Today in Supreme Court History: January 13, 2014

1/13/2014: NLRB v. Noel Canning argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

One, Inc. v. Olsesen, 355 U.S. 371 (decided January 13, 1958): Citing its recent analysis in Roth v. United States, Court reverses Circuit Court and vacates obscenity conviction (ironically in Roth the Court had affirmed an obscenity conviction). The Circuit Court decision, 241 F.2d 772, is quite a jolt, an eloquent essay on the changing definition of obscenity (“morals are not static like the everlasting hills, but are like the vagrant breezes to which the mariner must ever trim his sails”) which turns into a gastrointestinal eruption (the magazine is “obscene and filthy”). The material at issue was a groundbreaking magazine called “One” which had fiction, articles and photographs dealing with homosexuality (both sexes). An article on “One” is at https://daily.jstor.org/one-the-first-gay-magazine-in-the-united-states/

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (decided January 13, 1988): First Amendment does not preclude school board from redacting on privacy grounds pages of high school newspaper on the lives of its pregnant students (even though names were changed) and on inappropriateness grounds mentions of sexual activity and birth control (the board’s action probably resulted in more unwanted pregnancies)

Cochnower v. United States, 248 U.S. 405 (decided January 13, 1919): Secretary of the Treasury had no power to cut customs official’s compensation (from $5 to $4 per diem) because statute empowered him only to “increase and fix” compensation, not reduce it (from the lower court opinion we see that the cut was not punishment but the result of “reorganization and reclassification”)

Babcock v. Kijakazi, 595 U.S. 77 (decided January 13, 2022): years spent by un-uniformed technician in assisting National Guard was not “years in uniformed service” so as to avoid reduction of Social Security benefits under dual-pension “windfall” rule

Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (decided January 13, 2009): conviction for failing to report to prison for violent offense was not itself a “violent felony” as an aggravating sentencing factor under the Armed Career Criminal Act (overruled as to the analysis, but not the result, by Johnson v. United States, 2015)

[Magister]

If Gorsuch is correct dissenting in Babcock v. Kijakazi that "At all times, [dual-status military technicians] must “maintain membership” in the National Guard and wear a Guard uniform while on the job." then it is hard to see how that is not "uniformed service". But eight others did not think that obvious.

The "windfall" Congress acted against is that people who earned less get larger Social Security payments (larger as a percentage of their Social Security earnings); a pretense that low earners don't really earn their Social Security pension rather than viewing Social Security as progressive taxation.

Sad that the most recent decision is the one that from its description doesn't immediately appear correct.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I agree -- but remember that Guard and Reserve retirement rules are different from active duty folk.

And what this SS rule does is really screw those who either made mid-career changes (eg between public and private sector) or those who were struggling and concurrently in both. There really ought to be a minimum (mean) level below which they don't do this.

[Magister]

People often feel stuck in jobs they don't like because they would lose extra weeks of vacation, or start again with a different pension, or lose some other benefit (which might be accepting a decrease in pay).

I wonder if this technician knew about the rules when he made his career choices; presumably not, if some of the Social Security changes were later.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" because statute empowered him only to “increase and fix” compensation, not reduce it"

That's the difference between living in a time withOUT inflation and living in one with it -- a fixed salary in an inflationary time is actually a pay CUT. To buy what $1 could buy when Trump left office will take $1.19 today...

This is going to start biting municipalities because they have been used to property values going up, increasing both the mil rate and valuation assessments for significant increases in real dollars.

[Syd Henderson]

Of course, we were in the middle of a depression when Trump left office. It would be more honest to compare prices (especially gasoline) to what things cost in January 2020.

[Magister]

Housing prices have risen and continue to do so; indeed, one would expect that in a period of high inflation. So municipalities may not suffer as much as you think. The mil rate could also increase without property values increasing.

Since the statute empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to increase compensation, inflation would not present any particular problem for him; he could address it by increasing compensation.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I was assuming the commenting today would be about One, Inc., but I was wrong.

[Magister]

I assumed it would be about the 14th amendment, section 3.