Today in Supreme Court History: February 27, 1901

2/27/1901: Champion v. Ames argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (decided February 27, 1990): mentally ill prisoner could be treated with psychotropic drugs against his will; finding that he was danger to himself and others by panel of correctional officials and medical professionals comported with due process

Madison v. Alabama, 586 U.S. — (decided February 27, 2019): Eighth Amendment prohibits executing prisoner who no longer knows why he is being executed; here, Court remands for finding as to whether post-conviction mental condition (caused by series of strokes) consisted of specific delusions or just overall dementia (hearing was never conducted due to Madison’s ill health; he died on Death Row a year later, age 69)

Patchak v. Zinke, 583 U.S. 244 (decided February 27, 2018): Congress did not violate separation of powers by stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear claims as to specific land given by Interior Department to Michigan tribe for casino use (the fact that Native Americans survive by fostering gambling always depresses me, even if they think they’re putting one over on the White Man)

Raygor v. Regents of University of Minnesota, 534 U.S. 533 (decided February 27, 2002): pendency of federal suit (dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds) does not toll statute of limitations for state suit (this was an age discrimination suit against a state university)

Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (decided February 27, 2001): dismissal of diversity suit in California based on California statute of limitations did not bar subsequent suit brought in Maryland state court subject to Maryland’s longer statute (suit was for “inducement of breach of contract and various business torts”)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“(the fact that Native Americans survive by fostering gambling always depresses me, even if they think they’re putting one over on the White Man)”

Well, the U. S. took all the land which was worth taking. So you have to adapt somehow, and you have to find something to do with the land that's left.

But I’d like to know what proportion of “Indians” live on reservations. The phrase “leaving the reservation” has entered the lexicon, and I presume it didn’t come out of thin air.

[Krayt]

Some of the Michigan Indian casinos are not even on the tribal land, bit over thataway at a casino area. Some kind of teleportation transubstantiation thing going on.

[defaultdotxbe]

Wasn't there also a tribe out of Connecticut(?) that was believed extinct for some 200 years that was "resurrected" when some very Caucasian-looking people petitioned the federal government for recognition and then opened a casino?

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a very real question of if any of the dozen or so people living there actually were indians — and this became a very VERY profitable casino.

The State of Maine settled with its indians in 1980 — they agreed to accept state sovereignty in exchange for lots of money. Now General Mills is talking about giving them back their sovereignty. I don’t see how that passes 14th Amendment muster — they have waived these rights, if the state gives them to them, how can others not also claim them?

The real thing here is they are waiving fish and game laws, as well as making the tribe, not the state, the environmental licensing authorty.

[Kazinski]

"Leaving the Reservation" or "Going off the Reservation" came from the 19th century when a few tribes had had enough and left the reservation to either go on the warpath, or just try to find someplace more hospitable and have a better life. See Geronimo in 1881 and 1884 for example.

In other words, an insurrection.

[F.D. Wolf]

Also decided February 27, Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922), in which a unanimous Court, per Justice Brandeis, held that the Nineteenth Amendment (extending the franchise to women) was properly ratified as part of the Constitution.

The plaintiffs in Leser had brought three objections to the Amendment: 1) that by so expanding the electorate of a state without its consent, it destroyed a state's sovereignty, and was thus an improper subject for an Amendment; 2) that several states had laws prohibiting women from voting, so those legislatures lacked the power to ratify the Amendment; and, 3) that the legislatures of Tennessee and West Virginia.

As to the first objection, the Court held that the Amendment was similar in substance to the Fifteenth Amendment, and its validity was beyond question. As to the second, the ratifying legislatures were acting in a federal capacity, transcending contrary state laws. As to the third, while subsequent ratification by two other states likely rendered the question moot, the acknowledgement of the ratifications by the Secretary of State was sufficient validation of the ratifications.

[Michael P]

and, 3) that the legislatures of Tennessee and West Virginia.

That sounds like a harsh attempted burn on those two state legislatures, but I guess the Supreme Court did not go along with it.

[F.D. Wolf]

Oops. My bad for not completing the sentence. The objection was that those state legislatures had not followed their prescribed procedures in ratifying the Amendment.

