Today in Supreme Court History: November 17, 1880

11/17/1880: The United States and China sign treaty that protects Chinese laborers residing in the United States. This treaty was implicated in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886).

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (decided November 17, 1980): private parties who allegedly corruptly conspired with judge to deny oil lease in violation of Due Process can still be sued under §1983 even though co-conspirator judge enjoys judicial immunity (echoes of the Watergate convictions, with Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator)

Crouch v. United States, 266 U.S. 180 (decided November 17, 1924): federal court has no jurisdiction to stay state court proceedings as to enforcement of federal court judgment

Morrissey v. Perry, 137 U.S. 157 (decided November 17, 1890): statute prohibiting enlistment under the age of 18 did not void legal obligation of soldier who enlisted at age 17 (lying about his age), deserted, then reappeared at age 21 and demanded his freedom; statute was for the benefit of parents and guardians in aid of custody and control of their children

[not guilty]

The Court in Dennis v. Sparks also opined that "Judges are immune from § 1983 damages actions, but they are subject to criminal prosecutions as are other citizens." 449 U.S. 24, 31 (1980). That is relevant to Donald Trump's attempt to extend presidential immunity from civil suit for damages, See, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), to immunity from criminal prosecution.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Court has already held that even sitting Presidents have no immunity from civil suits (the Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton case).

[F.D. Wolf]

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Court held that the President DOES have civil immunity for official acts (obviously not an issue in the Jones case.) It was a 5-4 decision. Interestingly, the dissenters alleged the Court, through its reasoning, was giving the President criminal immunity for official acts, though the majority insisted it wasn't. Trump is sure to argue presidential immunity. I'm honestly unsure why he hasn't already, as that would surely be an issue subject to interlocutory appeal.

[Krayt]

Paula Jones v. Clinton? Republicans: Rats! Hoisted by our own redirection of government power against our political enemies!

Politicians have a meme for this. "Our positions have evolved."

[David Nieporent]

​

(the Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton case).

Yes, but that was about a civil suit for a matter unrelated to his presidency (and, indeed, about a matter that entirely preceded his presidency.) As not guilty mentioned, Nixon v. Fitzgerald was about immunity from civil suit for his actions as president.

Trump's argument that there's immunity from criminal prosecution is outrageous and sanctionably frivolous.

[F.D. Wolf]

I think you may have the Crouch case mixed up with another case. That case involved the widow of a Navy sailor who had died at sea. She (technically, her guardian) was collecting monthly payments as her husband’s beneficiary of an insurance policy issued by the government. The Bureau of War Risk Insurance, however, terminated payments, alleging “misconduct” by the widow. She sued. The main holding of the Court was that it had no power to grant any relief because the United States had not given its permission to be sued in such a case. (In other words, it had not waived its sovereign immunity).

The sailor in question had been a crew member of the USS Cyclops which had set sail from Salvador, Brazil, on March 4, 1918, bound for Baltimore. It never arrived. On June 1, Assistant Navy Secretary Franklin D. Roosevelt officially declared the Cyclops, and all 306 hands aboard, lost. No trace of the Cyclops has ever been found. Officially, the Navy reported that the ship probably sank in an unexpected storm, though some have suggested it was sunk by a German U-boat. Extensive searches of German records after the war, however, have turned up no record of such a sinking. The Cyclops has figured prominently in Bermuda Triangle lore, and its disappearance has been the subject of some rather wild theories.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks -- you're right. I'm trying to find the proper case cite.

[Dan Schiavetta]

P.S. The Crouch case is more interesting so I will substitute that case (fortunately it's not a long opinion) in the future for this date. Thanks again.

As for the case involving federal court jurisdiction to stay state court enforcement proceedings, it (like The Cyclops) has mysteriously disappeared.

[Syd Henderson]

Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co. is a possibility.

[Syd Henderson]

Yep, decided on November 17, 1941. So now you can include both that and Crouch.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks! That’s it!

In Toucey, 314 U.S. 118 (1941), plaintiff’s assignee attempted to litigate a claim in state court that plaintiff had already lost on in federal court. The Court held that it was up to the state court to decide the res judicata issue without federal court interference. In dissent Justice Reed argued that the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. §2283 (restricting federal courts from staying state court proceedings) was not meant to leave federal courts powerless to protect their own judgments. In 1948 the Act was amended in accordance with his position.

BTW, §2283 deals on its face with “an injunction to stay proceedings”. The other day a Biden federal court nominee got media grief for fumbling a question on the difference between an injunction and a stay, but it was actually the questioner, Senator Kennedy of Louisiana, who was confused, and probably was unfamiliar with things like the language of the Anti-Injunction Act. In fact one or the other term is used based on context.

[Syd Henderson]

I note that the original anti-injunction act was part of the Judiciary Act of 1793, and that was what got amended in 1948. That's the second Judiciary Act (after the first one, in 1789 that created the Supreme Court, district courts, and circuit courts; courts of appeals were much later). It was pretty fundamental.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I imagine there were lots of 17 year olds (or younger) who lied about their age to get into the Army and the Court wanted to prevent a flood of desertions.

[Krayt]

statute was for the benefit of parents and guardians in aid of custody and control of their children

And not, apparrently, to stop gung ho 17 year olds from getting killed.