Today in Supreme Court History: March 12, 1889

3/12/1889: Justice John Campbell dies.

Comments

[Jerry B.]

Didn’t we see Justice Campbell recently? I seem to remember that neck beard.

[Jacob Grimes]

Incredible eyebrows, too. Those hairs have to be almost an inch long.

[Krayt]

The body regulates hair length by falling out from time to time. When this starts breaking down you can get this, I suppose, and also his baldness.

Was this considered a sign of aged wisdom?

[Dr. Ed 2]

What did he die of? Might be related.

[Magister]

Yes, we saw Campbell before.

11/23/1804: President Franklin Pierce's birthday. He would appoint Justice John Archibald Campbell to the Supreme Court.

[Dilan Esper]

I can't blame Blackman for wanting to put this guy's photo up as often as possible.

[Rubbish!]

That's more throat-beard than neck. Freakish but badass.

[Purple Martin]

I think his beard must merge directly into his chest hair, with no gap between.

So, line where the shave stops is necessarily arbitrary...looks like it might be the point where he'd have to tug down on his shirt collar to keep going.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (decided March 12, 1906): rejecting witness’s claim of Fifth Amendment privilege in federal grand jury proceeding because enjoyed federal immunity even though state prosecution possible (overruled by Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of New York Harbor, 1964, which held that grant of immunity in state grand jury proceedings also extended to possible federal prosecution)

Davis v. Wood, 14 U.S. 6 (decided March 12, 1816): another case, like Queen v. Hepburn, holding that hearsay is not competent to prove free birth (slaves tried to show that their grandmother was known to have been white and born in England)

Claiborne v. United States, 465 U.S. 1305 (decided March 12, 1984): Rehnquist refuses to stay bribery and tax evasion prosecution against federal judge; rejects judge’s argument that he can’t be criminally prosecuted until impeached and removed (Claiborne was convicted later in 1984 and went to jail; wasn’t impeached and removed until 1986)

United States v. Contract Steel Carriers, 350 U.S. 409 (decided March 12, 1956): business licensed to transport highway construction materials did not qualify as “common carrier” (and subject to all those regulations) simply because it aggressively solicited business within the scope of its license

Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 324 U.S. 335 (decided March 12, 1945): citing Johnson v. M’Intosh (grrr. . . see summary of that case that I posted on February 28), Court holds that Indians have only what the white man gives them, and if no specific reservation created by Act of Congress, then they have no rights in ancestral land (the Shoshone seem to concede this, basing their claim to 15 million acres on an 1863 treaty, but Court holds the treaty gave them only occupancy rights; opinion’s historical account is sympathetic to them)

Massey v. United States, 291 U.S. 608 (decided March 12, 1934): dismisses rum-running case because no final judgment before Prohibition repealed

Ohio ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park District, 281 U.S. 74 (decided March 12, 1930): only Congress can determine whether each state has a “republican form of government” (art. IV, §4); Court can’t rule on whether a state can create park districts which can acquire land and levy taxes

Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles, 261 U.S. 326 (decided March 12, 1923): upholding executor’s statutory right to renew copyright even though testator had lost the right to (because he had missed the one-year deadline at the time of death) (the copyright was for a play based on this poem, https://internetpoem.com/will-carleton/over-the-hill-from-the-poor-house-poem/; not a subject for Eugene O’Neill)

United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316 (decided March 12, 1917): flooding of private person’s milldam, ford and other land on Cumberland River due to government construction of dam was a “taking” requiring compensation

Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 350 U.S. 413 (decided March 12, 1956): admission of black student to state law school could not await determination of desegregation issues in elementary and secondary schools

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of New York Harbor"

If you're testifying in front of a Waterfront Commission for New York Harbor, you'd *better* think about using the 5th Amendment.

[defaultdotxbe]

Seems to be a slightly different claim with Claiborne. My reading is that Claiborne was claiming he couldn’t be prosecuted while still in office (which is in fact true for the president) while Trump is claiming perpetual immunity for anything he did while in office, even after leaving office.

I believe Trump is also claiming double jeopardy (having been impeached and acquitted for the same charges) which IIRC is something that has also been rejected consistently in the past.

[Dr. Ed 2]

:only Congress can determine whether each state has a “republican form of government” “

Wow — what if Congress exercised this power…

[Krayt]

Court: Only congress (apparently in a context of vs. Courts) can decide if a state has a republican form of government.

Later, SC: We, a court, decide states creating independent voter districting commissions deliberately uncontrolled by elected legislatures counts as a republican form of government.

As an aside, fyi in my own state, this independent commission's product twice in a row got bounced by courts. What's the point, courts should order themselves to do it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Redistricting. An obvious job for AI.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"courts should order themselves to do it"

What if a judge disobeys his own order, should he put himself in prison?

[Drewski]

A few years back a judge indeed held himself in contempt for violating his own orders (regarding cell phones in the courtroom). So it can be done, although in that case I believe he sanctioned himself with a fine.

[Purple Martin]

A slight clarification:

Later, SC: We, a court, decide states, elected legislatures creating independent voter districting commissions deliberately uncontrolled but presumably subject to modification or decommissioning by the legislature, counts as a republican form of government.

[SMP0328]

Massey v. United States, 291 U.S. 608 (decided March 12, 1934): dismisses rum-running case because no final judgment before Prohibition repealed

The 21st Amendment functioned as a pardon for federal Prohibition offenses if you hadn't been convicted or were convicted but hadn't completed the appellate process. If Congress had thought of this outcome, how much of an effort would there had been to include a savings clause in that amendment?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't know, but by the time of the 21st there was a lot of disillusionment with Prohibition - did Congressmen cry very hard when they found people convicted under the defunct policy going free?

And what about those who had completed their appeals before the 21st - were such people pardoned?

[CJColucci]

Judging by the picture, how could you tell?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If he was dead, someone propped him up. Was his nickname Bernie?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t know. Rehnquist seemed to consider Claiborne’s argument ridiculous and noted that it had been rejected by every court that had considered it. Also he noted that Claiborne was arguing that the prosecution of him was "vindictive" and "selective".

[David Nieporent]

Trump didn't cite Claiborne (in the D.C. Circuit), for obvious reasons, but the D.C. Circuit did discuss it in rejecting Trump's ludicrous claim.

[Dilan Esper]

The thing is, Claiborne IS distinguishable in terms of its legal rule, because I think the majority view is that while that rule (no prosecution until the judge leaves office) is not in place for federal judges, it IS in place for the President. (This is the DOJ's "can't indict a sitting President" memo.)

But of course, Trump is not in office and the case doesn't help him at all.