Today in Supreme Court History: June 19, 1992

6/19/1992: New York v. U.S. is decided.

Comments

[apedad]

Re: New York v U.S.

Facts of the case

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act Amendments of 1985 required states alone or in compacts with other states to dispose of such radioactive waste within their borders. New York State and Allegany and Cortland counties were frustrated in their compliance efforts by resistance from residents to proposed radioactive waste sites and a lack of cooperation from neighboring states. New York filed suit against the federal government, questioning the authority of Congress to regulate state waste management.

Question

Does the Low-Level Waste Act violate the Tenth Amendment and the “guarantee clause” of Article Four?

Conclusion (6 – 3)

In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld two of the three provisions of the Act under review, reasoning that Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to use financial rewards and access to disposal sites as incentives for state waste management. The third provision, the “take-title” qualification, stipulated that states must take legal ownership and liability for low-level waste or by the regulatory act. “Either type of federal action,” wrote Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, “would ‘commandeer’ state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes, and would for this reason be inconsistent with the Constitution’s division of authority between federal and state governments.” This last provision violated the Tenth Amendment. (oyez)

I highlighted this case because of the, “. . . required states alone or in compacts with other states. . . ” statement (and because apparently captcrisis is taking Juneteenth off!).

The Compact Clause, (Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3) provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … enter into Any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,” and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of cases about it.

Texas v New Mexico (2018) and New York v New Jersey (2023), were both unanimous for the clause in the Supreme Court.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (decided June 19, 1961): exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment applies to state prosecutions as well as federal (police searching for evidence related to bombing found obscene materials instead; Ms. Mapp, once engaged to the boxer Archie Moore, had what might be called a “colorful” life)

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (decided June 19, 1992): New York’s Tenth Amendment challenge against the United States (not an original jurisdiction case, probably because two N.Y. counties were co-plaintiffs) dismissed as to federal statute allowing states to receive money to house out-of-state nuclear waste, and to refuse waste that does not meet guidelines, but Tenth Amendment does prohibit requirement that state take title to undisposed internal waste

​McWilliams v. Dunn, 582 U.S. 183 (decided June 19, 2017): murder defendant needing mental health expert to evaluate defense (Ake v. Oklahoma) is entitled to someone seriously working on the case, not just psychologist volunteering occasional spare time and not present at sentencing hearing

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (decided June 19, 2017): denial of trademark as “disparaging” for name of Asian band which was an anti-Asian slur (“The Slants”) (the band’s purpose was to “reclaim” the term) was in violation of the First Amendment (I wonder -- if it was a racist white band dressing in “yellowface” which wanted to use the term in the original hateful sense, would the result have been the same?)

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (decided June 19, 2000): Establishment Clause prohibited student selected by student council from reciting prayer over public address system before each home football game (suit was brought by Catholic and Mormon parents)

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (decided June 19, 1961): Maryland could not require notary oath to include belief in God

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (decided June 19, 2017): refuses to extend Bivens remedy to illegal aliens detained after 9/11 attacks and subjected to harsh and abusive conditions (remember this photo https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/20/reporters-notebook-taking-the-hood-off-20-years-later); confinement was “pursuant to a high-level executive policy created in the wake of a major terrorist attach on American soil” and such suits would need specific Congressional authorization

Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (decided June 19, 1972): rejected Curt Flood’s antitrust challenge to the reserve clause even though other professional sports are not exempt from antitrust (I remember the New York Times editorial criticizing this decision; it was entitled “Misty-Eyed Justice” and pointed to the flowery paean to baseball in Blackmun’s opinion) (this suit in effect ended Flood’s career; he got the Colin Kaepernick treatment afterwards)

Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (decided June 19, 2017): striking down on First Amendment grounds a statute prohibiting convicted sex offenders from using social media which they know include minors as members

Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (decided June 19, 2008): trial judge properly refused schizophrenic murder defendant’s request to be his own attorney (though he was found competent to testify) and appointed counsel (the judge in the Colin Ferguson trial should have done this)

[Dilan Esper]

You left out another boxing related detail from Mapp- the bombing they were investigating was of Don King's house. Yes, that Don King!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Is that how his hair got like that?

[wolfefan]

I didn't know about either the King or Moore connections. I think Archie Moore is one of the most underrated boxers in recent history. With just a few differences and some better timing, he could have been remembered among the all-time greats. Of course, the same is true of most athletes.

Also, good question re: the Slants.

Glad to see this post, BTW. When I got up this morning and didn't see one, I was hoping it wasn't a sign you were sick or something. Thanks as always, and also to apedad.

[Dilan Esper]

The Slants were what we in the legal business call a test case.

It’s just like it isn’t an accident that the couple that challenged the ban on interracial marriage was made up of a white man and a Black woman. (Had it been the opposite, it would have played as a lot more scary to a lot of white conservative judges in the 1960's.)

Outside of the criminal procedure context where you often have no choice but to have a very bad person mount a challenge, you often bring challenges with idealized plaintiffs. This is a time honored strategy.

(Of course, it can go too far. The website creator in 303 Creative hasn’t even started a business and both has no earthly idea if any gay couples will patronize it and has also drafted her “rules” for who she will and won’t serve in a way transparently designed for favorable court review.)

In any event, the “offensive trademark” statute was a bad statute and good on the Slants for getting it struck down.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“you often bring challenges with idealized plaintiffs.”

My old girlfriend met Dr. King! Her older sister was being considered as a “model plaintiff” to be the first black student to enter a state school. (This would have been in Alabama, in the 1950’s.) Their father was a minister, and “preacher’s kids” were considered good risks because they had a respectable upbringing and were unlikely to do or say something stupid or irresponsible. Which would have been deadly. Such a child, despite all the pressure and violent threats, absolutely could not “crack”, and in those years of school test cases it is amazing how well those children showed their mettle, depicted in that Norman Rockwell painting.

So Dr. King and his associates came to dinner and her sister got interviewed. Though they did end up picking someone else.

[Dan Schiavetta]

wolfefan:

Thanks for your concern. I was late because of a monumental Father's Day hangover.