Today in Supreme Court History: December 20, 1976

12/20/1976: Craig v. Boren decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (decided December 20, 1971): speedy trial requirement (Sixth Amendment) is not triggered until arrest (here, for business fraud, where prosecutors waited three years before arresting); the accused (or rather, future accused) is still protected by the statute of limitations

Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (decided December 20, 1976): denial of Equal Protection when Oklahoma men held to higher drinking age (21) than women (18) (opinion notes how they are treated differently anyway, with drunk men being arrested while drunk women are “chivalrously escorted home”, and how women are more affected by alcohol due to lower body weight such that statute as stands “is actually perverse”)

Hirota v. General of the Army MacArthur, 338 U.S. 197 (decided December 20, 1948): tribunals set up by military government of Japan are not part of federal court system so can’t be appealed from (officers and “high officials” of former Japanese government were jailed after being found guilty of war crimes and sought habeas)

[F.D. Wolf]

Koki Hirota had been the prime minister of Japan from 1936 to 1937. He was one of seven individuals, and the only civilian, sentenced to death for war crimes by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. All seven were hanged at Sugamo Prison in Ikebukuro, Japan, on December 23, 1948. General MacArthur, not wishing to embarrass or antagonize the Japanese people, defied the wishes of President Truman and prohibited any photography of the event.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Benevolent dictator was the role for which MacArthur was best suited. The Japanese came to respect him greatly.

[Dilan Esper]

The Hirota case is still relevant to this day. There are petitions for cert before SCOTUS debating the question of whether Congress can constitutionally expand the jurisdiction of SCOTUS over military courts-martial. One side argues, under Hirota, that military courts are not under SCOTUS jurisdiction. The other side argues they are.

[apedad]

Re: Craig v. Boren

It was a 7 - 2 decision and this was the dissent:

"Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote a brief dissent focusing primarily on the question of standing. There was no precedent, he argued, that would allow Carolyn Whitener, a saloonkeeper, to assert the constitutional rights of her customers. Justice William H. Rehnquist’s dissent was lengthier and more vehement.

Rehnquist first assailed the idea that men, as a class, were entitled to any form of heightened scrutiny. The Court had not suggested that the men in this case were the victims of 'a history or pattern of past discrimination,' and therefore in need of special protection from the Court. Rehnquist went on to accuse the majority of formulating its new equal protection standard 'out of thin air.' Its wording, he argued, was so vague as to invite judges to insert their own subjective views into the decision-making process: 'How is this Court to divine what objectives are important? How is it to determine whether a particular law is "substantially" related to the achievement of such objective, rather than related in some other way to its achievement?' The only redeeming feature of the Court’s opinion, according to Rehnquist, was that it signaled a retreat from the plurality opinion in Frontiero, in which four justices had endorsed strict scrutiny for gender discrimination claims."

https://supremecourthistory.org/classroom-resources-teachers-students/decisions-womens-rights-craig-v-boren/

"Rehnquist first assailed the idea that men, as a class, were entitled to any form of heightened scrutiny."

What an odd thing to say.

Just because men had always been the discriminators doesn't mean we couldn't be discriminated against.

[F.D. Wolf]

On this day, December 20, 1869, President Ulysses S. Grant nominated Edwin Stanton to the Court to replace Justice Robert Cooper Grier, who had announced his retirement, effective at the end of January 1870. Stanton was confirmed by the Senate the same day, and his commission was signed by Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, but it was not delivered to Stanton before his death four days later. President Grant would ultimately send the commission to Stanton's family. Congress would pass a bill paying one year's salary of an associate justice to Stanton's widow. In the concourse of the Ohio Supreme Court building there are nine plaques commemorating the Ohioans who served on the U.S. Supreme Court. One of them reads, "EDWIN McMASTERS STANTON, JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, 1869-1869," below a portrait of "Justice" Stanton.

[SRG2]

In all his time on the Court, he never dissented.

[Krayt]

Skipping that they're just being nice, does a commission need to be delivered to activate?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, as we saw with Marbury v. Madison.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In 1869, I'd say yes.

[F.D. Wolf]

Even if the commission had been delivered before his death in this case, there was still the matter of the man he was to succeed, Robert Cooper Grier, still being on the Court. Stanton, had he survived, would not have been able to take his seat until Grier officially stepped down on January 31.

This touches on the issue which sometimes arises (and has on this very blog) of whether there must be an actual vacancy, rather than merely an anticipated vacancy, before the Senate can consider and confirm an appointee. (Whatever the answer to that question may be legally, Presidents and Senates have always proceeded as if an actual vacancy is not necessary). Regardless, President Grant played it safe, waiting until Grier had actually left, before nominating William Strong to the seat on February 7, the Senate confirming Strong on February 18.

[Syd Henderson]

Reminds me of Pope-elect Stephen who died before he was consecrated which is why you see all Popes Stephen after him with two numbers starting with Stephen II (III). Apparently you're not counted as a pope now until you're consecrated.

[defaultdotxbe]

I believe canon law was changed at some point so that you are pope as soon as you accept your election, but at Stephen's time you were not pope until consecrated. After the law was changed they renamed pope-elect Stephen as Stephen II (forcing the dual numbering of subsequent Stephens) but later removed him from the official list of popes and reverted to the original numbering for the later Stephens.

It was easier for the French, since you already know who was next in line to be king they could just say "le roi est mort, vive le roi!"

[Syd Henderson]

Wikipedia says 1961 for the final removal. He's still better than John XX who didn't exist at all.