Today in Supreme Court History: June 30, 2014

6/30/2014: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 U.S. 682 (decided June 30, 2014): for-profit corporation is a “person” who can refuse on religious grounds to follow federal regulation (Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives)

New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (decided June 30, 1971): First Amendment allowed printing of “The Pentagon Papers” (McNamara’s secret history of the Vietnam War) despite Espionage Act banning disclosure of national defense material “to the injury of the United States” (it came out in paperback shortly afterwards and I read it -- an eye opener!)

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (decided June 30, 1958): Due Process violated by Alabama’s order for NAACP to produce membership list

Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947 (decided June 30, 2004): one-person, one-vote rule can be violated even when differential between districts is less than 10% (here, Georgia’s plan as a whole favored urban, Democratic districts at the expense of rural, Republican)

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (decided June 30, 1986): upheld Georgia law criminalizing sodomy (defined as putting genitals of one into mouth or anus of another) (of course, it was a gay man who was prosecuted, as if women never gave blow jobs) (overruled by Lawrence v. Kansas, 2003)

Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. --- (decided June 30, 2022): In 2019 the lame-duck Republican Congress authorized the Trump administration to return to Mexico non-Mexicans who had tried illegally to enter through that country. Biden suspended this policy his first day in office. Here the Court holds that Biden had the authority to do that, given the discretionary language in the statute and the claimed foreign affairs implications.

​West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. --- (decided June 30, 2022): In 2015 Obama’s EPA started requiring coal-fired plants to in essence phase out; the Court stayed the rule almost immediately and Trump repealed it. Biden tried to re-implement it. The Court holds that the rule exceeds the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act.

United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (decided June 30, 1975): can’t search cars at fixed border checkpoints unless “probable cause” (Ortiz’s car here turned out to have three illegal aliens in the trunk; evidence suppressed and conviction for transporting illegals vacated)

United States v. Brignoni-Price, 422 U.S. 873 (decided June 30, 1975): roving border patrol can’t stop car just because driver “looks Mexican” (this was in southern California, which at that point had been part of Mexico longer than it was part of the United States)

Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (decided June 30, 1994): First Amendment not violated by noise restriction and 30-foot buffer zone between abortion protesters and clinic, but 36-foot buffer on private property side and forbidding “images visible” from the clinic was overbroad

[Michael P]

Clearly, the NYT should have been prosecuted instead for refusing to return the national defense information upon demand.

[taqmcg]

Re: United States v. Brignoni-Price, 422 U.S. 873 (decided June 30, 1975): roving border patrol can’t stop car just because driver “looks Mexican” (this was in southern California, which at that point had been part of Mexico longer than it was part of the United States)

Not sure what the parenthetical is intended to add, but it's not true. Since Mexico was founded in 1821, California was Mexican only about 26 years compared to almost 130 years of US rule at the time of this decision. And even if we are considering the previous Spanish administration, there was no significant Spanish presence until well into the second half of the 18th century so the total time for there actually being a Hispanic presence in California is more like 80-90 years, still significantly less than the US. And even that presence was relatively small. At the time of transfer of California to US control there were only 14,000 residents of European or Mexican descent (compared to an estimated 150,000 of native descent). [See https://www.loc.gov/collections/california-first-person-narratives/articles-and-essays/early-california-history/united-states-and-california/%5D

[Dan Schiavetta]

My point is that the “Mexican-looking” defendants were more native to the area than the Anglo sheriffs who arrested them.

To see this issue in a different context, I recommend “Places Not Our Own”, a short Canadian film about the continual displacement of Metis (“Native American”) families by white culture. The film, made in 1986 but set in the 1920’s, is for young people but very well made with a surprising attention to the nuances of both sides. It shows both sympathetic white people and drunk natives. https://www.nfb.ca/film/places_not_our_own/https://www.nfb.ca/film/places_not_our_own/

[taqmcg]

Not sure what you mean by ‘more native’. There had been a few Spanish/Mexican people in California before the vast influx of Europeans during the gold rush. But I suspect that the generic heritage of these earliest settlers is tiny compared to the later immigration of Mexican and other Hispanic groups. None of this makes the police actions right, but their actions would be no better if the stop had been because the car occupants looked Vietnamese even though California had never been Vietnamese.

Your link doesn't work. Nor does mine, though you just need to trim the garbage at the end for that one.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Google "Film Board of Canada" and "Places Not Our Own" and you will find it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 U.S. 682 (decided June 30, 2014): for-profit corporation is a “person” who can refuse on religious grounds to follow federal regulation (Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives)"

Held: As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA. Pp. 16–49.

Not remotely all corporations, just ones that are "closely held" where the owners agree.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"First Amendment allowed printing of “The Pentagon Papers”"

I think they rejected the Nixon administration's effort at prior restraint, theoretically leaving open the prospect of prosecution after publication. Which there wasn't.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"United States v. Brignoni-Price"

I think his name was Brignoni-*Ponce*, an unfortunate name, but that's what the report says.

