Today in Supreme Court History: May 17, 1954

5/17/1954: Brown v. Board of Education and Bolling v. Sharpe are decided.

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (decided May 17, 1954): “separate is inherently unequal”, invalidating on Equal Protection grounds school segregation by race (this applies only to schools within the same district, of course, and could not invalidate “white flight” into other districts or into private schools); unanimous decision, though it was almost 8 – 1 because Jackson’s law clerk (William Rehnquist) was telling him to vote the other way (as my Con Law professor pointed out, this was a “policy” decision; this was one of three consolidated cases and the Court could have agreed with the Delaware court holding that separate being equal should be decided case-by-case)

Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (decided May 17, 1954): same holding as Brown, but as to segregation in D.C., where the Fourteenth Amendment (and its Equal Protection clause) doesn’t apply; segregation wrong on Due Process grounds (Fifth Amendment)

Saenz v. California Dept. of Social Services, 526 U.S. 489 (decided May 17, 1999): limitation of welfare benefits to newly arrived residents to the amounts they would have received in prior state infringed on freedom of travel though such right is not mentioned in Constitution

Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. — (decided May 17, 2021): though police can without a warrant search a vehicle impounded after an accident (Cady v. Dombrowski, 1972), they need a warrant to conduct a weapons search of a house to which wife called them for an outside conversation with husband who was in danger of shooting himself

CIC Services v. IRS, 593 U.S. — (decided May 17, 2021): Anti-Injunction Act (which prohibits “stay” applications to avoid paying a tax) did not bar taxpayer’s pre-enforcement challenge to new reporting requirements for consultants of “captive insurers” (which are sometimes used for tax avoidance) because IRS did not follow “notice and comment” rulemaking procedures required by Administrative Procedure Act

BP v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. — (decided May 17, 2021): on appeal of order remanding removed case to state court (suit was by city against oil companies for concealing environmental impact of fossil fuels), court can review all grounds argued by defendant for removal in opposition to motion to remand, not just the one (involvement of federal officer) that made the order appealable (28 U.S.C. §1442)

McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (decided May 17, 1993): Federal Tort Claims action dismissed as premature (even though all that happened was initial pleadings) until administrative remedies are exhausted, no matter how long they take to process, and even though claimant was pro se

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (decided May 17, 2010): life sentence without parole for a juvenile for non-homicide (it was attempted armed robbery) is “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of Eighth Amendment

​Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (decided May 17, 2010): Chilean court’s “ne exeat” order (prohibiting leaving jurisdiction without consent) issued to non-custodial father created “right of custody” under the Hague Convention; United States court therefore had power to order mother to bring child back to Chile; law of “sister signatory”(Chile) entitled to great weight in construing the Convention

Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (decided May 17, 1971): injunction barring leafletting warning against local “blockbuster” (realtor who scared white homeowners that blacks were moving in, convinced them to sell at below market value, then resold at above market to blacks) was in violation of First Amendment

[Krayt]

Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (decided May 17, 1971): injunction barring leafletting warning against local “blockbuster” (realtor who scared white homeowners that blacks were moving in, convinced them to sell at below market value, then resold at above market to blacks) was in violation of First Amendment

Was the subject of an episode of All In The Family. Meathead warned Archie that was going on.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I saw that when it first came on. It introduced me to the term “blockbuster”. In that episode he was black, which made him especially odious.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny that the actual Archie Bunker House in Queens is currently worth some $800K
https://www.redfin.com/NY/Rego-Park/8970-Cooper-Ave-11374/home/20585609

Frank

[Dilan Esper]

Re BP v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, I love the locution "Mayor and City Council of Baltimore". It's kind of the SPQR of American jurisprudence-- suits against the City of Baltimore have always been styled "v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore" since the 19th Century (see Barron v. Baltimore).

[Martinned]

Almost as important as guns, I gather.

[Michael Ejercito]

I wonder what this means for students seeking racially-segregated facilities in public universities.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Racial segregation in dormitories was outlawed, at the latest, in the mid-1960's. Only ten years later, at least at my college, it had been reinstituted -- because black students demanded it.

[Mr. Bumble]

So then it's OK?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Of course not. It was a toxic atmosphere. White students who came from all-white towns, most of them working class or from rural areas, who had not been racist before, got their first exposure to black people and it was not pleasant.

It was not officially a black dorm, but a white friend of mine who was assigned there found his room cleaned out the first week with a message on his pile of belongings to "get out".

Fortunately that era passed. I visited a black friend of mine there in 1988. It seemed a little integrated. She apparently had no idea of the toxic history (she was a 19-year-old sophomore) and I did not educate her.

[John F. Carr]

I remember talking to one of the black guys on my floor. He pointed out he was from a well off suburb and grew up near a white student on the same floor. If diversity means different background and life experience, you don't get it by admitting people with more and less skin pigment but all from good suburban schools.

