Today in Supreme Court History: February 20, 1933

2/20/1933: The 21st Amendment is submitted to the states.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (decided February 20, 1905): upholding state statute allowing local boards of health to require vaccinations (plaintiff contested Cambridge’s 1902 attempt to stem smallpox epidemic)

Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. — (decided February 20, 2019): Excessive Fines Clause of Eighth Amendment is enforceable against states under Fourteenth Amendment; remands on issue of whether civil forfeiture statute violates Clause (here, vehicle seized worth four times the heroin defendant transported in it) (Indiana Supreme Court ended up holding statute unconstitutional, 169 N.E.3d 361)

Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (decided February 20, 2013): federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of patent cases but not legal malpractice claim alleging mishandling of patent case

United States v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707 (decided February 20, 1980): IRS doesn’t need a court order to make you go to their office to provide a handwriting examplar

Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (decided February 20, 1974): housing discrimination action brought under Civil Rights Law of 1968 carries right to a jury trial, even though it didn’t exist in 1791 when the Seventh Amendment was adopted and even though it allows injunctive relief (an equitable remedy; the 7A applies only to actions at law)

[CigmaDom]

Thank you for doing these every day. I enjoy reading them and they stimulate me to read up on cases I never thought of.

Very interesting AND entertaining.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Very gratifying to see a comment like yours. That's why I do these. Thanks!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Jacobson and Timbs came out today and this is what Prof. Blackman come sup with? What a pathetic clown.

[defaultdotxbe]

Blackman typically uses the date a case was argued, not decided, for his thing. I suspect it's to avoid having to choose since multiple decisions are often published the same day, while arguments tend to be spread out more.

Although I don't think he has the Timbs argument date either.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you don't have the material to actually post something about the supreme court every day of the year, that seems like a poor editorial decision. As does failing to go back and revise it when the problem becomes apparent (after, for instance, the first year).

[defaultdotxbe]

Oh I definitely agree, there's always something that could be posted without having to resort to birthdays or amendments and the like.

I was simply pointing it that even is Blackman did all of that, he likely still wouldn't have Timbs or Jacobson on for today, he would likely post them the day they were argued. (This came up a few weeks ago when several commenters noted that he missed Roe v. Wade, I pointed out that he did include it in his list, back in October, when it was argued)

[apedad]

Re: Timbs v. Indiana

Facts of the case

Tyson Timbs purchased a Land Rover for approximately $42,000 in January 2013 using the proceeds from his father’s life insurance policy. During the following four months, Timbs used the vehicle for multiple trips within Indiana to transport heroin. After a series of controlled purchases involving a confidential informant, Timbs was arrested at a traffic stop. At the time of his arrest in May, the Land Rover had approximately 15,000 more miles on it than when he purchased it in January.

The state charged Timbs with two charges of felony dealing and one charge of conspiracy to commit theft. He later pleaded guilty to one charge of felony dealing and one charge of conspiracy to commit theft in exchange for the state dismissing the remaining charge. After accepting the plea, the trial court sentenced Timbs to six years, five of which were to be suspended. Timbs also agreed to pay fees and costs totaling approximately $1200.

In addition, the state sought to forfeit Timbs’ Land Rover. The trial court denied the state’s action, ruling that the forfeiture would be an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, characterizing it as grossly disproportional to the seriousness of the offense. The court also noted that the maximum statutory fine for Timbs’ felony dealing charge was $10,000, and the vehicle was worth roughly four times that amount when Timbs purchased it. The trial court ordered the state to release the vehicle immediately. The court of appeals affirmed.

The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the U.S. Supreme Court had never clearly incorporated the Eighth Amendment against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also ruled that the state had proven its entitlement to forfeit the Land Rover under state law.

Question

Has the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause been incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion (Unanimous!)

The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states. In an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court found that the Excessive Fines Clause finds its origins in the Magna Carta, the historic English Bill of Rights, and state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day. As such, it is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” As such, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Clause against—that is, applies to—the states with equal force as against the federal government.

Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion to acknowledge that, in his opinion, the appropriate vehicle for incorporation is the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, rather than its Due Process Clause.

Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment but expressly disagreeing with the majority’s use of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to incorporate, instead finding that the Clause must be incorporated by the Privileges or Immunities Clause. (oyez)

14A
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's seems like a minor quibble whether it's P&I or Due Process for this case.

[Syd Henderson]

It seems to me it works both ways.
Difference is that if you with P&I, then it would apply only to American citizens while if you go by due process it gives non-citizens protection as well. Is there an advantage to using P&I?

[Syd Henderson]

Now I remember. The concern is that what constitutes due process is more malleable hence gives weaker protection to citizens.