Today in Supreme Court History: March 8, 1841

3/8/1841: Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's birthday.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (decided March 8, 1971): the first case holding that policies which had a “disparate impact” were racially discriminatory under Civil Rights Act of 1964 (here, requiring intelligence tests which those with high school diplomas were far more likely to pass, where whites were far more likely to be high school graduates and tests were not related to job ability)

Choctaw Nation of Indians v. United States, 318 U.S. 423 (decided March 8, 1943): resolving a dispute as to lands allotted to the Choctaws and Chickasaws in 1866, under an agreement where they agreed to free their slaves and provide them with an allotment; it looks like only with this decision were the freedmen finally given their allotments, after being in a legal limbo for 77 years

Crawford v. United States, 541 U.S. 36 (decided March 8, 2004): the Court returns to traditional evidentiary rules and prohibits out of court statements in criminal trials; assault defendant’s wife’s statement as to defendant stabbing her rapist, taped and played to the jury without opportunity for cross-examination, held inadmissible under Confrontation Clause no matter how “reliable” (overruling Ohio v. Roberts, 1980, where the out-of-court witness had been subjected to questioning that was “the equivalent of cross-examination”)

Building & Constr. Trades Council v. Associated Builders & Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, 507 U.S. 218 (decided March 8, 1993): National Labor Relations Act does not preempt Massachusetts regulations as to what a collective bargaining agreement has to contain before state awards contract to management

Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197 (decided March 8, 1993): Antarctica was “foreign country” (even though there’s no government there) so outside purview of Federal Tort Claims Act; widow of federal contractor employee who fell into crevasse in snow field can’t sue

Danforth’s Lessee v. Thomas, 14 U.S. 155 (decided March 8, 1816): can’t enter Indian lands to survey for possible partition; strict construction of state statute, leaving aside whether treaties gave Indians right of property or merely use and enjoyment

Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239 (decided March 8, 1920): upholds guilty verdict in Espionage Act/conspiracy case; handing out leaflets protesting war (“The Price We Pay”) could be said to impede war effort and encourage insubordination; the dissent by Brandeis, joined by Holmes, goes through the facts of the case and is pretty convincing, I think

Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234 (decided March 8, 1993): Court of Appeals should not have dismissed appeal of narcotics conviction due to defendant’s escaping custody; recaptured before appeal went forward and it was up to the trial court to impose any sanctions

Bread Political Action Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 455 U.S. 577 (decided March 8, 1982): trade association and political action committee did not have standing to invoke expedited review of issue of constitutionality of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (currently codified at 52 U.S.C. §30110); statute affords expedited review only to “The Commission, the national committee of any political party, or any individual eligible to vote for President” (plaintiffs, ironically or maybe obviously, were objecting to the part of the Act which limited solicitations by trade associations and political action committees) (the Court has since eviscerated the Act anyway)

Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481 (decided March 8, 1971): deadline for filing cert petition is not jurisdictional; cert allowed because defendant (convicted of counterfeiting) was waiting for word from Court of Appeals on rehearing; case did not abate when defendant died, but cert. granted and case remanded to District Court with instructions to dismiss (this part of the case was overruled by Dove v. United States, 1976)

[SMP0328]

Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239 (decided March 8, 1920): upholds guilty verdict in Espionage Act/conspiracy case; handing out leaflets protesting war (“The Price We Pay”) could be said to impede war effort and encourage insubordination; the dissent by Brandeis, joined by Holmes, goes through the facts of the case and is pretty convincing, I think

The dissent is common sense now. The idea that criticizing a US war effort would impede that effort or, in any way, make insubordination more likely is pure speculation and absurd. This was the time when the Court had little to no respect for individual rights (e.g., Buck v. Bell (1927)).

[Noscitur a sociis]

Crawford v. United States, 541 U.S. 36 (decided March 8, 2004): the Court returns to traditional evidentiary rules and prohibits out of court statements in criminal trials

This is a bit of an overstatement: everyone agrees that some out of court statements are permissible. But every justice seems to have a fundamentally different theory about which ones and why, making for a pretty doctrinally incoherent area of the law (and one that seems to get more confused with each subsequent opinion).

[Frank Drackman]

Rollie Fingers has aged well!

[#FFFFFFPride]

I know it's not Open Thread, but I am just curious.

Is interfering with the President's motorcade with road blocks on his way to SOTU "obstructing an official proceeding"?

[Bob from Ohio]

Depends, who was doing it? Trump supporters, certainly. Leftists, of course not, silly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is why Trump will win -- Biden is in a no win situation -- he can pander to Hamas and lose the Jewish vote, or not and deal with this.

If the Jews vote for Trump -- which they should -- then it's like Reagan '84.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Well really, you shouldn’t say “the Jews” as if they’re one homogenous entity.

There seems to be two big broad categories that don’t necessarily share the same visions.

One, the secular Jews. These are the globalists, billionaires, puppeteers, and international Marxists.

Then there are the Zionist Jews. These are the ones you’re referring too. They aren’t as powerful as the Marxists.

The international Marxists don't really care about Israel as a sovereign nation and aren't persuaded by appeals to Jew nationalism.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm not so sure -- some of the international Marxists are starting to realize that "Kill the Jews" includes killing *them*.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Could you imagine what the world would look like if there were no Marxists?