[John F. Carr]

We had dedicated housing for blacks at my school in the 1980s, plus some other affinity groups. It seemed like it ought to be illegal. I had no standing to challenge it. I would have to demand a white block that I want to live in, if 93% white wasn't good enough for me. Three blacks out of 40 on my floor, plus some Asians who the school considered honorary whites for discrimination purposes.

[David Nieporent]

I assume it was technically voluntary when reinstated. They now call them "affinity" dorms or the like, and you just have to be interested in black/hispanic culture or whatever to live in the black/hispanic dorm, respectively. But really, you have to be black/hispanic. And, of course, there is no white affinity dorm.

[bernard11]

And, of course, there is no white affinity dorm.

Whatever you think of affinity dorms, and I'm dubious, there is no reason there should be white ones as well.

Do students with Irish, Spanish, German, Russian, etc. ancestry have similar cultural, social, religious, backgrounds? No. I mean, I suppose you could have an Italian affinity dorm and so on, but "white" is not really the same thing as "Black."

Most American Blacks are of African-American descent, and their family histories generally involve dealing with slavery, Jim Crow, less explicit forms of discrimination, etc. They also tend to live in predominantly Black neighborhoods, attend similar churches, etc. IOW, there are strong cultural affinities there.

But asking for a white affinity dorm is like asking for a gentile dorm because there is a Jewish dorm.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Affinity dorms are theoretically a good idea but in practice a bad idea. In the first place, nonwhite students aren’t hothouse flowers. They should be able to function in a mostly white setting — after all, that’s the world they’re supposed to be preparing for when they graduate. I personally haven’t known any black (or nonwhite) young people who needed to be protected from the white world. Living only among themselves, it just feeds into their “I am oppressed” mindset. Most 18-year-olds, if you give them a reason to feel sorry for themselves, they will take it. Instead they should be reminded that just by being in college, they are privileged. It also keeps white students from getting to know them, much to the detriment of both groups.

It also (at least with black students) limits their education into racism. Black people don’t really know much about racism, except the result. They don’t know how it’s passed along, how it mutates, how it’s rewarded, or limited . . . because that is stuff that happens only among white people. Keeping them away from white people does them a big disservice.

[Bob from Ohio]

“white” is not really the same thing as “Black.”

Anything can be justified if you put your mind to it. Congrats!

[Nige]

He's only got all of US history to go by.

[John F. Carr]

...and we had segregation by sex. Was that explicitly legal? Most dorms were coed. The women's dorm was said to exist to please parents who didn't want their baby girls around men. There were plenty of guys in the dorm anyway. Those overprotected children still had boyfriends.

[Dan Schiavetta]

My girlfriend was in an all-female dorm and (being 18 and rather stupid) I didn’t close the stall door when I went to pee, which freaked out some of the residents when they opened it up to see a guy taking a whizz. I learned to close the door after that. (Also learned to be quiet in her room when “getting it on”. Not so much me as her, because she was quite vocal.)

One night there was a fire alarm and about 1/4 of the students outside were guys.

True story: the stalls had metal dispensers for tampon bags. I forget the brand name, but there was a picture of a nurse and the slogan, “Preferred by discreet women everywhere.” Someone had scratched out some of the letters and it said, “Prefer discreet men”.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your anecdotes are to die for.

[Dan Schiavetta]

They're all true.

[Frank Drackman]

So were the ones in "Penthouse Forum"

Frank "I never thought it would happen to be, but these 3 J-hovah's witnesses came by and....."

[Commenter_XY]

They are fabulous captcrisis...truly. I have enjoyed reading your posts. And the life stories (esp the one you told me about that changed your life in high school).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thank you!

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, it keeps them from being stuck with a Scott Adams type (was "Dilbert" ever funny??)

[SRG]

Re: Graham

I find the whole business of charging a child as an adult peculiar, to say the least, and sentencing a child as though he were, reprehensible. :Unsurprising who approved of it - the Three Goddards.

[Dan Schiavetta]

In the press there have been times when "bad kids" have been presented as chthonic creatures scarcely human. I remember the name "Willie Bosket" from the 1980's in New York. It's depressingly easy to demonize, even if they're just teenagers (or in Bosket's case, only 10 years old).

[John F. Carr]

In the 1970s SF author Ben Bova wrote a story about criminal children taking over a city. I forget how much it was about the nature of children and how much it was a commentary on the juvenile justice system which takes criminals and makes them into worse criminals.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You can go back to the movie "Angels with Dirty Faces" (1938) and the abundant literature on the juvenile system in the early 20th century. "Boys Town" was founded in 1917 to counteract these bad effects.

[SRG]

FWIW Orson Scott Card, both in his SF and his other writings, seems to regard 16 as adult.

[Martinned]

Let's please not make him the arbiter of any moral issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Homosexuality_2

[SRG]

Indeed not. I regard his Ender series, while initially very good, as ultimately morally crippled. His view - which comes through very clearly later on - is that it's ok to commit genocide if you're the good guy and you feel bad about it afterwards.

