Today in Supreme Court History: May 6, 1776

5/6/1776: Virginia Declaration of Rights by George Mason is published. Thomas Jefferson relied on this document when drafting the Declaration of Independence.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Comments not working today, I think.

[Mr. Bumble]

Test

[Dan Schiavetta]

I posted my usual ten cases but they don't show. I tried to post again and I got a "you already said that" message.

[Mr. Bumble]

Blackman got tired of being one upped?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well . . . I did post the cases on my own humble blog, if you want to visit there.

[Mr. Bumble]

Link?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I'm not comfortable drawing people away from here, but . . . just google my name and you'll find it. All civilized people welcome.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks.
Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1 (decided May 6, 1968): IRS investigator conducting a “routine tax investigation” must given Miranda warnings because the person was in prison (for an unrelated offense)

Wonder if Hunter should be Mirandized?
But seriously, why should it only apply to a person in prison on an unrelated charge?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I think it's because the person was already in police custody, even if for something unrelated. Therefore it's a Miranda situation.

[Gandydancer]

I posted a brief reply on a different thread and it disappeared without a trace, but mostly things appear to be working, to the extent that Reason's execrable commenting software ever works.

[Michael P]

I remember another day, several months ago, where you had a similar issue -- and posting without formatting or half the cases per comment worked (or something like that). I hope you keep up your contributions here, because they are very interesting and they spur discussion that has much less than the usual partisan rancor.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Partisan rancor
Is not my anchor

(you've inspired tomorrow's "Poem of the Day")

[Mr. Bumble]

Today in Supreme Court History: May 6

United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150 (decided May 6, 1940): important antitrust case which holds that price fixing agreements (here, between oil companies as to tank car prices) are per se illegal under the Sherman Act; famous for its footnote 59, which notes that it is not necessary that there be power to fix prices, nor intent, nor even any overt act (I suppose there still must be “winking”)

Paige v. Banks, 80 U.S. 608 (decided May 6, 1872): I didn’t know that the appointed reporter of decisions (of the Court of Chancery, at the time the highest court in New York) could have a copyright on his manuscripts of the decisions. Here, Mr. Paige (of “Paige's Chancery Reports”, who served as reporter while moonlighting as a state senator) lost his copyright by failing to give notice of renewal. He died in 1868, and the Court of Chancery was abolished in 1847. Currently the highest court is called the Court of Appeals, and after 30 years of practice in that state I have as much chance of appearing in that court as I do of getting into a time machine and having Mr. Paige transcribe my arguments.

In re Kansas Indians, 72 U.S. 737 (decided May 6, 1867): a state can’t tax Native Americans on reservations

Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1 (decided May 6, 1968): IRS investigator conducting a “routine tax investigation” must given Miranda warnings because the person was in prison (for an unrelated offense)

Fok Yung Yo v. United States, 185 U.S. 296 (decided May 6, 1902): courts can’t review decision of customs official to deport Chinese citizen

Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180 (decided May 6, 1895): Supreme Court doesn’t automatically accept writs of error from state courts; it decides by itself whether a federal question is involved, and if so, it must be central to the case

Schware v. Board of Examiners of New Mexico, 353 U.S. 232 (decided May 6, 1957): details a bar applicant’s complicated history, including past membership in the Communist Party and being forced to take an alias to forestall anti-Jewish prejudice. The Court held that New Mexico wrongfully denied his license in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. An interesting opinion to read.

Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 353 U.S. 252 (decided May 6, 1957): denial of Equal Protection to deny bar admission due to articles published criticizing the Korean War, past membership in the Communist Party and refusal to answer questions about political affiliations; no showing that he advocated government overthrow (people got denied on much lighter grounds; in the 1990s the New York Law Journal -- the world’s most boring newspaper, which every N.Y. attorney was required to read every day -- ran a more or less innocuous series of reminiscences by Mordecai Rosenfeld, “Backhanded View of the Law”, but I remember one with real bite, as to being flunked at a Good Character interview because he did work for a group headed by Eleanor Roosevelt)

Federal Power Comm'n v. Sunray DX Oil Co., 391 U.S. 9 (decided May 6, 1968): The Federal Power Commission (now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) must set prices (and issue certificates) allowing producers to sell to pipelines so as to benefit consumers, but at the same time, if it sets prices too high, the producers simply won't produce. This complicated decision by Harlan (which is pre-Chevron) is a course in itself on how the administrative state dealt with the oil industry. It holds that the “pipeline proceeding” set up by the FPC was proper and affirms the resulting decision as to pricing and refunds.

Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141 (decided May 6, 1940): overruling Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 1902 (summarized here on March 10) and holding that state statute exempting agricultural/livestock producers from antitrust did not violate Equal Protection (due to changed economy requiring cooperation between farmers)

[Mr. Bumble]

Go figure.

[Dan Schiavetta]

?

Anyway, thanks, because I've told you I was trying to post this already.

BTW my blog is rudimentary at the moment; I'm going to add a full archive of these things.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

With sexy illustrations, not the stuff Blackman does (bless his heart).

The Goddess of Justice can actually look quite hot.

https://bit.ly/3LIz98D

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9JCGvbMsp54/UEoaLzksztI/AAAAAAAADLU/_YmNsf3IZbA/s640/goddess+of+justice.jpg

[F.D. Wolf]

In Konigsberg (1957), the Court, per Justice Black, held the state had denied him due process (not equal protection). Mr. Konigsberg’s odyssey was far from over though. The Court had passed on the question of whether Konigsberg’s refusal to answer questions about his membership in the Communist Party would provide an “independent ground” for refusal to admit him to the bar. On remand, the bar examiners and state courts decided that, yes, his refusal to answer those questions justified denying his admission to the bar, and, four years later, the case was before the Court again. 366 U.S. 36 (1961). This time, per a majority opinion by Justice Harlan, Konigsberg lost. Justice Black, joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justice Douglas, vigorously dissented.

Raphael Konigsberg would finally be admitted to the California bar in 1978, twenty-five years after he first passed the bar exam. He passed away in 1991, at the age of 80.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks -- Good God, what an "odyssey"! Passed the bar at age 42, finally got to practice at age 67.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

California apparently got more mellow about Communism.

[Gandydancer]

The eagerness with which you insert your head in your ass is truly remarkable.

If you want to post on the 1A no one is stopping you.

But that would require that you simulate having something to say, which is beyond you.