Today in Supreme Court History: September 20, 1968

9/20/1968: The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission denied a certificate of no exterior effect to the Penn Central Transportation Co. The Supreme Court found that the City of New York did not violate the Takings Clause in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York (1978).

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Barthuli v. Board of Trustees of Jefferson Elementary School District, 434 U.S. 1337 (decided September 20, 1977): Rehnquist says he cannot “stay” pending cert a state court judgment which dismissed case brought by school official who claimed that he was entitled to hearing before being fired; a stay would be “a mere declaration in the air” (cert was denied, 434 U.S. 1040, 1978) (he had a point -- how can you “stay” an order of dismissal?)

Mecom v. United States, 434 U.S. 1340 (September 20, 1977): Powell denies reduction of $750,000 bail pending appeal of conviction for marijuana dealing; though District Court gave no reason for why bail was set so high, the Government’s opposition on the motion before Powell pointed out that defendant had been part of a large scale operation, his wife, a participant, had fled to Mexico to avoid prosecution, and defendant had paid $100,000 to murder a suspected informant

Hutchinson v. People, 86 S.Ct. 5 (decided September 20, 1965): Harlan refuses to stay remand of criminal case after removal pending appeal to the Circuit Court of the remand order; defendant did not convincingly show that he could not receive fair trial in state court as to federal allegations (defendants were accused of trespassing while protesting discriminatory practices of power authority; civil rights cases are removable under 28 U.S.C. §1443 and, in exception to general rule, remand orders in such cases are appealable)

[Dr. Ed 2]

" how can you “stay” an order of dismissal?)"

It happens all the time, most recently to the head of the Massachusetts Marijuana Commission -- a paid leave of absence. She's still getting all her pay & benefits, but she isn't allowed in her office and was supposed to return all office toys.

NYC has a so-called "rubber room" where teachers they can't fire show up and read the newspaper or whatever -- at full pay.

The other thing you can do is suspend without pay, although often you will keep the benefits paid at the current employee/employer rate because that's a lot easier than messing around with COBRA.

[David Nieporent]

It happens all the time,

No it doesn't. None of your statements have anything to do with staying an order dismissing a case.

[Magister]

The dismissal was of the case by the District Court, not dismissal from the job. Staying the court's dismissal might just keep the case on the District Court's calendar, but what would they do with it until the higher court remanded it?

[Dr. Ed 2]

My bad -- this was California tenure law and hence also quite bizarre. According to Rehnquist, an assistant superintendent has no statutory authority to continue as that, but does have the right to return to the classroom as a tenured classroom teacher.

I've never heard of such a thing -- administrators usually have five year contracts that are either renewed or bought out when they are fired -- like college basketball coaches. In years past, building principals had tenure qua building principals, but that shifted to contracts in past decades with a lot of good potential principals deciding to remain in the classroom instead.

[Magister]

Not according to Rehnquist but according to California courts. It was a pointless request for a stay, and it is pointless to speculate on administrators and teachers in California in 1977, so a perfect venue for Dr. Ed 2 commentary.

[Frank Drackman]

That really happened? I thought it was just some BS episode on "Mad Men"

[F.D. Wolf]

On this day, September 20, 1881, at 2:15 AM ET, Chester A. Arthur was sworn in as the 21st President of the United States. President James A. Garfield had been shot by Charles J. Guiteau on March 4. Garfield's condition waxed and waned for 80 days before his death at approximately 10:35 PM on September 19. Vice President Arthur, at his home in New York City, first received the news from a New York reporter around midnight. The news was shortly confirmed by a telegram from Attorney General William MacVeagh, advising Arthur "to take the oath of office as president of the United States without delay" and to return to Washington on the first train the next day. The oath would be administered to Artur by New York Supreme Court Justice John Brady at 2:15 AM. (There being some concerns about the oath being administered by a state official with no federal record, Arthur would take it again on September 22, this time administered by U.S. Chief Justice Morrison Waite).

Arthur would appoint two Supreme Court Justices: Horace Gray and Samuel Blatchford. He would also appoint David Brewer to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals. Brewer would later be elevated to the Supreme Court by President Benjamin Harrison. He also appointed Bancroft Davis to the Court of Claims. Davis would later serve as the 9th Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court.

Davis was the Reporter when the Court decided Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886), a case concerning the taxation of railroad property. The case would be largely insignificant if not for the fact that it has been repeatedly cited for the proposition that corporations are "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment, entitled to equal protection. But the Court did not say that. In fact, it explicitly said it was not deciding the question. So, why the confusion? Davis wrote in his summary headnotes of the case:

One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that 'corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.' Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.

Before publishing his headnote, Davis wrote to Waite to confirm its accuracy. Waite responded:

I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.

In sum, a very controversial proposition of law, corporate personhood, seems to originate not in a Supreme Court opinion, but from an oral statement by the Chief Justice concerning that opinion, a statement that would likely be lost to history, if it had not been noted by Bancroft Davis.

[apedad]

I initially thought the corporation-as-a-person was a bad decision.

But Prof. Volokh changed my mind in that a corporation is simply a group of like-minded people - and groups of like-minded people should have equal protection as much as an individual.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When corporations start serving prison sentences, or lose their limited liability status, I will begin to consider whether they should be treated as human beings are treat.

[ducksalad]

Defenders of Citizens United liked to mindlessy bark that corporations aren’t people, and therefore had no 1st Amendment rights. The law they were defending, of course, would put actual living people in prison for up to 5 years for making (as a group) a movie critical of Hillary Clinton.

The defenders were arguing in bad faith, trying to have it both ways.

What side did you take on Citizens United, Rev?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

None, at the moment.

[David Nieporent]

Leftists like to claim that this is the case that established corporate personhood, but they're just making it up. This may have been the first case expressly applying the 14th amendment, but it was a well-established doctrine long before that.

[F.D. Wolf]

CORRECTION: Garfield was shot on July 2, not March 4, 1881, which was the day he took office.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I thought a corporation was an *artificial* person, which used to mean the government gets to decide what personhood rights it has – now it’s escaped like a Frankenstein* and seems to operate independently of government, or at least as an equal partner rather than a subordinate.

*For those who say only the scientist, not the monster, was named Frankenstein: the monster called the scientist dad, the scientist was named Frankenstein…presumably, then, the monster thought its last name was Frankenstein, but if you disagree, explain to the monster why it’s wrong.

[Ak Mike]

Tangentially, and I concede, eccentrically, I disagree that Arthur became the president. Until the ratification of the Twenty Fifth Amendment, Article I, Section One, of the constitution, provided only that the powers and duties of the president devolve on the vice president (including in case of "inability" which presumably could be temporary), not that he actually becomes the president. In contrast, the Twenty Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1965, provides that upon death or resignation of the president, the vice president "becomes the president."

[David Nieporent]

That debate was settled when John Tyler became president, not acting president, in 1841.

[Ak Mike]

The fact that Tyler claimed to be president doesn't make it true. Trump claims to have won reelection.

[Dilan Esper]

Penn Central is wrongly decided.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Like the civil rights cases, a decision the society needed at the time but without any benefit of existing precedent.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and the result was a crime.