Today in Supreme Court History: February 16, 1833

2/16/1833: Barron v. City of Baltimore decided.

Comments

[SMP0328]

With a few exceptions, Barron v. Baltimore was abrogated/overruled by the 14th Amendment.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Terms that are confused. To me, "overruled" means a court holds that a prior decision it made is no longer good law (Brown overruled Plessy), and "abrogated" means the earlier decision was negated by a higher authority (Barron was abrogated by the Fourteenth Amendment). But the two terms are often used interchangeably and I'm not in a position to impose a rule on when to use one or the other.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

How about "made it cry like a b____"?

[Jonathan Affleck]

So how should we use the word "overturn"?

[Dan Schiavetta]

That seems more appropriate for when an appellate court reverses a holding from a lower court in the same case.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Isn’t that “reversed”?

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Reversed" and "overturned" seem to have a similar meaning.

[Michael Resanovic (still highly opinionated)]

This is really not accurate, even if one is a diehard incorporationist.

It's very common to conflate the rights protected by the first eight amendments with the first eight amendments themselves.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (decided February 16, 1833): Bill of Rights (here, the Fifth Amendment takings clause) applies only to federal action, not state (Barron could not get compensation for City’s modification of stream which silted up his wharf) (I suppose the Maryland constititution had no takings clause); abrogated by the Fourteenth Amendment

Fisher v. Hurst, 333 U.S. 147 (decided February 16, 1948): In Sipuel v. Board of Regents, January 12, 1948, summarized above, the Court had ruled that the University of Oklahoma could not refuse an applicant on account of race, and had remanded the case back to the District Court for implementation. But the District Court ordered that either Ms. Sipuel be admitted, or that UO set up a separate school of law for black students! Here the Court affirms that ridiculous ruling. (The separate law school, “Langston University School of Law”, with her as the only student, didn’t last long. She refused to attend, threatened to sue again, and UO gave in and let her into their existing law school.)

Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (decided February 16, 1948): product for injecting nitrogen-fixing bacteria into legumes not patentable; effective agent was the bacteria which is found in nature

The Caledonian, 17 U.S. 100 (decided February 16, 1819): “prize of war” can be captured after it arrives at port (this was an American vessel, with a cargo of rice, captured by the British during the War of 1812)

Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co., 333 U.S. 138 (decided February 16, 1948): landlord in “Cleveland Defense Rental Area” fails in his attempt to raise rents 40% - 60%; violated Housing and Rent Act of 1947, which was proper extension of War Powers Act because it dealt with dislocations caused by war

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In hindsight, the beginning of the end for segregated public education was in 1938 when the Court said they'd start enforcing the "equal" part of "separate but equal." They'd eventually "discover" that you can have one or the other, but not both.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I agree -- the Gaines case -- see my comment below.

[Commenter_XY]

Whatever happened to Ms. Sipuel? I bet there is a story there.

[Dan Schiavetta]

When I summarized the earlier case on January 12, someone said that he actually met her later on.

[defaultdotxbe]

I found this, not a ton of detail but some interesting back story on the case

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2022/02/25/remembering-remarkable-life-ada-lois-sipuel-fisher/6924051001/

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

I did not know about the Gaines case, 305 U.S. 337 (1938). The Court's unanimous decision there -- that Missouri must allow blacks the same in-state opportunity to attend law school as whites -- seemed to allow the establishment of a separate law school for black students, as was permitted in the Fisher case. We were still in the era of "separate but equal".

[Commenter_XY]

There is a hit historical movie, just waiting to be created. Too bad we don't hear more about the Ada Sipuel-Fisher's of the world. Sounds like a hell of a story.

[David Nieporent]

The fact that she was a woman attempting to be a lawyer in that era was itself unusual.

[Commenter_XY]

Absolutely. This is a story waiting to be told. And it sounds like a good one, too.

[Frank Drackman]

Have you ever seen a sadder face than that Nathan Wade frown