a non-profit violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by underpaying its employees, even though the people at issue denied they were employees but just volunteers, being former drug addicts and "derelicts" who built and staffed facilities in return for food and shelter. The Court agrees with the Secretary, based on the dollar value of what was "paid". The non-profit was ordered to provide back pay, and litigation went on for years, with the IRS eventually seizing the properties. Yes, the Alamos led a cult and there was sexual abuse going on. But I used to work in a (secular) nonprofit with similar arrangements. What was the point of this?

Florida v. Meyers, 466 U.S. 380 (decided April 23, 1984): no warrant needed for more extensive search of car impounded after arrest following admittedly valid search (strip of cloth found matching victim's description of what she had been tied down with during rape)

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (decided April 23, 1974): White man sued law school claiming he was denied admission due to race (of the 37 black applicants who got admitted, 36 had lower LSAT's than him). He won a preliminary injunction to admit him. By the time the case got the Court, he was in his last semester. Court dismisses case as moot; 5 - 4 decision; dissent (led by Douglas) notes the Constitutional questions that should be ruled on (the Court apparently did not think this was one of those "capable of repetition yet evading review" cases)

Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (decided April 23, 2013): "social sharing" of marijuana (i.e., possession) is not an "aggravated felony" requiring deportation under Immigration and Naturalization Act of Jamaican national (good thing -- otherwise half the college-age Jamaican population of this country would be deported, to hear my dormmate from 1976 tell it -- the one whose wall was plastered with posters of Bob Marley in various clouds of smoke == "he is seeing God")

Forncrook v. Root, 127 U.S. 176 (decided April 23, 1888): dispute between beekeepers as to who first devised an improved "honey frame" (prefabricated so that one doesn't have to fit pieces together, laboriously and inaccurately -- a diagram is in the opinion), and as to whether this is too obvious to be patentable; court affirms verdict for Root (who allegedly started using his model in 1873) against Forncrook (whose patent application was submitted in 1879) (notice I didn't make any jokes about a "sweet" result, "swarming" sales or "stinging" accusations -- whoops I just did)

[Gandydancer]

"Moncrieffe v. Holder... “social sharing” of marijuana (i.e., possession) is not an “aggravated felony” requiring deportation under Immigration and Naturalization Act of Jamaican national (good thing — otherwise half the college-age Jamaican population of this country would be deported...”)

That would be a bad thing for Americans, why? Because we have a huge unmet need for drug-addled drug-business-supporting Jamaicans?

[David Nieporent]

Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (decided April 23, 1985): This is a weird case. The Secretary of Labor claimed a non-profit violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by underpaying its employees, even though the people at issue denied they were employees but just volunteers, being former drug addicts and “derelicts” who built and staffed facilities in return for food and shelter. The Court agrees with the Secretary, based on the dollar value of what was “paid”. The non-profit was ordered to provide back pay, and litigation went on for years, with the IRS eventually seizing the properties. Yes, the Alamos led a cult and there was sexual abuse going on. But I used to work in a (secular) nonprofit with similar arrangements. What was the point of this?

What you might be missing about this case is that the 'derelicts' weren't employed/volunteering to keep the 'church' clean or to make or serve meals at their soup kitchen. The 'church' was operating commercial businesses — regular businesses open to the public that sold goods and services.

So, my store employs a bunch of people who I am required by law to pay full minimum wage (and overtime, if appropriate). The store across the street from mine, selling exactly the same products, does not have to pay its employees the minimum wage or overtime because it is owned by a church and calls those people 'volunteers.' Could make it a bit hard for me to compete with them.

The ultimate issue in the case was whether the purely commercial activities of a not-for-profit are covered by the FLSA.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes you’re right.

Still seems strange. What if the workers want to be unpaid, or paid sub minimum?

Not entirely on point, but
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QQna34cbPpg

[Dr. Ed 2]

"What if the workers want to be unpaid, or paid sub minimum?"

It's the same thing as child labor laws -- manufacturers actually *supported* those laws because they didn't personally wish to employ children, but had to because their competitors were doing so.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let me throw a possibility at you CapCrisis -- you're a druggie who gets caught with a whole bunch of contriband, and you go in front of an honest but fair judge who gives you a choice -- you can go live in a sober house or you can go to prison -- and if you get kicked out of the sober house, you go to prison. Massachusetts even has some sort of pretrial probation where if you behave yourself in the sober house, they will "continue without a finding" your case and after another year, it goes into the shredder. Or something -- IANAA.