[Mr. Bumble]

You are correct. Also, he was not Mexican but was born in Puerto Rico and therefore a US citizen.
Also, not his only time transporting illegals:
History of Felix Humberto Brignoni-Ponce

Despite being freed from the charges in this case, Brignoni-Ponce was arrested for carrying illegal aliens five times in fifteen years, spending over three years in jail for his crimes. His last-known arrest was on February 25, 1981, six years after his Supreme Court case was decided, at a San Clemente checkpoint, for smuggling thirteen illegal aliens. Ironically, Brignoni-Ponce was born in Puerto Rico, not of Mexican descent as suspected in his initial stop by the Border Patrol, and is an American citizen.[4] This case's effects on Border Patrol agents have been compared to the effects the Miranda decision had on attorneys and prosecutors.[6]

[Mr. Bumble]

Motor Trends review of comparative trunk sizes for illegal activities will continue in a moment.

[BrotherMovesOn]

It's Motor Trend, not Motor Trends.
You'd think an ex-AutoZone employee would know that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh jeez I forgot the apostrophe.
As always thank you soooo much for your concern and interest in my comments.
If you don't mind me asking, when will you be moving on?
It won't be a moment too soon.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Nah, I can pick up practice tips here.
Interesting points of law in current cases, etc.
What's your excuse?

[F.D. Wolf]

The Pentagon Papers case is perhaps unique in that the nine justices managed to produce ten opinions, a brief per curiam opinion followed by an opinion by every single individual justice. The opinion of the Court in its entirety (with internal citations and quotation marks omitted):

We granted certiorari in these cases in which the United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled "History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy."

Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. The Government thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint. The District Court for the Southern District of New York, in the New York Times case, and the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the Washington Post case, held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is therefore affirmed. The order of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to enter a judgment affirming the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The stays entered June 25, 1971, by the Court are vacated. The judgments shall issue forthwith.

So ordered.

I think its precedential value is limited because one can play mix-and-match with the nine individual opinions to find five justices supporting any number of conclusions about the publication of classified documents.

The Watergate burglars broke into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in Beverly Hills looking for dirt on Ellsberg. I recall a story by G. Gordon Liddy some years later about that break-in to the effect of: "We made a mess to make it look like the culprit had been a junkie looking for drugs. If you have seen the movie Beverly Hills Cop, you might think the Beverly Hills Police Department is inept, but let me tell you, within 24 hours they had captured and charged the junkie responsible for that break-in."

[David Nieporent]

The Pentagon Papers case is perhaps unique in that the nine justices managed to produce ten opinions, a brief per curiam opinion followed by an opinion by every single individual justice.

See, I don't always agree with Mr. Wolf's political views, but he posts things of substance that are often quite interesting. TIL the quoted info.

[John F. Carr]

"within 24 hours they had captured and charged the junkie responsible for that break-in."

Back in 1989 a black guy from the projects shot an upper middle class white pregnant woman and her husband. She and the baby died. Boston cops tore apart Mission Hill and soon enough they had their man. Willie Bennett, infamous murderer. Then police got a tip the husband did it. Oops. Make that Willie Bennett, symbol of bad race relations in Boston, and Charles Stuart, infamous murderer.

A made-for-TV movie and several episodes of TV shows were based on the case.

Charles jumped to his death before police could arrest him. The informant, his brother, went to prison for obstructing the investigation before telling the truth. He died in a homeless shelter in 2011. Bennett has been in an out of prison for unrelated offenses and as of 2017 was still alive.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Should a superseding indictment of Donald J. Trump be conducted in backwater Florida, in New Jersey, or in the District of Columbia?

The correct answer: Where the prosecution chooses.

Carry on, clingers!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trying to get a visa for my fiancee — all but impossible from her country — her cousin actually suggested I drive to Mexico and come back with her stuffed in a trunk. I considered this idea for about 15 seconds. (I got her in as a “90-day fiancee”, though we decided to tie the knot after 60 days.)

Seriously, it’s such a prize live in this country, at least compared to desperate circumstances at home, that I’m sure there have been more extreme examples of people stuffed into trunks.

[SRG]

Perhaps it was a Chevrolet Malibu.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZjZbJuhPAo

[Dan Schiavetta]

Our Toyota Corolla has a big trunk, which you wouldn't suspect from looking at it from the outside. Three normal sized adults could fit in there.

[Bob from Ohio]

The stop was in 1973, most cars were huuuge. Probably could fit 5 people in my dad's impala.

Sadly the opinion does not say what the car was. Poor writing.

[Frank Drackman]

Same with my Crown Vic

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL! Me and my wife actually went through the exact same conversation!