Today in Supreme Court History: May 23, 1991

5/23/1991: Rust v. Sullivan is decided.

The Rehnquist Court (1991)

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (decided May 23, 1991): Congress can prohibit family planning agencies receiving federal funds from mentioning abortion either in their publications or in individual counseling (this was a plot point in the movie “Just Another Girl on the IRT”; the girl ultimately gives birth and has her friend put the baby in a trash bag out on the street)

Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. 488 (decided May 23, 2016): Batson challenge as to using peremptory challenges to exclude the only black prospective jurors can be revived upon discovery of documents in prosecution files highlighting everyone in jury pool who was black

General Dynamics v. United States, 563 U.S. 478 (decided May 23, 2017): government and defense contractor stuck with contract despite cost overruns and dissatisfaction on both sides because litigating the contractor’s defense that failure to perform was due to government refusal to share “superior knowledge” would necessarily involve disclosure of state secrets; suit by contractor in Court of Federal Claims dismissed

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (decided May 23, 1938): whether defendant’s waiver of right to counsel under Sixth Amendment was “intelligent” and “competent” is question for trial court (his inability to actually afford a lawyer presumably would be a valid reason for waiver; this was before Gideon v. Wainwright)

Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581 (decided May 23, 2005): restricting primary election to registered party members did not violate First Amendment “freedom of association”

Sanger v. Nightingale, 122 U.S. 176 (decided May 23, 1887): A suit alleging a fraudulent mortgage, involving the effect of a statute of limitations requiring pre-1865 claims to be brought by 1870. Interesting because one of the issues was the valuation of 120 slaves on the estate as mortgaged in 1855 who were lost due to emancipation.

​Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (decided May 23, 2011): remedy for overcrowding causing Eighth Amendment injury to mentally ill prisoners was to decrease the prison population (to only 137.5% of design capacity)

Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (decided May 23, 1988): adjudication of state law claim on merits is appealable “final judgment” under 28 U.S.C. §1291 despite remaining issue of attorney fee award even if under state law fees are part of the judgment

​Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. — (decided May 23, 2022): As those of us in this field know, you can interpose arbitration as an affirmative defense, but you have to actually call in the arbitrator before meaningful discovery takes place (and certainly before the statute of limitations has run). Here, where restaurant chain employees had brought a “collective action” alleging violation of overtime pay laws, the Court, construing the Federal Arbitration Act, holds that one objecting to late arbitration doesn’t have to show that there was prejudice due to the delay (remanding to Circuit Court question of whether restaurant chain acted inconsistently with its right to arbitrate).

United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174 (decided May 23, 1977): defendant prosecuted for committing perjury in front of grand jury not entitled to suppression of false statement despite not having been informed of right to remain silent

[Krayt]

Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581 (decided May 23, 2005): restricting primary election to registered party members did not violate First Amendment “freedom of association”

It's odd that political parties, born of freedom of association, the freedom to band together with like-minded folk to effect government change, are being torn at using the same argument.

It's almost like some unprincipled folk want "random" people mucking about in that group's efforts.

[apedad]

Re: Clingman v. Beaver

Facts of the case

Oklahoma's election laws created a primary system in which a party could invite only its own members and Independents to vote in its primary. The Libertarian Party and voters registered in other parties argued the laws violated the First Amendment freedoms of expression and association by preventing the Libertarian Party from inviting members of other parties to vote in its primary elections. The district court ruled for Oklahoma. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled Oklahoma's election laws violated the First Amendment.

Question

Do state election laws that restrict the voters a party may invite to vote in its primary election violate the First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association?

Conclusion (6 - 3)

No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that Oklahoma's semiclosed primary system did not violate the right to freedom of association and that any burden it imposed was minor and justified by legitimate state interests. The Court noted that not every electoral law burdening associational rights was subject to strict scrutiny. Requiring voters to register with a party before participating in its primary minimally burdened voters' associational rights. Moreover, Oklahoma's primary advanced a number of state interests, including the preservation of parties as viable and identifiable interest groups. (oyez)

While there's nothing in the Constitution about political parties, I can't see what alternatives there could be.

[apedad]

Hopefully we get a blog about this:

Supreme Court punts Section 230 debate back to Congress

Expectations had run high that the justices would be the ones to significantly narrow the provision, known as Section 230, when the court agreed to directly take up the question of how far its protections reached.

But the court resolved the cases against Twitter and Google on other grounds Thursday, leaving Section 230 unscathed until Congress acts or the high court takes up another case. And despite bipartisan criticism that the provision makes the tech industry unaccountable, lawmakers face a stalemate on how to reform it.

So, barring a surprising legislative compromise, Section 230 is here to stay, and internet companies are breathing a sigh of relief.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4015525-supreme-court-punts-section-230-debate-back-to-congress/

[Krayt]

The damage is done. In response to loud, multiple threats from politicians to harm Internernet companies if they didn’t censor harrassment, by threating to modify or destroy section 230, crushing the business model and reducing stock valuation by introducing a target rich lawsuit environment (like every other industry), including an entire discussion unit during the 2020 Democratic debate, where the candidates one-upped each other on how to harm the companies, the companies in response acquiesced to censorship demands and instituted harrassment censorship, including censorship of harrassing tweets of the political opponents right before an election.

[SRG]

Re Foster

This is another one of those cases that contribute to my contempt for Thomas. Faced with overwhelming evidence of bias in jury selection, he hides behind "deference". You only have to read Robert's exceptionally detailed analysis - which I assume was so detailed in order to make it crystal clear that there was racial bias - to realise that Thomas is doing everything he can to ignore the facts and defer to the original court, in addition to twisting the jurisdictional issue. Even Alito couldn't deny jurisdiction.