So you live at Joe's Sober House -- except that Joe demands that you spend your weekends in unpaid labor for his building demolition company -- he "cleans out" vacant houses and expects you to provide unpaid manual labor.

Or you can go to prison for not following Joe's rules.

Do you consider this labor voluntary? And by the way, Joe has no worker's comp -- you are on your own if you get hurt....

[Dan Schiavetta]

There would be a 13A violation there.

But that’s not the situation at issue.

[David Nieporent]

Still seems strange. What if the workers want to be unpaid, or paid sub minimum?

Not an option. If the FLSA could be evaded simply by saying "the workers agreed to get paid less than the minimum wage," then the minimum wage would cease to exist. Almost all wage and hour litigation arises from situations where the employer said, "I'll pay you $X for Y hours," and the employee says, "Fine." Obviously if one libertarianly believes minimum wage laws shouldn't exist, then that's fine. But given the existence of such laws, they only work if they're mandatory.

And, by the way, that means that almost all "unpaid internships" are a violation of the law. Not all; it's possible for it to be done legally. But that requires that the internship actually be for the educational benefit of the intern rather than a way for employers to get cheap (free) labor.

You can also volunteer for true charitable work; as I indicated above, if the homeless people were keeping the shelter clean or feeding people in the soup kitchen, they could be unpaid volunteers. But once you start running a commercial business, you can't call the people laboring for you volunteers whether you're the Church of God or Microsoft.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Neither of those situations applies here, where people who believe they are redeemed due to the actions of the (agency) (church) (therapy) (etc.) voluntarily do work for food, or for less than minimum, knowing they can get a better deal elsewhere, at least in monetary, worldly terms.

[Magister]

Also, from the Wikipedia page about the Alamo Christian Foundation, it appears that Tony Alamo engaged in a lot of criminal activity which might have drawn more enforcement than other non-profits.

[Syd Henderson]

The case in the OP is interesting. It was unanimously in favor of Cleburne Living Center, which was a group home for the intellectually disabled, decided on rational basis, but Marshall, Brennan and Blackmun wanted to go further and declare the intellectually disabled a suspect class under the 14th amendment. I think I might agree with them.

[David Nieporent]

The case that gave us "rational basis with bite."

[ReaderY]

It gave us “if we think people are hateful, we can consider them per se irrational.”

[Frank Drackman]

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving discrimination against the intellectually disabled.
"Intellectually Disabled"?? fitting this case on the eve of Senescent J's Re-erection announcement,
and one of "45"'s best lines, although he said it about the "Poorly Educated"
"We won with Intellectuals!!" "We won with the Intellectually Disabled!!!!" "We love the Intellectually Disabled!!!!!"

Frank

[ReaderY]

Cleburne was the basis of the court’s “animosity” jurisprudence. As I’ve written before, I think that in a highly partisan environment, it’s all too easy to attribute animosity towards ones political opponents, and for this reason animosity is an essentially political label and not a legal one. It is as likely to express blimdness of vision (and perhaps animosity) on the labeler’s part as on the target’s.

An infamous but extremely important example is John Calhoun’s defense of slavery on the basis that abolitionism was motivated by nothing but hate. It should now be obvious to all that Calhoun’s failure to see reason on his opponents’ part was his failure to see, and not his opponents’ lack of reason. His experience should caution us just how much partisan zealousness can blind us.

This country’s experience of slavery and its apologists should caution us against courts’ using hyperpartisan labels that have such potential for misuse. Animosity is a political label. It should not be a legal one, or at least one judges take on themselves without a textual mandate.

It is simply not the business of the judiciary to see hate in the people of this country or coordinate branches of government. Animosity is not a valid or appropriate constitutional category. This aspect of Cleburne should be overruled. If the Supreme Court wants to give disability special protection, it should first find it subject to heightened scrutiny. If it cannot justify such a finding, it should accept rational basis as usual. And under traditional rational basis standards, people have a rational basis for not wanting professional-services group homes in single-family residential neighborhoods.

[not guilty]

The Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation decision predated the enactment by Congress of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the weaponization of that Act by religious hucksters.

In today´s jurisprudence, the requirement that a burden upon a person's exercise of religion be substantial has unfortunately become more honored in the breach than the observance. (Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 4.) There oddly seems to be no such thing as an insubstantial burden.

[Krayt]

There was a case some years back where volunteers worked to keep a struggling radio station afloat, and took similar ire from the government.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not that I think you'll care for a comment by me, but you are so much better in "intelligent mode" than you are in troll mode.

