Today in Supreme Court History: April 24, 1963

4/24/1963: Sherbert v. Verner argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (decided April 24, 1944): allegation that faith healing advocates knew that their claims of religious belief were false and were used just for solicitation was precluded by Free Exercise Clause; entire mail fraud indictment thrown out even though question of defendants’ good faith in their beliefs was not submitted to jury (this was the “I Am” movement, followers of the late “Guy W. Ballard, a/k/a George Washington, Jesus”)

United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73 (decided April 24, 1916): any White Slave Traffic offense can be prosecuted in D.C. because element of offense is failing to mail in registration of woman to immigration office in D.C. (though offense can also be prosecuted in the state where the mailing should have been from)

Ngiraingas v. Sanchez, 495 U.S. 182 (decided April 24, 1990): can’t sue under §1983 in territories such as Guam, just in states (assaulted by police and forced to sign confessions)

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U.S. — (decided April 24, 2018): foreign corporations can’t be sued under Alien Tort Statute (can only sue governmental entities) (bank allegedly funded terrorism)

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 584 U.S. — (decided April 24, 2018): no separation of powers problem with Patent Office procedure for “inter pares” review (post-patent review sought by outside party which can result in patent being canceled; decision can then be appealed in federal court)

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (decided April 24, 2001): can make warrantless arrest where no “breach of peace” (here, officer noticed driver and children all in front seat without seat belts, and she was also driving without a license and without insurance; defendant’s account makes the officer look vindictive and unprofessional)

Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (decided April 24, 1990): This is actor James Stewart, and the movie “Rear Window”, based on a 1942 magazine short story by Cornell Woolrich, who assigned his rights to the production company (formed by Stewart and Alfred Hitchcock) and promised to renew the copyright and assign the rights to the renewal, but died before the original copyright expired. With dissemination of the movie in the 1980’s in various media, the publisher (which held copyright on the entire magazine issue) sued for infringement. The Court holds the original copyright (Woolrich’s) is not extinguished when incorporated into a derivative work (the movie).

North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (decided April 24, 1979): don’t have to explicitly say, “I waive my right to remain silent”; defendant (arrested on another charge) refused to sign “Advice of Rights” form though agreed to talk; inculpatory statements should have been excluded

Parham v. Hughes, 441 U.S. 347 (decided April 24, 1979): upholding against Equal Protection attack Georgia statute precluding father of child he never formally acknowledged from suing for wrongful death

Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (decided April 24, 1979): Oklahoma statute prohibiting interstate sale of minnows violated Dormant Commerce Clause (apparently there are “licensed minnow dealers”; they’re used for bait — no not the dealers, the minnows)

[F.D. Wolf]

In Lombardo, the Court held that the prosecution, which had been brought in the state of Washington, MUST be in District of Columbia, so it dismissed the case. The federal crime was the failure to file the statement, which was to be filed with the Commissioner of Immigration, whose office was in D.C. The government argued the crime was a continuing offense, and the statement could be “filed” in any post office or mailbox in the United States. (Presumably, under that logic, venue would be proper anywhere in the country). The Court didn’t buy that argument, but noted that if the government didn’t like the result, it could easily change it by amending the statute.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[apedad]

Re: Parham v. Hughes

captcrisis, your review states, ". . . father of child he never formally acknowledged," however, he had signed the child's birth certificate and provided financial support, so I'd say he at least 'acknowledged' the child.

The phrase used in trial was the father, ". . . never legitimated his child as available under Georgia law," whatever that means.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, I know. I rephrased it; I think the meaning is the same, though simplified.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm not so sure -- and remember that this was in the 1970s so there was no DNA testing, although some states had a law that the husband was the father of a married woman's child.

I always thought there was a distinction between "acknowledging" and "legitimizing" but then, this also may vary by state.

[John F. Carr]

You had another arrest for minor offense case recently. Between them I guess they say that once a crime has been suspected, the Fourth Amendment does not care about state law distinctions between arrestable and non-arrestable offenses.

Traditionally warrantless arrest was not allowed for a misdemeanor that was not a current breach of the peace. So you could arrest somebody who was in the act of driving recklessly but not somebody who had recently driven recklessly. A few years ago Massachusetts lawmakers added another of many statutory exceptions, people suspected of (past) misdemeanor motor vehicle homicide could be arrested instead of summonsed. This change was meant to be punitive. Influential people were upset that a suspected misdemeanant was not placed in handcuffs after an accident investigation suggested fault.

[John F. Carr]

I never thought of bait licenses, but it appears to be real. New York expects you to get a Freshwater Bait Fish Dealer License. There are also vending machines that sell worms for use as bait. Probably need a whole different license for those, or a whole different stack of licenses.

[Magister]

I have partial ownership in a business in Wisconsin that includes a bait shop, which has such a license. There's a more expensive license if you produce your own bait rather than buying for resale from someone else with that license. (Middle of the state, so it's not likely we would have purchased bait from another state.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

The rationale probably would be to prevent people from illegally harvesting minnows which -- at some distant point in the past -- probably was being done and raised real questions about the continued viability of the species. And then there probably were/are concerns about foreign invasive species being introduced into the state's waterways and/or infected minnows introducing their infection or parasite into the state's waterways.

Reality is that it is a source of revenue for the state, but I can see this.

Maine has done something similar with Milfoil stickers. Milfoil is an invasive plant that the state is trying to keep from spreading, with concerns that it could be transmitted from scraps on a boat or trailer. So the state is now charging out-of-staters $45 for a Milfoil sticker to prevent this -- makes sense to me....

See https://www.maine.gov/ifw/fishing-boating/boating/protection-sticker.html

[Commenter_XY]

Captcrisis, just wanted to thank you again for taking the time to put these summaries out. I learn A LOT just skimming through.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks again. Though I've learned a lot more than you or anyone else.

On May 6 I will have completed 365 days of this. I'm debating whether to rerun the posts here (adding new cases, and maybe revising some summaries) or whether take it to my own (nascent) blog, and if so, whether anyone will follow, or whether it can attract people who don't read VC to begin with. I don't know anyone else who does this, at least not in this way.

I've gotten (by my count) 9 cases out of 1,747 wrong so far (which I've corrected), which gives me a .994848 batting average.

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe you pick a theme for the week, and only include cases around that theme. Might be more work for you though.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks -- that's an idea.

[Dilan Esper]

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U.S. — (decided April 24, 2018): foreign corporations can’t be sued under Alien Tort Statute (can only sue governmental entities)

You can also sue individuals.

[Dilan Esper]

Also, I think it's "inter partes review", not "pares".

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks, you're right, it's "inter partes". (Though the Court was treating outsiders equally to the patentee -- like they're "inter pares"!)

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Court didn't reach that question (and it's the TVPA, not the ATS, which allows suit against "natural persons"), but re-reading the opinion I should rephrase -- the ATS does not allow suit against "artificial entities" like corporations (yes -- now we are told that corporations are not persons). There is a lot of dicta as to natural persons and international law, and I think there is room for the Court in the future to say (if it's so inclined) that individuals can't be sued under the ATS either, without overruling this case. Thanks.

[Krayt]

Parham v. Hughes, 441 U.S. 347 (decided April 24, 1979): upholding against Equal Protection attack Georgia statute precluding father of child he never formally acknowledged from suing for wrongful death

Sorry, Brian Griffin.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I tried to order a sherbert from him, but it was Saturday and his ice-cream parlor was closed.