Today in Supreme Court History: July 5, 1867

7/5/1867: Justice James Wayne dies.

Justice James Wayne

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (decided July 5, 1984): evidence (here, drugs) can be admitted into evidence despite bad warrant if warrant was facially valid and police relied on it in good faith; warrant found not based on probable cause but purpose of exclusionary rule (to deter police misconduct) didn’t apply

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (decided July 5, 1983): use of government funds to pay legislature’s chaplain did not violate Establishment Clause (all he did was say a prayer to open the session)

Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765 (decided July 5, 1983): defendant arrested when he emerged to pick up internationally shipped box containing marijuana addressed to him but delivered by policemen in disguise; no warrant needed to reopen box to get the evidence because no expectation of privacy (box had been lawfully opened at airport by customs inspector who had then alerted police)

Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (decided July 5, 1984): fees not awarded in successful suit to have mentally disabled child educated at state expense because claim was under Education of Handicapped Act of 1973 (which had no fee award provision) as opposed to 42 U.S.C. §1983 (which does) (holding superseded by Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986)

Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (decided July 5, 1984): “good faith” exception to exclusionary rule (because of lateness of hour, used “controlled substance” warrant form for murder arrest, but probable cause made out and officer had no reason to think warrant, vetted by District Attorney and judge, was invalid)

Selective Service System v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (decided July 5, 1984): upholding Constitutionality of Selective Service Act which denies federal financial aid for college if you don’t register for the draft within 30 days of turning 18 (my generation knew that law very well)

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (decided July 5, 1984): Education of the Handicapped Act of 1973 requires school to provide catheter for child with spina bifida (allows bladder to empty)

Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (decided July 5, 1984): police validly entering premises can order everyone (and everything) to stay put until warrant is obtained to search premises (warrant came in the next day); earlier illegal entry not relevant because warrant based on independent information

Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (decided July 5, 1983): assigned counsel on oral argument of appeal of conviction who argued from his brief had no duty to argue points made by defendant himself in his pro se brief (why did the court accept the pro se brief in the first place?)

INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (decided July 5, 1984): past statements made by deportees in civil deportation hearings admissible despite lack of Miranda warnings; INS’s own rules create adequate Fourth Amendment protections and fact that virtually all persons notified of deportation proceedings voluntarily submit to deportation means that few will challenge their arrest

[Mr. Bumble]

"(my generation knew that law very well)"
Nothing has changed even though there is no draft. Same rules still apply although I'm not sure how strictly it is enforced.

[Dan Schiavetta]

A friend of mine refused to answer the question on her loan application. She simply wrote the "PX" Christian peace sign. Of course, she was female and it was easy for her to take the high moral ground (though that was not something one would point out, even though we both thought it).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I thought the form indicated that only men have to answer the question.

Of course, I don't know what the form says now.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I forget. Maybe you're right. In which case her "PX" was a little more meaningful.

[Dilan Esper]

It's really dumb. Everyone knows we aren't going to have a draft, and if we ever did face a threat that needed a draft, we could reinstate the law or just go ahead with a draft without registration (the government has plenty of other ways of finding draft age people). Plus there's the sex discrimination (upheld in Rokster v. Goldberg, but still). Why we would ever deny a person a college education over this relic leftover from post-Vietnam politics is beyond me.

It should be repealed.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Everyone knows we aren’t going to have a draft"

I would love to have the assurance that this is true, but the debates on drafting women speak in terms of men and women sharing a responsibility of American citizenship, rather than exempting both* sexes from the draft.

*Or all sexes, if you're into that kind of thing.

[Dilan Esper]

It's BS though, because everyone knows if they actually tried to hold a draft they'd lose the next election.

So, again, why are we making young men do this? It's pointless and cruel.

[defaultdotxbe]

Odd to think of it as a peace sign given its origin was when Constantine saw a vision telling him to "conquer by this sign."

[Dan Schiavetta]

History is full of ironies!

[John F. Carr]

I wonder why the 1982-1983 and 1983-1984 terms ran later than the rest.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I found full appeal decisions for the 2019 - 2020 term coming out as late as July 9. After that, it's a long stretch of nothing but decisions on motions.

[apedad]

Re: Selective Service System v. Minnesota PIRG, here’s the related cases why it’s constitutional that women aren’t required to register.

Rostker v. Goldberg

Facts of the case

After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in early 1980, President Jimmy Carter reactivated the draft registration process. Congress agreed with Carter’s decision, but did not enact his recommendation that the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) be amended to include the registration of females. A number of men challenged the constitutionality of the MSSA, and the challenge was sustained by a district court.

