Today in Supreme Court History: December 11, 1922

12/11/1922: Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. — (decided December 11, 2020): Texas has no standing to contest how other states conduct their elections (the Constitutional objection argued appears to be that Biden actually lost)

Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (decided December 11, 2006): fact that judge allowed murder victim’s family to sit in front row at trial wearing buttons with victim’s photo did not entitle defendant to habeas relief (because allowing this was not contrary to “clearly established” federal law, 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1))

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (decided December 11, 1922): legislature violated Contracts Clause rights of mining company by prohibiting mining that would cause subsidence damage to private property (in effect overruled by Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 1987)

[Dilan Esper]

Carey really shows you the problem with AEDPA, the restrictive habeas law. You have to have clearly established law FROM THE US SUPREME COURT to win. That means the Court has to grant cert and rule for you unless they had already granted cert and ruled for someone else with a similar case. What are the chances of that happening, especially since SCOTUS really only becomes interested in issues after a circuit split in most instances.

So here you have a guy who clearly didn't get a fair trial, and he can't get cert because it's just a fair trial claim, and doesn't raise a high stakes issue of federal law with a circuit split, and also can't get habeas because SCOTUS hasn't spoken on the issue.

AEDPA is a bad statute. I am fine with deterring frivolous habeas petitions by prisoners with nothing better to do. But AEDPA went far beyond that and denies a bunch of habeas petitions with real merit.

[Dan Schiavetta]

True. AEDPA was one of the "tough on crime" statutes the aggressively pro-death penalty Clinton gladly signed into law.

Some law is so "clearly established" that nobody's bothered to contest it. The Court would never get to rule on it.

[John F. Carr]

The Court has one chance at the case during the direct appeal process.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't think that would be in the record on the direct appeal.

[John F. Carr]

Texas v. Pennsylvania made sense to me when it was decided, before I learned about the broad scope of the law about conspiriacy against federal rights. Conspiring to tamper with even one meaningless vote in a federal election violates the civil rights of all voters. Such a conspiracy is one of the charges against Trump; it is not necessary to prove intent to change the outcome to convict him on that charge.

[SRG2]

Texas showed that Trump et al had no proof of fraud. Trump’s amicus brief argued that state processes made fraud effectively impossible to find, not that there was any. And it is also significant that no state actually joined Texas.

But the fraudists don’t care, of course. as they know that the real evidence of fraud is being kept in the basement of a pizza parlour, protected by weaponised adrenochrome.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t think this mass delusion (currently afflicting about 40% of the population and apparently leading to Trump’s re-election if nothing changes) could have happened in pre-internet days. You couldn’t believe (for example) that fluoridation was a Communist plot without the pervasive presence of TV and newspapers, where it was explained as a legitimate public health measure. Nowadays you can sit at your computer and not have to hear any contrary assertions at all.

[SRG2]

I am still not sure how many Republicans actually believe there was sufficient fraud to affect the election, and how many just say they do in the manner of Christians going along with the Nicene Creed.

But I am sure that in both cases, for those who believe, no amount of evidence will be sufficient to change their beliefs.