The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: May 25, 1861
5/25/1861: John Merryman arrested. Chief Justice Taney ruled that his detention was unconstitutional in Ex Parte Merryman.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
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
Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 691 (decided May 25, 1931): status as Native American does not excuse obligation to pay income tax on amounts received from tribe’s oil and gas leases
Griffin v. School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218 (decided May 25, 1964): school district couldn’t avoid desegregation order by closing all schools and using the money for vouchers to private schools all of which happen to exclude blacks
Phillips v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 283 U.S. 589 (decided May 25, 1931): summary taxation order (as to assets of dissolved corporation) does not violate Due Process because taxpayer may contest the order in court even though court will review only for clearly erroneous
United States v. Dickey, 268 U.S. 378 (decided May 25, 1925): First Amendment protected newspaper’s publication of private person’s tax return information (identity, address, amount paid) because Congress had already authorized the IRS to make this information available for public inspection
Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30 (decided May 25, 1970): unexplained and objected-to eight-year delay of trial for armed robbery violated Sixth Amendment speedy trial right; witnesses had disappeared, files lost, etc.; conviction reversed
Carpenter v. Strange, 141 U.S. 87 (decided May 25, 1891): full faith and credit extended to New York court’s probate of will even though it determined property rights out of state
Chang Chan v. Nagle, 268 U.S. 346 (decided May 25, 1925): pursuant to Immigration Act of 1924 (part of ongoing exclusion of Asians) Chinese women married to American citizens not eligible thereby for citizenship and not permitted to enter country
Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559 (decided May 25, 1953): To compose jury panel, judge selected names from jury box. White prospective jurors were on white slips, black jurors on yellow slips, and guess what? — not a single yellow slip was selected, and the resulting all-white jury found black defendant guilty of rape. Conviction reversed.
Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58 (decided May 25, 1970): actor who wore Army uniform in street play protesting Vietnam War atrocities not guilty under statute criminalizing impersonation of servicemen “in a manner to bring the military into disrepute” due to statutory exception for performance in theatrical production; criminal statute struck anyway as violating First Amendment
Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, 359 U.S. 520 (decided May 25, 1959): Illinois law uniquely requiring trucks to have curved mudflaps violated “dormant commerce clause” because it burdened interstate commerce (requiring truckers from other states to buy them just to go through Illinois) (Illinois is a hard state to go around; would a similar Rhode Island law pass muster?)
Avery v. Georgia reversed a conviction out of Fulton County, which is now much more liberal when it comes to criminal justice.
1953 was a long time ago!
A lot happens when all the black people around you are finally allowed to vote.
Hey, they actually had black people in their jury pool; sounds like it was pretty liberal for its time and place.
In the Schacht case, I think the exemption was for *respectful* representations of military personnel, so the ban on wearing uniforms was viewpoint-based.
True. Thanks!
Re: Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, I wonder if this decision would be different today in light of the recent National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (where CA imposed requirements how pigs must be raised in order to be sold in CA).
In Bibb, IL also wanted to impose a requirement for activity within their borders.
Ever consider reading opinions that you’re curious about? Or do you just prefer hot takes from VC commenters, many of whom are mentally disabled or very stupid? Footnote 2 of National Pork Producers answers your question.
Found it!
“In any event, this Court ‘has only rarely held that the Commerce Clause itself pre-empts an entire field from state regulation, and then only when a lack of national uniformity would impede the flow of interstate goods.’”
And they close with, “Pigs are not trucks or trains.”
I was looking for a principled dissent in Chang Chan v. Nagle but there wasn’t one; it was unanimous. Finding for the plaintiff would have involved striking down the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1924.
But note Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle, in which a merchant was allowed to enter the US with his family since it was provided for by treaty. That was also unanimous, presumably by the Supremacy Clause.
Think of the modern religious freedom cases. An absolute rule might survive, but once any exceptions are made the First Amendment may demand equal treatment for religious objections.