Today in Supreme Court History: January 26, 1832

1/26/1832: Justice George Shiras Jr.'s birthday.

Justice George Shiras Jr.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Crawford v. Nashville, 555 U.S. 271 (decided January 26, 2009): Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids retaliation against an employee who makes an accusation of sexual harassment. Here the Court holds that it also protects an employee who reports sexual harassment only after being asked about it by the employer’s agent as part of an investigation into the alleged harasser. (That’s right: at a presumably confidential investigative interview she was asked if she’d heard about this guy harassing anyone, she said yes, and she got fired for it.)

Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (decided January 26, 2009): Warrantless patdown of passenger justified during Terry stop (expired registration) when answers and clothing gave indicia of gang membership (Crips) and defendant had a police scanner in his pocket (handy for a getaway car). The opinion contains a good, brief summary of traffic stop law that began with Terry.

United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (decided January 26, 1976): Postal inspectors can arrest you if you have stolen mail (or even for any felony, evidently even if unconnected with mail, 18 U.S.C. §3061(a)(2)). Here, the Court holds that an arrest in a restaurant did not need a warrant, after a “reliable informant” told the inspector that defendant possessed stolen credit cards. (My old girlfriend worked for the county Weights and Measures Bureau, going around in her uniform testing meat scales in stores, etc., and learned that technically she had the power to arrest people. She never did, of course, but it would have been fun to do her last day on the job.)

Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (decided January 26, 1959): warrantless arrest allowed where informant had described what train defendant would be stepping off of, what he would be wearing, the color of his satchel (which contained heroin), and that he would be walking fast

Shapiro v. Doe, 396 U.S. 488 (decided January 26, 1970): Court dismisses appeal of decision invalidating requirement that mother of non-martial children receiving welfare reveal the name of the man she was living with, because appeal deadline was missed by one day; Black and Douglas dissent, arguing that the Constitutional issues are important enough to invoke Court’s power to overlook deadline in the interest of justice (I don’t think the Court ever got another chance to address this question)

[Krayt]

mother of non-martial children

I hope most children are non-martial.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Oops!

[defaultdotxbe]

Ever been headbutted in the groin by a toddler? They are all pretty martial.

[Magister]

I think that's more feral than martial.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mine broke my nose playing leapfrog.

[Magister]

In Arizona v. Johnson, how would something in his pocket justify a patdown to find out what is in his pocket? (Famously, Bilbo Baggins correctly refused to say what was in his pocket.) The scanner was said to be seen in his jacket pocket before the patdown, but he was also suspicious because he kept his eyes on the police who stopped them, which seems unsurprising behavior. Maybe the gang clothing alone was reasonably grounded suspicion.

[Krayt]

I wondered this, too. But it was a police scanner, so maybe it was blabbing on and on.

[David Nieporent]

(That’s right: at a presumably confidential investigative interview she was asked if she’d heard about this guy harassing anyone, she said yes, and she got fired for it.)

Allegedly. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the grounds that responding to the question did not constitute protected activity under Title VII. So it never addressed whether the stated reason for firing her — embezzlement — was pretextual.

[Noscitur a sociis]

True, but following remand it proceeded to a trial, and the jury found that the school district had indeed retaliated against the plaintiff, and awarded several hundred thousand dollars in damages.

[David Nieporent]

Thanks. (Who looks at what happens after remand? Nerd.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good point!

[Commenter_XY]

More like Nepotism. 🙂

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You bet Shiras it is.