Today in Supreme Court History: March 4, 1861

3/4/1861: President Abraham Lincoln's inauguration.

President Abraham Lincoln

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Tsarnaev, 595 U.S. 302 (decided March 4, 2022): upholding conviction of 2013 Boston Marathon bomber; trial judge had discretion at voir dire to ask only general questions about media exposure, and to exclude at sentencing mention of brother’s triple homicide to show that defendant was not the ringleader of bombing (according to Wikipedia, attorney is as of this writing cooking up arguments for another appeal) (opportunities for agreement with Tsarnaev are limited, but he was right about trying to eat cherry tomatoes with a fork)

FBI v. Fazaga, 595 U.S. 344 (decided March 4, 2022): in suit by Muslims alleging discriminatory surveillance, Court holds that government (which opposed disclosure of surveillance materials) does not have to follow procedure in 50 U.S.C. §1806(f) for in camera inspection even though on its terms it applies when (as in this case) government asserts “state secrets” privilege (unanimous decision, in which the Court cites the leading case on the privilege, Reynolds v. United States, 1953, a case alleging death due to faulty government plane, where the government claimed the state secrets privilege and wouldn’t even allow in camera inspection; the Court doesn’t tell us that years later the Reynolds documents were declassified and showed no state secret, just an engine fire, and it refused to hear that case again)

Lawson v. FMR, LLC, 571 U.S. 429 (decided March 4, 2014): protection of whistleblower statute, 18 U.S.C. §1514A(a), extends to employees of private contractors serving publicly traded companies (here, advising as to mutual funds) (the mutual fund itself, Fidelity, had no employees; Sotomayor, joining Kennedy and Alito in dissent, points out that the phrase in §1514A(a) is “employees of publicly traded companies”)

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (decided March 4, 1998): same-sex harassment is actionable under Title VII

United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65 (decided March 4, 1998): officer can break in, damaging property (e.g., smashing in window) if knocking would reasonably result in evidence being destroyed, witnesses disappearing, or danger (i.e., “no-knock warrant”)

Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (decided March 4, 1996): Wife owned car jointly with husband. Husband convicted of sex with prostitute in car. Wife didn’t know about it. Car is still forfeited and she doesn’t get compensated for her share. Does this sound fair? The car was 11 years old and she had another car available, but still . . . 5 - 4 decision.

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (decided March 4, 1986): prisoner shot without warning during prison riot did not suffer “cruel and unusual punishment”; no showing that shooting was unnecessary or wanton

Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (decided March 4, 1985): prohibiting out-of-state lawyers from bar admission violated Privileges and Immunities Clause (though the state can still make it pretty damned inconvenient; try being a New York lawyer applying for admission in Connecticut or Vermont!)

Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (decided March 4, 1981): employer accused of sex discrimination must only give clear non-pretextual rationale for not hiring plaintiff; doesn’t have to be preponderance of evidence

Johnson v. Robinson, 415 U.S. 361 (decided March 4, 1974): not a Free Exercise violation to exclude conscientious objectors (who had completed required non-military service) from educational benefits available to veterans

[Michael P]

DuckDuckGo is failing me. What did Tsarnaev say about eating cherry tomatoes with a fork?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I can’t find it now (I think it was in an article in The Atlantic), but among his diary entries, between notes as to how to plan the bombing, he mentions how one should not eat cherry tomatoes with a fork because they either escape the plate or squirt up at you. I can identify with that.

“Hitler’s Table Talk”, a transcription of his monologues while at his “Wolf’s Lair” headquarters during the war, contains a comment about how lotion keeps his hands supple and how he uses it every day.

These are the kinds of things that I remember. What does that say about me?

[defaultdotxbe]

So he eats cherry tomatoes like Denethor in Return of the King? lol

[SRG2]

Many years ago. during the course of new associate training at Morgan Stanley in New York (I had a degree of involvement, hence my presence), there was a dinner with a guest speaker who was some kind of etiquette expert. Among the many tips was, "when you're dining with a client, do not attempt to eat cherry tomatoes".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

At my firm, we were warned not to try whole lobster, crabs, or ribs -- essentially, anything whose server brought a bib -- with clients.

A one-drink minimum (at lunch!) and two-drink maximum were suggested.