International or otherwise?

[John F. Carr]

Imagine no more Marxists,
It's easy if you try.
No Karl below us,
No Engels, only sky.

[#FFFFFFPride]

And 100s of millions of people,
who didn't die.

[Sarcastr0]

the secular Jews. These are the globalists, billionaires, puppeteers, and international Marxists

Antisemitism aimed at a subset of the Jews is still antisemitism.

Gonna talk about the secular Jews' Protocols next?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Can you explain how that comment is "antisemitism"?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Personally, I would categorize it as more moronic than antisemitic. But that's how we international Marxist secular Jews roll.

[Sarcastr0]

"the globalists, billionaires, puppeteers, and international Marxists"

These are all well known antisemetic tropes.

[David Nieporent]

If the Jews vote for Trump — which they should — then it’s like Reagan ’84.

Setting aside Dr. Ed's comical attempt to goysplain Jewish thought, how many Jews does he think there are in the United States?

[defaultdotxbe]

Enough to swing an election if they all voted, did so as a single bloc, and the electoral college wasn't a thing.

Of course they don't all vote, don't do so a single bloc, and the electoral college is still a thing, so I don't know what Ed's thinking is here.

[bernard11]

If the Jews vote for Trump — which they should

Fuck you, Ed.

You have zero business talking about how "the Jews" should vote. We are perfectly capable of making up our own minds, and most of us (like most people in general) are a lot smarter than you are.

[SRG2]

Amusing question, up there with, is tearing up your copy of the SOTU destruction of an official document? I seem to recall some on the right claiming it was.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Why is tearing up a piece of paper similar to blocking the President's motorcade to keep him from getting to an official event?

[Voize]

Several people including Matt Gaetz argued that when Pelosi tore up the SOTU she violated 18 U.S.C. § 2071(a) which says

Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both

Others responded along the lines of "don't be ridiculous, it was her own copy, she can do whatever she wants with it". As sensible as that seems, the leading case on §2071 is U.S. v Lang, 364 F. 3d 1210 (2004) from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal. That court held that once a document is "filed or deposited" according to the statute then copies of that document are also deemed to be filed or deposited and subject to the same protection.

Never fear though, Blackman and Tillman to the rescue. You see, the original document was deposited with the President and, as we all have been taught here many times over, he isn't an "officer of the United States"!

[David Nieporent]

I don't think Lang helps here. Lang was about making a copy of something that had already been filed. Presumably this copy was made before it was filed.

[Voize]

Filed or deposited.
Forget about copying, when Trump handed the copy to Pelosi was he depositing it with her? Was she a public officer of the United States?
OK, this is pretty high on the absurdity scale, but so was Lang, the dissent had much the better argument.

[Sarcastr0]

In person SOTUs are completely voluntary. More political than ministerial.
Nothing breaks if they don't happen.

Blocking the motorcade is Still illegal behavior, but I don't think we need to go full insurrection.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How did the USSS know that there wasn't someone there with a rocket launcher? Stopping the motorcade is SERIOUS!!!

[Sarcastr0]

The scope of the original question was '“obstructing an official proceeding” not 'do we live in a Jack Ryan novel.'

[#FFFFFFPride]

Close your eyes and imagine for a moment last night's roadblock was done by a bunch of 1776 Patriots and their MAGA hats.

What sort of response would the Federal government agencies have?
What would the Establishment types and their bootlickers in the media be saying today?
What would you be saying today?

[Sarcastr0]

I find it telling how many on the right think I'd turn on a dime if the ideologies were switched.

No, my answer would not be different: SOTU ain't no big thing. It's illegal, but not 'obstructing an official proceeding.'

What would the Establishment types and their bootlickers in the media be saying today?
Don't make up counterfactuals to get mad at. Stick to the real world.

[#FFFFFFPride]

People wouldn't think that about you if your principles weren't so gerrymandered.

Don’t make up counterfactuals to get mad at. Stick to the real world.

Uh, people engage in hypotheticals all the time. How about you stop strawmanning me. No one is angry, except maybe your father. And that's probably more sadness and shame than anger.

[Sarcastr0]

Counterfactual, not hypothetical.

'How would the press act if it was Trump supporters stopping the motorcade?' And of course, you are confident you know. And that your answer is meaningful.

But that's just your priors, not any kind of argument or factual source.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Griggs v. Duke Power Co" is the case that the EEOC interpreted to mean that management aptitude exams were racist, but requiring management candidates to have a college degree (in anything, from anywhere) not to be. After all, there were HBCUs...

This is what led for all kinds of jobs to require college degrees that weren't needed and which never used to be required.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

What a mustache! I bet for him eating minestrone soup was a terrible strain.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Doesn’t sound like the case was winnable anyway.

Thanks!

[F.D. Wolf]

In Smith, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that Antarctica was a “foreign country” within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Court took the case to resolve a circuit split. In the 1984 case of Beattie v. United States, the D.C. Circuit had reached the opposite conclusion. Beattie had been a 2-1 decision, with then-Judge Antonin Scalia dissenting. In Smith, the Ninth Circuit expressly adopted Scalia’s reasoning from Beattie.

[Frank Drackman]

Watch out for that first step, it's a Dooz-ee!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!