Today in Supreme Court History: June 4, 1923

6/4/1923: Meyer v. Nebraska decided.

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. — (decided June 4, 2018): First Amendment protected cakeshop owner’s refusal on religious grounds to create a same-sex wedding cake

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (decided June 4, 1923): struck down on due process grounds state law prohibiting teaching of foreign languages to children before eighth grade (10-year-old child was taught German at a Lutheran religious school) (in those days most older Lutherans were German speakers; they were prosecuted for passing on their native language)

Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Comm’n of Florida, 496 U.S. 91 (decided June 4, 1990): lawyer was not misleading clients with letterhead identifying him as certified in trial advocacy by the NBTA (National Board of Trial Advocacy) despite impression some might get that NBTA was a governmental entity; censure vacated

Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (decided June 4, 2007): trial judge has first hand knowledge of juror’s demeanor and should be deferred to as to whether he can be excluded based on suspicion that he would refuse to follow the law in reaching a verdict (here, whether he could apply the death penalty)

Madera Sugar Pine Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 262 U.S. 499 (decided June 4, 1923): rejected employer’s claim that paying worker’s compensation death benefits to family of resident alien residing in Mexico denied it Equal Protection

Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (decided June 4, 2012): Secret Service agents who arrested plaintiff for harassment (he criticized Vice President Cheney to his face about Iraq and touched his shoulder as he left) enjoyed qualified immunity; can’t say it was contrary to law to arrest for probable cause in retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights

English v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72 (decided June 4, 1990): 42 U.S.C. §5851(g) (making it unlawful to terminate nuclear industry employees in retaliation for making safety complaints) does not preempt state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (harassed due to making noise about failure to properly decontaminate work areas)

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (decided June 4, 1928): wiretapping a telephone was not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment (overruled by Katz v. United States, 1967)

Walling v. Harnischfeger Corp., 325 U.S. 427 (decided June 4, 1945): incentive pay structure for piecework (electrical components) had effect of evading Fair Labor Standards Act §7(a) which requires overtime to be 50% of regular rate

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (decided June 4, 1951): Smith Act (forbidding attempt to overthrow government through violence) does not violate First Amendment because it is restricted to speech advocating plan of violence; affirmed convictions of Communist Party-USA founders

[Commenter_XY]

Is the Smith Act still on the books?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes

[Seamus]

It is needed for use against Republicans.

[Michael P]

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. — (decided June 4, 2018): First Amendment protected cakeshop owner’s refusal on religious grounds to create a same-sex wedding cake

The Court only held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission exhibited improper animus against Phillips's religious beliefs, and reversed the lower decision on that basis:

While the issues here are difficult to resolve, it must be concluded that the State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a
way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that
must be strictly observed. The official expressions of
hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments—comments that were not disavowed at the Com-
mission or by the State at any point in the proceedings
that led to affirmance of the order—were inconsistent with
what the Free Exercise Clause requires. The Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to
the cases of the other bakers suggests the same. For these
reasons, the order must be set aside.

Some, but not all, of the concurrences made the broader argument that Phillips's actions were protected.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you. I think you answered my question below.

[Dr. Ed 2]

:Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (decided June 4, 1923): struck down on due process grounds state law prohibiting teaching of foreign languages to children before eighth grade (10-year-old child was taught German at a Lutheran religious school) (in those days most older Lutherans were German speakers; they were prosecuted for passing on their native language)."

They went too far, but we need to make schools "English-only" again.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's Sunday morning, it's early so maybe you're still asleep but why would you oppose learning a foreign language?

[Nige]

Isolationism. Xenophobia. White supremacy.

[Frank Drackman]

Blut und Boden!!!!!!
Dammit, did I just get Moe Dee's and the whole Law Enforcement Industrial Complex down on my Haid'?? ("Kopf" in German)

Frank

[Nige]

edgebot's having flashbacks to its days in the Hitler Youth.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Assimilation.

A century ago, we had let in so many foreigners -- White European foreigners -- that there was fear the country was fragmenting.

Hence English-only in schools, pledge of allegiance and patriotic skits. As the court ruled, Nebraska went too far here, but in general it was needed then.

[CJColucci]

Until after WWI, many cities, like Baltimore and Cincinnati, had public schools in which the language of instruction was the language of local, large immigrant communities, mainly German.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, and WWI showed the problems that created -- I wasn't around then and hence can't say that the heavy-handed patriotism was necessary or not, but it clearly was felt that it was.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What were those problems?

