Today in Supreme Court History: January 6, 1964

1/6/1964: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (decided January 6, 1997): court can take into account preponderance of evidence of illegal possession of guns in sentencing for cocaine offense, even though acquitted of gun charge (where beyond reasonable doubt standard had been applied)

Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews, 375 U.S. 361 (decided January 6, 1964): Florida can’t require ice cream makers to buy milk in-state (violates Dormant Commerce Clause)

Heikkinen v. United States, 355 U.S. 273 (decided January 6, 1958): vacating conviction for disobeying deportation order (due to Communist Party membership) because 1) no evidence that any country was willing to receive him and 2) never told where to report for deportation

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (decided January 6, 1936): what Congress called a “tax” is not really a tax and is outside the Taxing Power (this was a “processing tax” which served to shift expenses of complying with agricultural regulations from farmers to food processors) (the Court later abandoned this restrictive view of enumerated powers, see citations in 403 F.3d 272 n.65)

[SRG2]

Re: Watts - IIRC the situation of enhancing sentences without convictions is presently being reviewed. FWIW Stevens and Kennedy dissented, Scalia concurred, and the Greatest Justice Who Ever Has Lived or Will Live was silently with the Court.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, thanks.

And I really should mention where TGJWEHLOWL stands on every case decided during His tenure.

Also I wish I could provide music cues. For example, note who shows up at 0:42 in this clip:

https://youtu.be/cDoyywKt1_0

[Mr. Bumble]

Per Curiam with two dissents and you single out Thomas?
Scalia and Bryer are the only two who wrote separately in concurrence.

[SomeGuy 2]

The objections to sentencing enhancers based on a preponderance of the evidence seem pretty frivolous to me. Defendants throw in mitigating evidence all the time and it’s held to the same standard; on advice of counsel, defendants will always say “I had a bad childhood” and pretend to be sorry about whatever it is they did. That’s factored into their favor and generally just on their say-so; everybody understands mitigating factors are mere preponderance. Well, aggravating factors are too. If you want to move aggravating factors to “beyond a reasonable doubt,” then the bar moves for mitigating factors too.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It's not a symmetrical situation. We require beyond a reasonable doubt because it means prison. It should also be required for more prison.

[SomeGuy 2]

No way. Aggravating factors are considered all the time-- such as the rare defendant who doesn't even pretend to be sorry. The idea that you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant shows no remorse is preposterous. It doesn't change just because the aggravating factor is its own crime. So if the sentence for what the defendant is actually convicted of is (say) 5-10 years, then the judge has to stay within 5 to 10. But what the judge considers in choosing a number between those figures all comes in under the same standard, because we shouldn't a one way ratchet rule that only benefits criminals. If you want beyond a reasonable doubt for aggravating factor then fair's fair, defendant has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they had a bad childhood or whatever other mitigating figure they have to offer.

[David Nieporent]

The really controversial issue isn't merely enhancing sentences "without convictions," but enhancing sentences after acquittal.

[SomeGuy 2]

Heikkinen is definitely an instance of formalism working in favor of a criminal defendant. Dude was a citizen of both Finland and Canada, the notion that the government has to prove that he could make it all the way to the distant land of... Canada... is preposterous. That being said, locking somebody up and forcing them to stay in the USA because they violated a deportation order is only slightly less ludicrous. Should have simply bought him a one way ticket to Vancouver.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If Trump loses the next election, what will happen one year from now, on Jan. 6, 2025? The same thing that happened on Jan. 6, 2021? Discuss. Be polite and respectful.

[SomeGuy 2]

The Presidential numbering gets even more messed up. I'm still irate that Grover Cleveland is counted twice.

[David Nieporent]

The good news from that perspective is that if that happens you can stop memorizing; there will never be a 48.

[Mr. Bumble]

If he (Trump) loses it will depend on how he lost. Another "fortified" election with last minute voting rule changes or questionable vote counting procedures and I could see multiple court challenges. However, if it is an honest election I see him heading to Mar-a-Lago and continuing to defend against any unresolved law suits and probable new ones.

[SRG2]

If he (Trump) loses it will depend on how he lost.

Nope. If he loses he will claim fraud regardless. That's his MO. After all, even if you credit some of the stories around the time of the election as at least indicating the possibility of fraud, the last three years have made it abundantly clear that Trump's loss was entirely legitimate. But has that changed Trump's publicly-expressed opinions? No.

He is a bad loser, period.

[Mr. Bumble]

..."the last three years have made it abundantly clear that Trump’s loss was entirely legitimate."
What, in the last three years, has made it abundantly clear?

[David Nieporent]

What, in the last three years, has made it abundantly clear?

The fact that, despite intense efforts from Trump and his allies, not one shred of evidence has come out, anywhere, showing otherwise.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These ignorant, delusional, un-American dumbasses are your target audience, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason your stale, ugly conservative thinking is doomed as modern American continues to progress against your wishes and efforts.

You get to continue to whine, cry, and bluster about it as much as you like, of course. Just maybe not from mainstream campuses.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Alas, their company motto -- "Come In Here and Get Cold!" -- did not go over well in Point Barrow, Alaska, and their shop there had to close during the winter of 1962.