[Bob from Ohio]

"weaponization of that Act by religious hucksters"

Very Christian comment.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Weaponized”. Lol

And that uppity house negro Thomas just lets it happen, right? Wish someone would teach that boy his place.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Fictional?

[Krychek_2]

You should hear what Jesus had to say about religious hucksters.

[Mr. Bumble]

So why feed the trolls?

[Mr. Bumble]

Meant to add; ...it only encourages them.

[Frank Drackman]

Well thank you Queenie, I partake daily (the Glaucoma, you see(get it? "Glaucoma"?? "See?")
And it hasn't affected me at all, of course I mostly use the edibles,

Frank "Man, I'm hungry"

[Mr. Bumble]

As with alcohol, how much and how often plays a role.
The poison is in the dose.

[Gandydancer]

@Queenie: Take up your disagreement with captcrisis about that with him.

I repeat: Getting these Jamaicans off the list of unneeded problems we need to deal with would be a bad thing for Americans, why?

We’re stuck with dealing with drug-addled drug-business-supporting Americans, but Rastafarians are unnecessary.-

[Mr. Bumble]

OK, I guess we'll agree to disagree.
From your perspective they may indeed be "mockable" and their opinions may be "wretched" But unless you know them personally,
I think "wretched humans" is unsupportable.

[MoreCurious]

Wretched: (1) very unfortunate in condition or circumstances; (2) miserable; (3) pitiable; (4) characterized by or attended with misery and sorrow; (5) despicable, contemptible, or mean; (6) poor, sorry, or pitiful; (7) worthless. I think Queen Almathea has it exactly right in her description of some of the Volokh Conspiracy's favorite saboteurs.

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to Morecurious:
Thank you Mr. Webster. I didn't argue "her" point as to the nature of their posts only as to the characterization of their humanity.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Lets it happen? Thomas' preferences are as rooted in superstition -- religious right-style -- as nearly anyone's.

[Nige]

There's a billionaire who's been doing just that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Speaking of Jesus and hucksters . . .

Happy birthday, Jesus!

[Frank Drackman]

Well, Engrish is my Second Langrage, so there's that....
And ever try to write left handed on those awful desks they had in the 70's and 80's?? Of course not, todays Correge Students are on their phones the entire class, anyway, so hand writing is not my strong suit (and until 2000 or so, Medical Records were handwritten, good luck reading of my Chinese Characters, of course in Anesthesia it's mostly checking boxes and little ^ and down signs for BP, and little dots for pulse.)
and I did go to Pubic Screwels for 11.5 yrs (+19.5 if you count college/med school) the "0.5" was a torturous 6 months in a Catholic Screwel (like "Walking in Memphis" was "I a Catholic??" for 6 months) because the Spear Chucking Pubic Screwel was too bad for even my dad to accept (and I'd been expelled, so there was that) and the Catholic Screwel was cheaper than the Segregation Academeys, and turned a blind eye to my distinctly Jewish Schnoz, (Catholics big on turning the blind eye, just ask "Reverend" Sandusky)
anyway we lefty's are "Right" brained, we see the big picture, concepts, trends, unlike you Right Handed Slaves with your grades, and your hand writing....

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Jerry Sandusky thinks he's gonna live forever,
and there's probably not a Surpreme Being, Devil, Heaven, Hell (Exhibit 1: Jerry Sandusky)
But if there is,
"Devil's gonna Getcha!!!!"
So if there is a hell, Hitlers been there some 78 years, Mao 47, Ted Kennedy 13,
Do you get credit for longevity?? I mean taking eternal damnation for 78 years gotta get more respect than a puny 13??

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Where house = superyacht, and the place includes Hitler artifacts. If you want to be chummy with a Republican Justice, you should be sure to have plenty of Nazi mementos on hand.

[Gandydancer]

Your ability to get stupider and stupider is quite remarkable. No, it’s not “religious bigotry” to notice that Rastifarianism is associated with smoking large quantities of ganja. Illegally. As captcrisis mentioned.

I repeat, we need these people here why?

“Bigot!” is not a relevant reply nor an argument.

[Krychek_2]

Frank, you are apparently unaware that redemption is one of the core tenets of Catholicism. I think it would be hilarious if your hell includes watching Ted Kennedy enjoy heaven. Though a far more likely scenario is you and Arthur spending it locked in a room together just like in No Exit.