[Krayt]

Without a fork prick, how do you dip it in the little plastic cup of ranch the waitress gave to you?

[Edmund Burke's Hastings spy]

It's the fact that you report it that says tons about you.
But maybe you are kidding.

[John F. Carr]

From the Lawson decision: "The Fidelity funds are not parties to either case; as is common in the mutual fund industry, the Fidelity funds themselves have no employees."

In Massachusetts a business corporation always has employees because the directors are considered employees. I don't know the rule for LLCs, trusts, partnerships, associations, conspiracies, and so forth.

[Dilan Esper]

I really hate the Tsarnaev case, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, Massachusetts, in its wisdom, has decided there is no death penalty for murder. The two Tsarnaev brothers committed murder. They should have been tried by Mass. and gotten life in prison, the state's chosen policy for murderers. There was no federal interest here, at all. It was a local homicide case.

Second, on the merits of the case, the ONLY reason Tsarnaev got the death penalty is because his brother, the ringleader, died. This is a really bad thing about prosecutors-- they get bloodthirsty and murderous and when they can't kill the ringleader, they try to kill the underling instead. They want to get a scalp.

SCOTUS should have affirmed the First Circuit and made the prosecutor try Tsarnaev in a trial where it was absolutely clear he was the underling and the prosecutors were trying to kill the underling because the ringleader was already dead.

[wolfefan]

Johnson v Robinson is a good reminder that the govt. continues to routinely and legally discriminate on the basis of religion.

[Krayt]

The benefits are availailable to those who put their life on the line, not those who did not, be it random luck of the draft, or refusing to put their life on the line.

Feel good that that additional temptation didn't cause you to go off to war just to get it. You upheld your religious beliefs.

Besides, tax, even at the prompting of the vote, is theft, and God won't be happy about any of this!

[Edmund Burke's Hastings spy]

You reason like Macron. That ruling does indeed seem wrong but you make it religious and that is why I have to comment.

To prevent suicide bombings France wanted to ban burkas ...then a bunch of people like you (who probably detest Islam) said 'this is religious discrimination" but clearly you don't want bombers and you don't want random killing made easier ...it has zero to do with religion. Unless you like stirring up controversy 🙂

[F.D. Wolf]

The opinion in Trump v. Anderson, the Section 3 disqualification case, has been released today. Unsurprisingly, it is 9-0 for Trump. Per my brief perusal, the per curiam decision seems to be a state may disqualify candidates for state office, but not a Presidential candidate. Justice Barrett filed a concurrence. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson filed what is apparently a joint concurrence. The gist of their concurrence seems to be that the Court went farther than it had to.

[Seamus]

I suspect that Abe Lincoln wasn't the only president who was inaugurated on March 4. Maybe not even the only president inaugurated on March 4 who appointed Supreme Court justices.

[F.D. Wolf]

Indeed. Of our first 31 presidents (counting Grover Cleveland only once), from George Washington to Franklin Roosevelt, 26 had at least one of their inaugurations on March 4. The exceptions were Zachary Taylor, who refused to take the oath on March 4 because it fell on a Sunday, and John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester Arthur, all of whom were Vice Presidents who ascended to the presidency upon the death of their predecessor. (Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge likewise ascended to the presidency mid-term, but both were subsequently elected in their own rights, being inaugurated March 4.) The 20th Amendment, which moved the inauguration date from March 4 to January 20, was adopted in 1933, so Franklin Roosevelt's first term began on March 4, but his subsequent three terms began on January 20. Of the 26 presidents who were inaugurated on March 4, the only one not to appoint any Supreme Court justices was William Henry Harrison, who died one month into his term.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Of the 26 presidents who were inaugurated on March 4, the only one not to appoint any Supreme Court justices was William Henry Harrison, who died one month into his term."

You left out David Rice Atchison!

[Magister]

He wasn't actually inaugurated, on March 4th or otherwise. I suppose he could have made a bunch of recess appointments if he had wanted to cause trouble.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The 1959 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia (still the basis for my world view) said that Atchison was president for one day. A succession of elementary school teachers didn't know what I was talking about.

You're right about the unique opportunity to cause trouble. Louis Antoine (son of Charles X) was technically King Louis XIX for about twenty minutes. What if hadn't put his signature under his father's on that Instrument of Abdication?