Today in Supreme Court History: March 2, 2016

3/2/2016: Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (decided March 2, 1824): power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce also includes navigation (this holding became huge as technology advanced; it later was applied to trains, automobiles, radio, etc. — to my mind the 19th century, more than the 20th or any other century, was the most transformative, as to technology and how it changed our lives)

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (decided March 2, 2011): odious acts of Westboro Baptist Church (holding signs at burials of servicemen killed in the line of duty saying they were killed by God as punishment for nation’s acceptance of gay rights) did not hinder burial and were protected by First Amendment; dismisses grieving father’s suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress

Clay v. Field, 138 U.S. 464 (decided March 2, 1891): another case holding that pre-Civil War plantation’s value is what it was worth with the use of slaves but not including value of the slaves themselves

Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (decided March 2, 2010): after conviction for possession of ammunition, prior state conviction for battery was not predicate for increased sentence under Armed Career Criminal Act; state statute as to battery did not necessarily involve “physical force” as required by ACCA, just “touching”

v. United States, 526 U.S. 23 (decided March 2, 1999): trial judge must advise convicted felon of his right to appeal sentence but if he knows about this anyway it’s harmless error if judge forgets to tell him

Packwood v. Senate Select Committee on Ethics, 510 U.S. 1319 (decided March 2, 1994): Rehnquist rejects Senator Packwood’s argument that his Fourth Amendment right to privacy is violated by Senate Ethics Committee subpoena for his diaries; doubts four Justices would grant cert (though it never got that far; accused of sexual harassment, Packwood resigned)

Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146 (decided March 2, 1993): creation of majority-minority districts did not necessarily violate Voting Rights Act prohibition on vote dilution (Virginia legislature was aiming for 55% black representation in that part of the state)

New York v. O’Neill, 359 U.S. 1 (decided March 2, 1959): Dormant Commerce Clause not violated by statutes in 42 states permitting witnesses to be subpoenaed in criminal cases for testimony out-of-state

United States v. New York, 315 U.S. 510 (decided March 2, 1942): The United States and New York fight over distribution of bankrupt employer’s assets to pay taxes due. Byrnes talks about “arithmetic” versus “quadratic” formulas for determining setoff (but I don’t see any math in the opinion); holds that unpaid social security taxes (federal) are offset by unemployment fund taxes (state).

Whitfield v. Ohio, 297 U.S. 431 (decided March 2, 1936): Ohio statute prohibiting sale of prison-made goods did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause even though it included prison-made goods from out of state (sale was of “men’s work shirts”)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“v. United States,”

?

I think that should say Peguero v. United States.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/23/

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks! Sorry for the typo

[Krayt]

Clay v. Field

Pattie A. Field, now Pattie A. Clay by intermarriage with Brutus J. Clay the younger. After the death of Christopher I. Field, and in October, 1867, Brutus J. Clay, the elder,

Strunk and White prefer the comma before “Jr.” as it’s technically descriptive and not really part of a name. Here’s a rare case to follow the rule, or not, with an even older form. Was one of the two a mistake? Which one? Or were they using the form each used on their own self-descriptions?

I ran off to get the etymology of junior, even as I did so I realized it must be a twist on "younger", sure enough. The forms are not really different. Same for Sr.

[Michael P]

I don't think either is necessarily a mistake. A person's legal name does not change when they give a child the parent's name, but the child is "Junior" or "the younger" from birth, and often denoted as such on their birth certificate.

(And, of course, Indiana was the dog's name.)

[Bob from Ohio]

Brutus J. Clay the younger was the nephew of the elder so not a "junior"

[Magister]

to my mind the 19th century, more than the 20th or any other century, was the most transformative, as to technology and how it changed our lives

A lot of technologies were invented in the 19th century that only affected our lives in the 20th century. For example, agriculture in the US was largely not mechanized in 1900 but shifted massively in a half century. Radio was invented in the 19th century but did not become available to the public until the 20th century. Cars were invented in the 19th century but there were only thousands at the start of the 20th century; the Industrial Revolution needed the 20th century mass production of Henry Ford. Applying the technology is as important as demonstrating its possibility; ancients may have demonstrated some 19th century technologies (the Baghdad battery, Heron's engine) but nothing came of them. (Although batteries and steam engines were also invented in the late 18th century.)

So yes for 19th century technologies, no for the 19th century itself.

[Dan Schiavetta]

What I meant was to compare the world of 1800 with the world of 1900. By 1900 we had had trains for some time. We also had automobiles, photography, the phonograph, and of course electricity with its many uses such as the telegraph, the telephone, electric light, hydroelectric power (and we were about to have airplanes and radio). In 1800 none of these existed. The big invention was the taming of electricity which made possible everything invented later on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Doing some research once, I was going through old mail -- I was amazed at how much the mail improved (speed & professionalism) 1800-1830.

[Magister]

Well, mostly "we" didn't have these things at the start of the 20th century. Airplanes, television, computers, insulin, antibiotics and a host of other new technology that we have benefited from, all within half a century.

[SMP0328]

To what extent, if any, is While Women's Health v. Hellerstedt still good law after Dobbs? It seems to me While Women's Health was effectively overruled in 2022.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I commented on Hellerstedt on June 27. I said there that, inasmuch as it noted the “undue burden” the Texas law placed on women’s right to abortion, it’s probably no longer good law after Dobbs when that right disappeared. But I’m no expert on the subject.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow! "Hellerstedt" is a precedent that won't be overturned anytime soon!