[SMP0328]

The 13th Amendment was adopted as a term of surrender in the Civil War. The 14th Amendment was adopted at gun point in some State legislatures. All that matters in Article V is that its procedures are followed in adopting an amendment. State law and voluntariness are irrelevant.

[F.D. Wolf]

Yes, that's correct. The claim was that the states legislatures had not followed their own rules. For example, in West Virginia, the state senate had initially rejected the Amendment, but then approved it in a subsequent vote. This violated a senate rule that a measure could only be considered once during the same session. The Court essentially said that didn’t matter because the state legislature was acting in a federal capacity pursuant to the federal Constitution, not bound by rules that might have applied to ordinary state legislation.

[John F. Carr]

I would uphold the action on the alternative ground that the "enrolled bill" doctrine applies. It is up to a chamber of a legislature to decide whether that chamber's rules were complied with.

[SRG2]

Re: Madison - utterly unsurprising that Thomalito dissented. Nothing should be allowed to get in the way of an execution.

[apedad]

While I somewhat agree with your sentiment of Justice Thomas, the dissent was technically based on the Court adopting a second question that was not even raised by the petitioner.

Questions

1. Does the Eighth Amendment and the Court’s jurisprudence prohibit a state from executing a prisoner whose mental disability leaves him with no memory of the commission of the capital offense?

2. Does the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment preclude a state from executing a prisoner who suffers from severe cognitive dysfunction such that he cannot remember the crime for which he was convicted or understand the circumstances of his scheduled execution?

Dissent

"After persuading the Court to grant review of this question, counsel abruptly changed course. Perhaps because he concluded (correctly) that petitioner was unlikely to prevail on the question raised in the petition, he conceded that the argument advanced in his petition was wrong, and he switched to an entirely different argument, namely, that the state court had rejected petitioner’s claim that he is incompetent to be executed because the court erroneously thought that dementia, as opposed to other mental conditions, cannot provide a basis for such a claim. See Brief
for Petitioner 16.

This was not a question that the Court agreed to hear; indeed, there is no mention whatsoever of this argument in the petition—not even a hint."

[SRG2]

My view is that if it hadn't been that argument, he would have found something else.

Is the Supreme Court bound to consider only those grounds raised by one side or the other? Alito just found something which allowed him to make the argument without stretching things.

[apedad]

Aaaaannnnnd of course Justice Thomas just hired someone who hates black people.
~~~~~
Thomas, one of two current Black Supreme Court justices, has named Crystal Clanton as a judicial clerk for the 2024-25 term, George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School — Clanton’s alma mater — wrote in a statement.

Her hiring comes more than five years after The New Yorker in 2017 obtained and published screenshots of text messages allegedly sent by Clanton, a former Turning Point USA staffer, to another staffer.

“I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like f‑‑‑ them all … I hate blacks. End of story,” Clanton wrote, according to The New Yorker.

Clanton, at the time the messages resurfaced, told The New Yorker she had “no recollection,” of the texts. She stepped down from her position at Turning Point USA in the wake of scrutiny over the text messages.

Months later in 2018, Clanton was hired by Thomas’s wife, Virginia Thomas, to assist her with right-wing media projects. Virginia Thomas spent multiple years as a special correspondent for The Daily Caller and was serving on Turning Point USA’s advisory board at the time of Clanton’s hiring.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4490167-clarence-thomas-hires-clerk-accused-of-sending-racist-texts/

[Dr. Ed 2]

She wouldn't be the first racist to realize that she didn't like specific
Black folk because of their lack of content of character.

If the only Blacks you have ever met are the BLM folk, umm...

[apedad]

Then they wouldn't be a "racist" right?

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed: "I'm not a racist because I don't hate every black person."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Ah, but all white people are intrinsically racist, so if she admits to her racism she’s ahead of the game, because at least she’s not in denial!

Maybe you're one of those people who think whites are capable of being not-racist, but if you think *that,* you’re a racist yourself (or self-hating, depending on your own race).

/sarc

[David Nieporent]

Aaaaannnnnd of course Justice Thomas just hired someone who hates black people.

We've discussed this woman several times here over the years. It is disputed whether she ever said that.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I think she said it while an undergraduate.

I’m glad social media was not around when I was an undergraduate. I’d be unemployable for life.

[Dan Schiavetta]

They seem like the same question to me, just differently worded.