[Frank Drackman]

That sounds like the same BS of "Reagan would speak of "Strapping Young Bucks buying T-bone Steaks with Food Stamps" I lived in California during the 70's, liked Ronaldus Maximus, never heard him say that or the "Welfare Queens" bullshit.
Show your work, of course you can't, you're just doing a "45" "People are saying"

Frank "People are Saying" that most of the Urban Crime is being committed by N-words"

[Magister]

Reagan said that in Florida.

Washington Post:

In the Florida primary in 1976, Reagan told a Fort Lauderdale rally that working people were outraged when they waited in checkout lines in supermarkets and saw a "strapping young buck" ahead of them buying T-bone steaks with food stamps.

[Frank Drackman]

Great Documentation,
"Washington Post" which has published (and unfortunately not "perished") since 1877
some 145 years, yet you can't find the date when that bullshit was supposedly perished, I mean pubic-lished.
"Fort Lauderdale Rally"?? you'd think there'd have been reporters, cameras, microphones, might even have been a great "Sound Bite" for Ford or Carter to use later in the year,
Unlike You, I can document my slanders, here's where Barry Hussein Osama says "You ain't my bitch nigger, get yo own damn Fries!"
Which I totally support him on, Nigger! git yo own, dame Fries!!!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgYIBG0fYq4

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

my bad it's "Buy" yo one dame Fries!"
Yes, that's the guy who was erected to 2 terms as POTUS, and succeeded by his hand picked choice, Hilary Rodman (so Ironic, Senescent J would probably won the Erection, but couldn't even get in the Primary_
Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A day at the Volokh Conspiracy without bigotry -- racism, especially -- is like a day that doesn’t exist.

Georgetown, UCLA, Chicago, and a few others must be proud. And counting the days until the Conspirators leave campus.

Carry on, bigoted clingers. So long as your losing position in the culture war permits, that is.

[Frank Drackman]

So Jerry, enough with the Karrying Klingers, how does a man "like you" survive in Prison?? I know you played Foo-Bawl and experienced in buggering compliant youths, but what do you do when it's some Tookie Football Brown angling to drop his Alabama Black Snake into your Sigmoid Colon??
You claim to be a Shyster, so I'm guessing you do his writ of Man-damn-us, Form of a Porpoise, and maybe a reach around just for shits and giggles??

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

There is a difference between teaching in a foreign language and teaching a foreign language.

[John F. Carr]

Sometimes they overlap. I took a French literature class taught in French by a teacher from eastern Europe. His accent was so strong that it was hard to understand him in French or English.

There are lots of state and federal regulations involved here. All I understand about them is we are supposed to say ELL (English Language Learner) and not ESL (English as a Second Language) like we used to.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That’s Massachusetts-specific. The Ed Reform Act of the 1990s (in theory) eliminated the practice of teaching academic subjects in the foreign language (English Second Language status) and instead created a status of English Language Learner — the presumption was that they were learning English.

It was sabotaged by the teachers unions.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I think you’re referring to bilingual education. My daughter came to this country from Dominican Republic in the middle of tenth grade. With my consent she was put into the bilingual program, where indeed academic subjects were taught in Spanish — but it also included two periods a day learning English. (This was Bronx, New York.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's ESL, which MA theoretically eliminated.

[Frank Drackman]

Germany has it right, they call it "Deutsche als Fremdsprache" or German as a Foreign Language, as in "Not from here"

Frank

[SRG]

Assimilation to what? The Borg? There has never been a time where the vast majority of American citizens were drawn from a homogenous group into which any newcomers would have to assimilate.

[Sarcastr0]

Why bother? I hear Civil War is coming, against the gays/blacks/teachers/nontruckers.

This kind of minor xenophobia seems like deck chairs on the Titanic, not sure why you care.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well with what was mental illness 20 years ago being paraded in our faces, the middle will cease to hold.

[Frank Drackman]

Dr. Ed 2, referencing the Yeats, Strong Work!!!!!!!!!

Frank "Slouching towards Atlanta"

[Magister]

the worst
Are full of passionate intensity

Dr Ed 2 in seven words.

[Sarcastr0]

Ed, it’s been a century. It’s not the aftermath of WWI anymore.

Your concern trolling about the culture war turning hot are nonsense. No empire lasts forever, but your petty short-term grievances are not going to be what does it.

[SRG]

Yeah well we no longer think that drapetomania is a mental illness either,

[Frank Drackman]

SRG dropping the "Drapetomania" card,
OK, maybe it's not a "Mental Illness" like being a Homo isn't either (was it DSM 2 or DSM 3 when it magically wasn't a "Condition" anymore?? and it's not such a great thang, because Insurance doesn't usually pay for thangs not considered "Conditions")
but it's certainly a "Thang"

Frank

[Nige]

The middle wasn't holding on very tight.