Question

Did the MSSA’s gender distinctions violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that Congress’s decision to exempt women from registration “was not the ‘accidental by-product of a traditional way of thinking about females’” and did not violate the Due Process Clause. The Court found that men and women, because of combat restrictions on women, were not “similarly situated” for the purposes of draft registration. The Court also upheld Congress’s judgment that the administrative and military problems that would be created by drafting women for noncombat roles were sufficient to justify the Military Selective Service Act. (oyez)

Recent Updates

In 2013, the U.S. military began removing restrictions on women in certain combat situations, and by 2015, had eliminated all restrictions barring women from combat. A new suit, brought by the National Coalition for Men, charged that with the removal of service restrictions, the Selective Service System’s men-only requirement failed the Equal Protection clause. Judge Gray H. Miller of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System in February 2019 in favor of the plaintiffs, that the Service’s men-only requirement was unconstitutional, though issued no order or injunction. Judge Miller wrote that while at the time Rostker was decided, women were banned from serving in combat, the situation has since changed with the 2013 and 2015 restriction removals. Miller’s opinion was reversed by the Fifth Circuit, stating that only the Supreme Court could overturn the Supreme Court precedence from Rostker. The Supreme Court considered but declined to review the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in June 2021. (wiki)

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks

This brings back memories, including my days as a campus representative attending a "We Feel a Draft" conference in the state capital. Unfortunately the resulting "communiqué" was so loaded down with Marxist/feminist points that when I got back to my campus I had to hide it.

[Frank Drackman]

What was your worry? they didn't take Homos back then

[Dan Schiavetta]

You're back on mute. For a moment you seemed to have grown up. But alas, no.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think you need to "grow up". When did you become such a snowflake?

[SRG]

Muting, rather than engaging, someone who consistently hurls personal insults at you is grown-up. It's simply ignoring them and walking on.

[Magister]

Moreover, Frank did change his posting style after criticism, at least sometimes and for a while, so telling him you muted him doesn't seem completely pointless.

[Frank Drackman]

Still kind and gentle, and a practicing Homo (Sapiens)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Frank's comment was not a personal insult, but a statement of fact. Would it have been OK if he said homosexual rather than "Homos"?
No one is under any obligation to engage anyone here. Muting is an option here but it is not "grown up". It's the equivalent of your child putting their fingers in their ears or slamming the bedroom door.

[bernard11]

Of course it's grown-up, depending on what the mutee says. There are some commenters here whose contribution is negative. Muting them makes perfect sense.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What was your worry? they didn’t take Homos back then

Another day at the Volokh Conspiracy, another day of bigotry at a white, male, movement conservative, bigot-hugging blog.

(I recognize that many Volokh Conspiracy fans would prefer that I not mention the bigotry that saturates this blog. Better Americans would prefer that the Volokh Conspiracy and its right-wing fans be less bigoted.)

[Frank Drackman]

I guess you better put Arlo Guthrie on “Mute” as well as his Anti-War Massacree Best Selling “Alice’s Restaurant” for this bit…

“just walk in say “Shrink, You can get Anything you want, at Alice’s restaurant.”. And walk out. You know, if One person, just one person does it they may think he’s really sick and They won’t take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, They may think they’re both faggots and they won’t take either of them. ”

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Wayne . . . a southern slaver on the wrong side of Dred Scott and history.

A natural pick to be featured at the Volokh Conspiracy.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Wayne went to Princeton (then the College of New Jersey), one of our strong liberal/libertarian schools.

And he thought the Declaration of Independence was racist. Why do you object to that?

[Syd Henderson]

"Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (decided July 5, 1984): police validly entering premises can order everyone (and everything) to stay put until warrant is obtained to search premises (warrant came in the next day)[...]"

So everybody had to stay put overnight?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I really screwed up the summary of that case. Blot it from your mind!

It should be:

"After illegal entry and arrest of occupants (for a drug sale), police could secure the premises for 19 hours until warrant obtained to properly search and seize contents; warrant based on information obtained before entry."

Thanks for bringing my attention to this.

[Mr. Bumble]

"(yes, that was a personal insult!)"
Something at which you excel.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean like your former habit of commenting about people’s mothers pulling the train for all the black dudes in the neighborhood?
Did EV bitch slap you for that?

[Frank Drackman]

My Bad,
I meant to say "Queers" isn't that what the "Q" part of LGBTQ stands for??

Frank

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Kirkland insulted a Princeton graduate. Nipping at a strong institution’s heels.

/sarc

[Mr. Bumble]

Need a score card to know what's OK at any given time.

[Procyon Mustelid]

Crazy hair and crazy eyes are the best things about 1800s portraiture!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Just showing that prestigious intellectual types, with prestigious associations, could still be in favor of bad things.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Princeton was a fairly religious institution when this Justice attended.”

So, at the time, it was a backwater clinger institution?

Poor James Madison, if he hadn't gone to Princeton he might have made something of himself.

[bernard11]

Do you think they waited for a windy day?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official "Legal" Blog of Those Who Despise Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, and Princeton and Admire Hillsdale, Liberty, Regent, and Ouachita Baptist.

Carry on, clingers. Until you reach the line established by your betters.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Your innocence-by-association approach is what's flawed, not Princeton as such. If you weren't on the spectrum you would notice this.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Was it a clinger institution when Woodrow Wilson ran it?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Imagine the superior education James Madison could have received if he'd gone to the *modern* Princeton University.

https://gss.princeton.edu/