Today in Supreme Court History: June 25, 1997

6/25/1997: City of Boerne v. Flores is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (decided June 25, 2013): preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 can no longer be enforced until Congress comes up with new racial discrimination data (current data was 40 years old) (immediately after this decision came down Republican states formerly under preclearance began enacting voting restrictions)

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (decided June 25, 1962): prohibits school-led prayer in public schools as violating First Amendment Establishment Clause

Chevron v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (decided June 25, 1984): the origin of “Chevron deference”; courts must defer to an agency’s “permissible construction” of a statute if Congress has not directly spoken on the issue (here, whether pollutants from different parts of a steelmaking plant are from one “stationary source”)

City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (decided June 25, 1997): upholding San Antonio’s refusal on zoning grounds to approve church expansion and declaring Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional because its requirement of “strict scrutiny” of restrictions on religious practice was for the courts, not Congress, to decide; holding was superseded by the thus-far-unabrogated Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act which is based on Congress’s Spending Clause power

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (decided June 25, 2014): need warrant to search an arrested person’s cell phone; it’s not a permissible “search incident to arrest”

Georgia v. South Carolina, 497 U.S. 376 (decided June 25, 1990): An original jurisdiction case as to ownership of new islands in the Savannah River created by natural avulsion/accretion; the Court rules for South Carolina as to some matters, and for Georgia in others, based on 1787 treaty, acquiescence in use, and other factors. Interesting opinion to read, seeing the Court get into minute fact-finding as to a few square yards of shoals and islets. I imagine the issue will have to be revisited as nature continues to sculpt the area.

​Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. --- (decided June 25, 2020): upholds 1996 immigration act’s expedited procedure for removing aliens whose claim for asylum is deemed invalid (e.g., officer’s determination that there is no credible fear of persecution can’t be reviewed) (Sir Lankan crossing border who claimed he had been beaten in his home country); not prohibited by “suspension Clause”, art. I, §9, cl. 2 (Congress can’t suspend habeas except during rebellion or invasion)

​Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. --- (decided June 25, 2018): legislative good faith is presumed when redistricting; upholds against Equal Protection attack Texas redistricting except for one district into which Latinos were crowded; 5 - 4 decision (in dissent Sotomayor argues that the Court had no jurisdiction to reverse the findings of the three-judge District Court because no specific injunction involved, 28 U.S.C. §1253)

United States v. Alford, 274 U.S. 264 (decided June 25, 1927): upholding conviction for failing to extinguish fire created “near” federal land though not on it; the word “near” in the statute was not too indefinite, given the danger of forest fires spreading to public land

Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (decided June 25, 1962): striking down on “cruel and unusual punishment” grounds California statute penalizing “being addicted to the use of narcotics” even when one hasn’t used them or possessed them within the state

[SRG]

SC (in Shelby): you need tp prove discrimination with new data
Perez: here you go
SC: not like that

[hoppy025]

Why should Hispanics and blacks have a right to be grouped into one district so that they can vote for one of their own? Why is that an inherent right?

[SRG]

"Don't know much about history..."

[Mr. Bumble]

In re: Georgia v. South Carolina,

Curious as to how boundary disputes are handled when the boundary is a river (subject to changing course) and absent an interstate compact. Is there settled law on the matter or controlling SC opinions?

[Dan Schiavetta]

As far as I can tell with these original jurisdiction boundary cases, the boundaries were originally defined as to rivers (either via midpoint, or “thalweg”, or in rare cases on the low water mark on one side), and when courses change the Court on a case by case basis applies the common law rule that accretion changes a boundary but avulsion does not.

[Mr. Bumble]

For an interesting story on the results of a river chaning course see this:
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-a-champagneladen-steamship-ended-up-in-a-kansas-cornfield

The river boat Arabia wound up 45 feet below a Missouri cornfield and it is not the only one.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I wonder if the farmers would have been willing to rent out that small portion of their fields, plus access routes, for a season or two, to lessen the urgency of digging everything out over winter. But it also says the winter cold helped preserve the dig, and spring rains and river flow were a worry, so maybe extending the dig into the farming season would not have been useful.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That's one heck of a story! Thanks

[Mr. Bumble]

You're welcome. FYI there was a documentary on this story entitled "Cornfield Shipwreck" which is how I first learned about it. Not sure where and if it is still available.