The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: May 18, 1860
5/18/1860: Abraham Lincoln wins the Republican Party presidential nomination.

5/18/1896: Plessy v. Ferguson decided.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (decided May 18, 1896): the notorious “separate but equal” decision: segregated train cars are not denial of Equal Protection; black people were not denied transportation because they had their own cars (Harlan, in dissent, famously decries “the damage this day done”; he also says that the white race would always dominate, which my Con Law professor took as a declaration of racism, though a more insightful person would see it as a way to mitigate the shock of what he was saying)
Comptroller of Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne, 575 U.S. 242 (decided May 18, 2015): Maryland must allow its taxpayers a credit for income tax paid to other states; otherwise it creates inter-state protectionism in violation of “Dormant Commerce Clause”
Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604 (decided May 18, 1987): persons of Arab descent can bring §1983 claim (professor alleged denied tenure due to being Arabic)
Bousley v. United States, 524 U.S. 614 (decided May 18, 1998): defendant can take advantage of post-conviction change in law (Bailey v. United States, 1995, holding that possession of firearm is not an aggravating element under drug trafficking statute if firearm is unrelated to the trafficking)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (decided May 18, 2009): plaintiff’s suit for governmental misconduct (that Bush Administration officials condoned post-9/11 discrimination against Muslims by detaining them without evidence) dismissed because no specific acts alleged
St. Louis I.M.&S.R. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U.S. 281 (decided May 18, 1908): it is not an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional power for the Interstate Commerce Commission (remember them? the first regulatory agency!) to set standards for height of railroad couplings
Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (decided May 18, 1896): Fifth Amendment protections do not apply to Native American tried and sentenced to be hanged by tribal court
Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U.S. 619 (decided May 18, 1981): Supreme Court can’t review nonfinal State Supreme Court decisions (here, an obscenity prosecution where the Ohio Supreme Court had dismissed a defense of selective prosecution) where no federal policy is undermined by letting the litigation continue to final judgment
Dick v. New York Life Ins., 359 U.S. 437 (decided May 18, 1959): in a diversity case involving a life insurance policy, jury should have been allowed to determine whether death by gunshot was accidental or suicide; under North Dakota law death is presumed accidental and evidence of suicidal intent was not conclusive (the opinion has a lot of detail about prairie farm life in 1955, making sausages, softening green ears of corn in bathtubs so that livestock will eat it, etc.)
McCaughn v. Hershey Chocolate Co., 283 U.S. 488 (decided May 18, 1931): Hershey Co. entitled to recover tax payments because chocolate was excluded from definition of taxable “candy”
Chocolate isn't candy?
Is it a fish?
Only bees are fish.
Bousley v. United States, 524 U.S. 614
Scalia: "procedure is more important than innocence"
Thomas: "I agree"
I have known a few racists, the white supremacist kind; you meet a lot of strange people in the military. But I also knew an Olympic bicycle racer many many years ago who made me rethink what racism is. He was absolutely not a white supremacist, judging from his deeds and even friends (or at least acquaintances); but he did think the races needed to be kept separate and pure. No idea how he viewed other races, what races he even recognized. Did Italians and Irish need to be separated? No idea. It certainly made me see racism a little differently.
If he met my family he would immediately vomit.
"Did Italians and Irish need to be separated?"
[insert ethnic joke here]
Finishing third at the 1860 Republican convention was Salmon Chase, whom Lincoln would appoint as his Treasury Secretary and later as Chief Justice. Others who received votes at the convention included sitting Associate Justice John McLean, who would die April 4, 1861, one month into Lincoln’s presidency, and John M. Read, who had been nominated to the Supreme Court by President John Tyler during the last month of his administration, though the nomination lapsed without any Senate action.
Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. — (decided May 18, 2023): Warhol exceeded “fair use” of photo of (the artist once and now again known as) Prince when he derived works from his silkscreen of photograph meant for one-time use in magazine (i.e., derivative of derivative, which pretty much sums up Warhol’s life and work)
Wait, Prince is Prince again?
He's called that in the opinion. (Perhaps it should be "The Artist Formerly Known as the Artist Formerly Known as Prince".)
No, but neither do those who think separation is wrong explain why.
Ask Floyd George or Jordan Neely, wouldn't either have preferred to be asphyxiated (not drowned, there's a difference) by someone of their own race? I'm sure Mary Joe Kopeckney was happier knowing Ted Kennedy murdered her and not Edward Brooke.
Notify the school lunch program!
Either way makes a decision. Just because you think one is normal doesn't mean it is not also a decision.
There’s got to be a reason, certainly in this day and age, for preferring that the races be separate. It might not be animus but some aesthetic, i.e., mixed race people just don’t look as good, it disrupts the natural beauty of each race, etc., but even if it’s that, it’s hard to believe that this attitude formed in a vacuum.
My sister was career Army and she met some people there with weird attitudes (one seemed like the George C. Scott character in "Doctor Strangelove"). Though for the most part they didn't advertise them. She also was pretty scared by some of the bloodlust patriotism, particularly among the younger officers. Fortunately the Army is a big place and she found her niche.
But (I assume) it does matter to you. If I asked your opinion on forcing races to remain separate would you say it doesn't matter?
I imagine what doesn't matter to you is what people decide to do for themselves, but in that case I would say that free choice and self determination matter. At least that's what matters to me.