Today in Supreme Court History: February 23, 1905

2/23/1905: Lochner v. New York argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (decided February 23, 2005): unwritten state policy of segregating new double-celled prisoners by race must be examined under “strict scrutiny” (case then settled; prisons are taking a go-slow approach to in-cell integration, I think understandably)

Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544 (decided February 23, 2004): prosecution for cocaine possession can proceed despite police disposal of cocaine seized; defendant had been on the lam for 10 years, disposal was per normal procedures, and presence of cocaine at trial was unlikely to be exculpatory (to state the obvious)

Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307 (decided February 23, 2011): Court cannot review state’s dismissal of habeas proceeding; failure to meet state statute of limitations was “independent state ground” for dismissal

Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 562 U.S. 323 (decided February 23, 2011): federal regulation allowing option of simple lap belt (I miss those) vs. lap-and-shoulder belt did not preempt state law claim that fatal accident would have been prevented had manufacturer installed lap-and-shoulder belt

Packer Corp. v. Utah, 285 U.S. 105 (decided February 23, 1932): upholds against discrimination, Dormant Commerce Clause and due process arguments Utah statute prohibiting tobacco advertising on billboards and placards but not in newspapers or magazines (the public can’t avoid seeing billboards, but to see an ad in a newspaper you have to buy it)

[Dilan Esper]

presence of cocaine at trial was unlikely to be exculpatory

Maybe not, but it could have made the trial more fun.

[Krayt]

Packer Corp. v. Utah, 285 U.S. 105 (decided February 23, 1932): upholds against discrimination, Dormant Commerce Clause and due process arguments Utah statute prohibiting tobacco advertising on billboards and placards but not in newspapers or magazines (the public can’t avoid seeing billboards, but to see an ad in a newspaper you have to buy it)

I can’t conceive it was about health in 1932. Therefore what was government doing censoring advertisement for legal products?

I can imagine reasons, none really legitimate. The purpose of speech is to affect the behavior of others. Is this attempting to forbid speech used in its purpose?

ETA: Yep. Someone didn't like out of state cigarrette competition "for some reason."

[Dan Schiavetta]

It was probably for “moral” reasons, where Utah Mormonism led the way. At Brigham Young University, caffeine was prohibited.

[F.D. Wolf]

This was Utah, so it was the influence of Mormonism, in which tobacco use is prohibited. Initially all tobacco advertising was banned, but the state supreme court had ruled that bans in periodicals that circulated outside Utah would violate the Commerce Clause, so the legislature created the exemption for periodicals.

[Dilan Esper]

Obviously it was a morals statute, but I will say that the Surgeon General was not the first anyone heard of health issues with cigarette smoking. People observed smokers get lung problems, have hacking coughs, etc., long before the 1960's.

[F.D. Wolf]

Have you not reason then to bee ashamed, and to forbeare this filthie noveltie, so basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossely mistaken in the right use thereof? In your abuse thereof sinning against God, harming your selves both in persons and goods, and raking also thereby the markes and notes of vanitie upon you: by the custome thereof making your selves to be wondered at by all forraine civil Nations, and by all strangers that come among you, to be scorned and contemned. A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.

- King James I, A Counterblaste to Tobacco (1604)

[Dilan Esper]

That's perfect. Thank you.