[Frank Drackman]

Who cares?, Foster was guilty as fuck.

[SRG]

You don't suspend the Constitution because you think someone is guilty, duh.

[Mr. Bumble]

No you only suspend the Constitution if there is an emergency.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t think anti abortion centers get federal funds.

They probably have a plaque on the wall with Reagan’s comment, “When you get into bed with Government, you get more than a good night’s sleep.”

[Frank Drackman]

No, they just sic the IRS on them,
and it's Pro-Life, not Anti-Abortion

Frank

[David Nieporent]

do Democratic Presidents impose orders on anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers and the like to tell clients about the availability of abortion options?

It wasn't a president, but that was basically the facts of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra.

[Mr. Bumble]

So a good argument to do away with federal grants on the way to an end to deficit spending and achieving a balanced budget?

[defaultdotxbe]

You asked about Democratic presidents though. Has a Democrat ever given them any money?

I recall some laws in CA requiring then to hand out pamphlets on the availability of abortions.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The amounts involved are pittances, in the scheme of things.

What causes the deficit is the simple fact that taxes are too low. But of course no politician is going to say that.

[Mr. Bumble]

A pittance here and a pittance there and pretty soon you are talking about real money.

[Mr. Bumble]

Save whose money? To date it hasn't been shown to save taxpayers money.

[Frank Drackman]

You Groids really hate that Clarence won't Step N' Fetch like K-grungy Jackson-Browne and Thorough-ly Bad Marshall before.

[bernard11]

They're fans of Bork, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I wouldn’t say taxes are too low. " Well, something we can agree on. As for the rest of your comment, not so much.
The "loopholes" people (including you) complain of are part of the IRS code because Congress takes care of their own (Democrat and Republican).
As for tax avoiders/cheats maybe the IRS should start with the thousands who are IRS employees and work out from there.

[SRG]

It's not that he doesn't do the grovelling, it's that he bends over backwards to go in the other direction. But you didn't read the opinions, did you? Of course you didn't, else you might possibly have understood my point.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did I say that? I'm for abolishing the IRS code and starting over.

[MistahWhiskas]

That's nice, but given the current situation why shouldn't we close the loopholes you decry?

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to MistahWhiskas:
Like starting with the tax credit for EVs bought by rich people?

[Frank Drackman]

You call them "Loopholes" I call them "Deductible Business Expenses"
I'm not breaking the law, I'm fucking "complying" with it,
Of course the whole idea of an "Income" tax is bullshit, it's not I just get paid all this money for nothing, I have to spend my valuable time in a hospital with lots of whiny, smelly, sick people, it's a trade, not really income.
I think other peoples have tried this theory in court, and all end up in the Orange jumpsuits

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

285 Billion? I think you mean "Million", hey, a Billion's only a 1,000 times more than a Million, the English actually say "1,000 Billion" to avoid confusing idiots.
Jeez, and you say I'm a 3rd grader.
Even so, $285,000,000 buys alot of rubbers,

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

No, just don't think its nice to kill them.

[Frank Drackman]

"With all the Black Dudes"?? you mean the Vietnam amputees/Burn patients she treated during JFK/LBJ's Veetnam Fuck-asco?? You know, sometimes I'm happy J-hovah invented the Sickle Cell.

[Frank Drackman]

Would have been way better than that 2 faced Tony Kennedy. Bork lost because he had a (terrible) Beard, thanks to him we wouldn't get a Surpreme with facial hair until Sotomajor

[Frank Drackman]

Read the opinions? they're all a bunch of bullshit they don't even write themselves, only ones that were halfway entertaining were Scalia's although I did like this Gem from "CT"
in Davis v Ayala

".......the accommodations in which Ayala is housed are a far sight more spacious than those in which his victims, Ernesto Dominguez Mendez, Marcos Antonio Zamora, and Jose Luis Rositas, now rest. And, given that his victims were all 31 years of age or under, Ayala will soon have had as much or more time to enjoy those accommodations as his victims had time to enjoy this Earth."

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Me too, it's one of those things "45" would say "People are saying....."
If I had a nickle for everytime I heard some Liberal POS claim Ronaldus Maximus talked about "Young Bucks", no evidence he ever said it, unlike with Barry Hussein, who says "Nigger" several times on his Auto-Erotic biography, "Wet Dreams of my Father"

Frank

[SRG]

Bork lost because he was a Nixon-enabling fascist toker.

[Frank Drackman]

and HIV (you do know white people invented HIV) heard it from "Reverend" Al Sharpton, of course that was back in his "Greeks were Homos" period.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

what does that even mean? Oh yes, the "Saturday Night Massacre" in which nobody died (Wouldn't that term be more fitting for Senator Ted "Fat Face" Kennedy?) So Bork fired an employee of the Executive Branch, that the President, Head of the Executive Branch wanted fired, not quite up there with Senescent Joe getting payoffs, from....
OK, it'd be easier to say who he's not getting payoffs from
Roosh-a, I'll give him that, Senescent J isn't getting any payoffs from Roosh-a (now anyway)

Frank

[SRG]

If you don't read the opinions you have no basis for your position re Thomas other than bias.

[Mr. Bumble]

The hall monitor has spoken.

[Frank Drackman]

I've read them, Roe v Wade in particular, with it's penumbras and emanations, like I said, Bullshit that they don't even write themselves. Want a real laugh? read the decision on the Curt Flood case.

Frank

[SRG]

But you didn't read Thomas's dissent in Foster, which is the relevant case.