Today in Supreme Court History: December 4, 1933

12/4/1933: Nebbia v. New York argued.

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

New Jersey v. City of New York, 290 U.S. 237 (decided December 4, 1933): imposes penalties against NYC for not complying with earlier order prohibiting dumping garbage into ocean next to New Jersey

Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (decided December 4, 2012): flooding by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (water released from dam) which destroyed state’s downstream timber crop is a “taking” even if only temporary

Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23 (decided December 4, 2007): exemption to sentence aggravation under Armed Career Criminal Act for those who have “had civil rights restored” did not apply to defendant who had otherwise applicable prior convictions but who had never had civil rights taken away

[Dilan Esper]

New Jersey v. City of New York- even if you hadn't told me the facts, I would have guessed it was something like that just based on the parties.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The most obvious case name (where you knew exactly what it was about just from the title) was Carson v. Here's Johnny! Portable Toilets, Inc., 498 F. Supp. 71 (E.D. Mich. 1980), which was in our Remedies textbook.

[Dilan Esper]

I've cited the Carson case before!

[Dan Schiavetta]

He was a very good interviewer. See his interviews with Billy Graham and Fred Rogers.

Also I liked his monologues. He was actually funnier when his jokes bombed.

[Dilan Esper]

Nobody in history was ever better at rescuing a bombed joke.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My guess is that it was washing ashore on the beaches of New Jersey.

Monhegan Island (ME) is a tourist resort about 11 miles offshore and they used to dump their trash at sea. In heavy-duty plastic bags which then proceeded to wash ashore elsewhere. The Maine DEP agreed to put an end to this, largely because the other communities were willing to resolve it themselves, with firearms.

Actually, it was when they started using the plastic garbage bags it became a problem because they were far enough offshore for the cardboard boxes and paper bags to break down and hence not be clearly identifiable as their garbage.

[F.D. Wolf]

On this day, December 4, 1804, the House of Representatives voted to adopt eight articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, generally alleging unfairness and bias on the bench. A transparently partisan move by the Jeffersonians, some of the charges would strike the modern reader as odd. For example, Chase was charged with instructing jurors on the law of a case. While today it is universally accepted that a judge determines questions of law, and a jury determines questions of fact, such was not yet the case in the Early Republic, where many attorneys felt it was their prerogative to argue the proper interpretation of law to the jury.

Presiding over Chase's trial in the Senate was Vice President Aaron Burr, who was at the time under indictment in both New York and New Jersey for the murder of Alexander Hamilton. By all accounts, Burr conducted the trial well and fairly. The Democratic-Republicans held a 25-9 majority over the Federalists in the Senate, possessing themselves more than the 23 votes required for conviction. Nevertheless, Chase was acquitted on all charges, garnering at least 6 Democratic-Republican votes on every article. The nine Federalist senators, as expected, unanimously voted "not guilty" on every article. The closest vote on any article was 19-18 in favor of conviction, three votes shy of the two-thirds necessary for a conviction.

Justice Chase would continue to serve on the Court until his death in 1811, and a precedent was set that political differences alone would not suffice to remove a federal judge from office.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Chase's charge to the Baltimore Grand Jury was over the edge and worthy of Impeachment.

[F.D. Wolf]

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, and it is not completely without merit. The speech was highly partisan and unbecoming of a judge. Chase despised the Jeffersonians and wasn't shy about saying so. One could very easily draw parallels to certain federal judges today. That was the article which garnered the most "guilty" votes. Nevertheless, for good or ill, the Senate did not convict him, and the precedent was set. Excessive partisanship was not deemed an impeachable "misdemeanor".

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was a different time, but I still don't understand (a) why he was addressing the Grand Jury (isn't that something a USA does?), and (b) how we came to have to have the full text of what was a secret proceeding.

Or was the "charge" a pro-forma proceeding along the lines of swearing them in and a basic "Civics 101" speech thanking them for serving? If so, then the speech also makes more sense -- and is slightly less damning.

[F.D. Wolf]

CORRECTION: The vote was 19-15, not 19-18 (there were 34 total senators).

[Syd Henderson]

Isn't that four votes shy of conviction?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It requires 2/3 — a majority to impeach (which is how Pelosi could do it) but 2/3 (of members present) to convict in the Senate.

[F.D. Wolf]

Yes. 23-19 is indeed 4, not 3. Math was never my strongest subject.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember that it 2/3 of Senators PRESENT -- so deciding not to show up can create all kinds of differing combinations of votes necessary to convict.

This happened with one of the SCOTUS nominees, a Republican Senator had a family emergency so a Democratic Senator agreed not to show up for the vote so that the Republican Senator didn't have to.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Chase’s defense was that he *hadn’t* taken from the jury their prerogative of judging the law.

Today, of course with our greater sophistication, we know that if juries could judge the law, the heavens would roll up like a scroll and giant fiery scorpions would descend upon the earth to swallow our souls. But this insight hadn’t yet been reached in 1804.