Today in Supreme Court History: May 8, 1884

5/8/1884: President Harry S. Truman's birthday. He would make four appointments to the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Vinson, and Justices Burton, Clark, and Minton.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (decided May 8, 1905): Chinese national applying for admission to U.S. not entitled to judicial trial.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (decided May 8, 1967): sets up a procedure (including an “Anders brief”) for a criminal defense attorney who wishes to withdraw from a case because he doesn’t believe there’s meritorious ground for appeal; purpose is to protect the rights of the defendant

Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 787 (decided May 8, 1967): First and Fourteenth Amendment precludes convictions for sale of dirty books, because no claim that they harmed juveniles, were “obtrusive” on the newsstand, or were “pandering” (i.e., “purveying of publications openly advertised to appeal to the customers’ erotic interest”). If anyone can tell me what this means in today’s terms, let me know!

Teamsters Union v. Hanke, 339 U.S. 470 (decided May 8, 1950): State can forbid union picketing of car dealership run by owner with no employees (the dealer’s main business was in after-hours sales and the union was trying to get him to restrict to union hours).

Mintz v. Baldwin, 289 U.S. 346 (decided May 8, 1933): a State, despite the Dormant Commerce Clause, may require any cattle being transported into the state to be accompanied by a certificate showing free of disease; also not preempted by federal regulation

American Communications Ass’n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (decided May 8, 1950): upholds statute requiring any union going to the NLRB to certify that their officers are not Communists

[Dilan Esper]

I believe Redrup is discussed extensively in "The Bretheren". It was the case that gave rise to the SCOTUS tradition of actually viewing the obscene films in the Supreme Court's own theater before the Court would decide if they were obscene or not. Once Justice Marshall got on the Court he would give bawdy commentary to one of the other Justices who was nearly blind at the time.

Miller v. California and Paris Adult Theater aren't exactly highly praised decisions, but one of their purposes was to put an end to the Redrup era and to give the lower courts a test so they could figure it out. Chief Justice Burger, especially, was very concerned about court decorum and wanted to end the screenings.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Once Justice Marshall got on the Court he would give bawdy commentary to one of the other Justices who was nearly blind at the time." That would have been Harlan. Black ("no to me means no") refused to even show up to look.

Marshall was a quite improper man, who liked to drink and tell dirty jokes. For years he worked with W.E.B. DuBois, who was a prude, and they did not get along.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"You heard the Chief Justice...rewind that reel so he and his colleagues can decide if that last scene appeals to their prurient interests."

[SRG]

American Communications Ass’n is, I assume, not the only instance where the Red Scare took precedence over the Constitution.

[Dan Schiavetta]

One could compile an entire treatise on the statutes and case law, state and federal. Probably someone has.

[not guilty]

When SCOTUS decided Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (1967), the Court was considering on a case by case basis whether printed or pictorial material was or was not obscene under the criteria of Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), and its progeny as a question of law. Obscene material was not protected under the First Amendment, while non-obscene material was protected. This led to numerous SCOTUS reversals of state obscenity convictions.

In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), the Court adopted more deferential standards to determining obscenity, opining that questions of what appeals to the “prurient interest” and what is “patently offensive” under the obscenity test which it formulated are “essentially questions of fact” for determination by a jury. Id., at 30. That made overturning a state obscenity conviction significantly more difficult.

The Court in Miller did opine that “no one will be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene materials unless these materials depict or describe patently offensive ‘hard core’ sexual conduct.” Id. at 27. For an example of a movie exhibition which as a matter of law was not obscene, see Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974) (reversing conviction of manager of theater in which “Carnal Knowledge” was being shown).

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks much!

[F.D. Wolf]

When Justice Owen Roberts, who had been appointed to the Court by President Hoover, retired in 1945, President Truman appointed Harold Hitz Burton to succeed him. This meant that all nine justices then serving had been appointed by Democratic presidents, eight by President Franklin Roosevelt and one by Truman. There would not be another Republican appointee on the Court until President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren to the position of Chief Justice in 1953.

(* Harlan Stone, who had been elevated to Chief Justice by President Roosevelt in 1941, had previously been appointed an Associate Justice by Republican President Calvin Coolidge in 1925. Stone died in 1946 and was succeeded by Truman appointee Fred Vinson.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Born in 1884 means Truman was 33 in 1917 when he re-entered his Guard unit as a 2LT -- and that's *old* for a 2LT today, probably was then as well.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Marshall was a quite improper man, who liked to drink and tell dirty jokes. For years he worked with W.E.B. DuBois, who was a prude, and they did not get along."

There was a reason for this -- DuBois was famous (infamous) for his belief in a 10%, an educated Black elite which would then represent the entire Black race. Hence the elite had to be respectable.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A Noble Prize for achievement in identifying error in Today in Supreme Court History has been awarded to commenter Mark Galus, for observing "[t]here’s no E on the end of Tom Clark’s name. You might be thinking of John H. Clarke, who was appointed by Wilson."

As is customary, the "scholars" of Today in Supreme Court History corrected the error without acknowledging the error or the revision.

[arbitrary aardvark]

Truman's middle name is S, so there is no good reason I'm aware of to add an extra period.

[Drbusybody]

Henry Abraham described the four Truman nominees, as a group, the least distinguished set of Supreme Court nominees of the 20th century. This comment was echoed by Laurence Tribe in his work on the Supreme Court.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Senator Roman Hruska would have been proud, though.

[Syd Henderson]

Three of them got replaced by Eisenhower.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If that's what Abraham and Tribe said, it would mean the Truman appointees were worse than the "Four Horsement of the Reaction"* whom in many cases they replaced.

Why would legal intellectuals react so harshly to four guys who were frequently votaries of the administrative state, backers of federal and (Democratic) Presidential power (and the UN!), sometimes showing sympathy for the reviving civil rights movement?

Because these judges weren't ACLU charter members, and because they applauded government repression of Communists. If it weren't for these deviations they'd be in the pantheon of Greatest Justices Ever.

*I suppose now the term would be "the Four Equestrians who could be of any sex or orientation."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

OK, Reed replaced Sutherland, otherwise it was New Deal types replacing other New Deal types.

Clark and Minton replaced Murphy and Rutledge, so the Court lost two civil-libertarians-for-noneconomic-rights and got two across-the-board-anti-civil-libertarians.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks! glad I got you to read this judicial artifact full of language of another era ("obnoxious races")