[Frank Drackman]

"Chthonic" that's a $50 word I'll have to drop sometime,
And you'll be happy to know Willie Bosket hasn't murdered anyone since he was 15 (has done a little Arson/stabbing Correctional Officers, but hey, who hasn't?)
of course he's been "In Disposed" since 1983 or so, and has a current release date of September 16, 2062

Frank

[Martinned]

Nobody (in the US) ever lost an election by promising to be tough on crime, including "judges".

[Brett Bellmore]

Hard to square that claim with the cities currently suffering under administrations that ran on defunding the police...

[Krychek_2]

Please name any administration that ran on defunding the police.

[Martinned]

Exactly. As far as I can tell, the defund the police types all lost, because it's a terrible slogan. NYC got Eric Adams for mayor for Pete's sake!

[Mr. Bumble]

You aren't paying attention.

[Krychek_2]

Despite GOP propaganda, I'm not aware of any prominent Democrat who supports defunding the police. If you can name any please do.

[Mr. Bumble]

If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

[Martinned]

Well, if you expand the question to "prominent Democrat", rather than "administration" (i.e. people who are actually in charge of police), then AOC must surely qualify:

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/in-the-news/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-was-asked-about-defunding-police-and-her-answer-went

[Mr. Bumble]

Does this count?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9OZMBuVL5U&t=47s

[Martinned]

Those people are also Representatives, like AOC, so yes.

[Mr. Bumble]

And from Chicago, this:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/05/chicago-rip.php

[Bob from Ohio]

Try Chicago's new mayor.

"Flashback: In July 2020, Johnson introduced a nonbinding resolution on the Cook County Board promising to steer funds from police to social services." axios Chicago Mar 17, 2023 - Politics

[Nige]

That sounds exactly like what 'defund the police' actually meant.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The [Portland] City Council responded by cutting $15 million. An additional $12 million was cut due to pandemic-caused economic shortfalls. As a result, school resource officers, transit police and a gun violence reduction team — which was found to disproportionately target Black Portland residents during traffic stops, according to an audit in March 2018 — were disbanded.

In the wake of protests, the Los Angeles City Council cut $150 million from the police budget, promising to put that money into other social services. Likewise, in New York City lawmakers approved a shift of $1 billion from policing to education and social services" Source: Portland among U.S. cities adding funds back into police departments Nation Nov 18, 2021

There you go, actual cuts.

[Nige]

Bad policing is antithetical to good law enforcement. Harder to square for the party that elected the guy behind Trump University.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, the notion of charging someone as a juvenile is a relatively recent invention, historically speaking. You were charged for the crime you committed. If you were too young (IIRC, below 7 y.o.) you wouldn't be prosecuted.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Was that the law of sevens? Below 7, uncontestably a child; 7-14, presumably a child; 14-21, presumably an adult; 21 and up, uncontestably an adult. When I first heard of it, it seemed a surprisingly realistic system for the times.

[Frank Drackman]

Yet killing one before his/her birth is "Choice"

[Bob from Ohio]

"sentencing a child as though he were, reprehensible"

If a 15 year old murders someone, the victim is just as dead.

[apedad]

There are major differences in the trial phase and the sentencing phase.

There are even different amendments that address each phase.

The 15 year old can be found guilty of murder but the sentencing cannot be cruel and/or unusual.

[Bob from Ohio]

"sentencing cannot be cruel and/or unusual"

The murder can be both!

"major differences in the trial phase and the sentencing phase."

Right, in Ohio its a bench trial and max sentence is being held until 21. So a 15 year old gets 6 years max for intentional murder.

[Frank Drackman]

and the "child" just as reprehensible,
as the great Egbert Soufle' said, "I never met a kid I liked"

Frank

[SRG]

You're confusing the actus reus with the mens rea

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If a 15 year old murders someone, the victim is just as dead.

If a five-year-old kills someone — say, after an uneducated NRA member and knuckle-dragging Republican leaves a loaded handgun on a table back home while foraging for the day’s handful of street pills or attending a faith-healing session in a desolate southern backwater, or a similarly substandard parent enables a child to carry a loaded pistol to school in a backpack — the victim is equally dead, too.

[not guilty]

I wonder whether Brown and Bolling will remain good law, given the current composition of SCOTUS and the lack of respect for stare decisis. At least one justice last year questioned the reasoning of Bolling. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-303#writing-20-303_CONCUR_5

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If Bolling goes, that means the federal government's "affirmative action" programs will be more secure from constitutional challenge.

[Mr. Bumble]

If so, I learned from the best.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not a "fiction", its just means charging in the regular system, not the special juvenile one.

Nobody pretends they are actually adults, just that the crime they committed is too serious to have a max 5-7 year sentence.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I never got that"

Never told "that" by your mom or never understood "that"?

[Frank Drackman]

Well it is when "Life" begins,
it's called Science,

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Every day.