[Magister]

Religious schools can't be allowed to teach the language appropriate to their religious practice and community?

[Mr. Bumble]

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. — (decided June 4, 2018): First Amendment protected cakeshop owner’s refusal on religious grounds to create a same-sex wedding cake

Is that really what the Court said?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, if one is to crunch the holding into one sentence.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems contrary to Michael P's comment above.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Colorado commission’s behavior was at issue but only because of First Amendment implications.

[Michael P]

The Court didn't answer whether the refusal was protected, though -- only that Masterpiece Cakeshop / Phillips didn't get a fair shake.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, but the right violated was not Equal Protection, but Free Exercise.

[Magister]

Had the Colorado Commission acted differently, Phillips might have lost. The summary only seems accurate to the extent that one believes the Commission could not have threaded the needle offered by the Supreme Court decision (or perhaps based on what the present Supreme Court would do with the same case now).

[Frank Drackman]

I'd love some Homos to insist I bake a Cake for their "Wedding", Fum-unda Cheese would just be the start...

Frank

[not guilty]

I generally support public accommodations laws, but legal issues aside, I have long wondered about the wisdom of customers purchasing food from a seller who loathes the customers´ very existence.

[Frank Drackman]

Man, I used to hock loogies in customers food just because they wore Alabama/Florida/Tennessee/Georgia gear

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Not LSU fans, 1: we didn’t play them regularly back then, 2: with the Corndog BO how would they even notice??

Frank

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"loathes the customers very existence"

By that reasoning, a Democratic baker who refused to make a cake for Ronald Reagan's birthday would be showing his loathing for Republicans' very existence.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, they weren't purchasing food, they were purchasing a lawsuit. If he'd been willing to sell the cake they would have went somewhere else for it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Yes, if one is to crunch the holding into one sentence."

No, its misleading.

His 1A rights were only violated because of the animus of the commission. If the commisson had lied better, it would have won.

If your were right, this would not have happened:

"Jack Phillips Of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ordered To Pay Fine For Refusing Transgender Cake Order June 16, 2021 / 11:01 PM / CBS Colorado"

[Dan Schiavetta]

Think of their hard heartedness, trying to deny benefits to a family which lost their father, and on such a pretext.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that an equal protection argument here would be odd, which is presumably why the company didn’t make it. Indeed, the words “equal protection” don’t appear in the opinion. Instead,

The sole contention of the Company here is that the act, as construed and applied in these cases, requiring it to make compensation for the death of employees, occurring without fault, to their non-resident alien dependents, operates to deprive it of property without due process and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The employer purchased the insurance from a company that refused to pay.

I don't know the status of W/C law back then, but there are three benefits the *employer* gets from purchasing this insurance. First is happy & loyal employees less likely to strike over unsafe working conditions. Second is immunity from civil liability (eg wrongful death) suits because the W/C exempts all of that. And third, today, would not being sued by the state for not having a valid policy in place and such.

As it was the EMPLOYER who insured his employees, it would be the EMPLOYER'S due process rights violated.

[Frank Drackman]

When you type in all cap's it's like you're shouting, I mean, SHOUTING, see how annoying that is? it's almost worse than someone actually shouting.
And there's so much BS (dammit, now I'm doing it) in Workers Comp Injuries, did it to earn some extra $$$ right out of Med School (What the Military pays Physicians?? Scandalous) maybe 10% actual injuries, rest "My back hurts after driving the mail truck all day, give me 2 weeks off work"
not coincidentally, why the USPS is billions under water...

Frank

[Magister]

Worker's compensation laws were fairly new in 1923, so not surprising that arguments that now seem strange would be made by the entities affected.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why is it “hard hearted[]” to not want to pay compensation for a harm you had no fault in causing? I’m pretty sure you do it all the time!

[Dan Schiavetta]

The objection was not that the benefits had to be paid but that they had to be paid to aliens.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think it's a bit more sophisticated than that: as glossed in the opinion, the argument is that the only justification for a state imposing liability without a finding of fault is to make sure that residents who can't earn income from working aren't left destitute, but that that interest doesn't apply if the beneficiaries don't live in the state, since they're not the state's problem however destitute they are.

Regardless, it's certainly not an equal protection argument.

[Frank Drackman]

Because the poor employee has an Ow-ee!!! what are you? a Nazi!!!????

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, that was a reasonable cogent analysis,
what are you? some kind of degenerate??????
Prepare to be "Canceled"

Frank