Today in Supreme Court History: March 22, 1957

3/22/1957: Justice Charles Whittaker takes oath.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Again, a problem with posting. I'll try posting the cases one by one and see where the holdup is. There are ten today.

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (decided March 22, 1972): Massachusetts statute prohibiting sale of contraceptives to single people (but not married people) violates Equal Protection

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Something of a bait and switch. The original right-to-contraception case involved married couples, and the Court wrote a paean to marital privacy. Then they implicitly accused *themselves* of discrimination – after all, they had privileged married couples the first time around.

[ReaderY]

Completely agree. If the Court concludes that a distinction it previously said was inherent in the constitution is now irrational, it should overrule the case that was based on the distinction. It has no basis for extending it.

As I’ve said before, Griswold could be read as an extension of a line of cases – Pierce v. Society of Sisters (private schools), Sweeney v. New Hampshire (universities), etc. – saying that institutions traditionally specially connected to speech, as institutions, have a special First-Amendment-related right to conduct their own internal affairs more autonomously than other institutions. Griswold could be read as extending this principle to marriage as an institution.

But of course, if it’s IRRATIONAl to think that marriage has any special basis for being treated differently, if this whole way of thinking that had commanded a majority of the Court only a few years earlier is in fact irrational hogwash, then Griswold should have simply been overruled, Massachussett’s original law, which dis not make this distinction, would then be completely constitutional.

The Court’s “autonomy for traditional speech-related institutions” had a grounding in both the text of the Constitution and in this nation’s history and tradition. Eisenstadt completely uprooted any claim to connection. Its claim to have any connection to Griswold and the line of cases leading up to it was nonsensical, although the Court continued to quite those cases ceremoniously for some time after. In fact, Eisenstadt marked the point where the Court, for the first time since the Lochner era, uprooted itself from constraints and declared itself to have a free-wheeling power to simply veto laws it strongly disagreed with.

[ReaderY]

Of course, taking Sweeney seriously would suggest that private universities, like parade organizers, have a constitutional right to violate discrimination laws. It’s worth noting that Title IX was based on the Spending Clause and applicable only to institutions receiving federal funds based in part on such considerations (also because education wasn’t thought to be “interstate commerce.”)

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

NO you show in your post why that isn't the case....It wasn't a right , it was termed a 'right'. and married couples would have exclude un-married couples , which would mean marriage is a man and a woman, only.
There is no such thing as an implicit accusation. And discrimination would mean the WHOLE ruling was wrong, which it was

[Dan Schiavetta]

Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. 405 (decided March 22, 2017): issue of fact as to whether arrangement of lines, chevrons, and colorful shapes on cheerleading uniform are “original works of art” (copyrightable) or just “industrial designs” (not) — unfortunately we don’t get pics of cheerleaders, but Breyer’s dissent appends photos of objects that illustrate the distinction, e.g., two versions of siamese cat lamp

[Dan Schiavetta]

Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. 451 (decided March 22, 2017): bankruptcy court needs creditors’ consent before it changes normal order of distribution (here, former employees with wage claims found themselves getting nothing, while leveraged buyout beneficiaries got paid)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. 386 (decided March 22, 2017): parents of autistic child could get reimbursement of private school expenses if public school did not provide services tailored to child’s needs in accordance with Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (for which it gets federal funds); judgment for defendant vacated and remanded for trial (from the description of the facts it seems that the adjustments would have been considerable; the private school was a small academy specializing in educating autistic children)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"the private school was a small academy specializing in educating autistic children"

Nonsense; private schools don't deal with disabled children; they dump such children on the public schools. /sarc

[Frank Drackman]

so how did your kids turn out?

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

My sister went to such a school, you ignorant moron. TOTALLY PRIVATE

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Did you miss the "/sarc"?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (decided March 22, 2011): even if it’s just a verbal complaint, not a written one (worker complained about time clocks which were placed so that they could be punched only after protective gear was put on, and threatened to sue), you can’t be discharged in retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act

[Dan Schiavetta]

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27 (decided March 22, 2011): securities fraud case could go forward: company told investors it had concluded that its nasal spray did not cause loss of smell when in fact it had not done any studies on it (by 2006 hundreds of lawsuits from anosmic users had been filed)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (decided March 22, 2006): can’t search apartment based on wife’s consent if husband refuses (cocaine found is suppressed)

[Noscitur a sociis]

That's not an inaccurate description of the facts but it obscures the significance somewhat. The key part of the holding, I think, is that if an occupant is present and refuses to consent to the search, a co-occupant's consent cannot justify it, even if the co-occupant would have had authority to consent had they been alone.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks

I put it the way I did because Stevens's concurrence deals only with husband and wife. Without him, there are only 4 Justices adhering to the more general "occupant" rule. In such a situation, you go by the opinion of the Justice who concurs on the narrowest ground. See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (which I commented on here on March 1).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (decided March 22, 2005): officers conducting search (based on warrant alleging involving in gang-related drive-by shooting) were justified in handcuffing defendant and asking about her immigration status (5 - 4 decision)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205 (decided March 22, 2000): Wal-Mart took photos of Samara flowery dresses being sold to J.C. Penney and arranged for knock-offs that looked the same. “Trade dress” (ha) infringement? Only if the public thought it was a Samara dress. Remanded for new trial

[Mr. Bumble]

Remanded for new trial....and?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't know. Westlaw's case history ends with this case, and I couldn't find anything on google. Presumably it settled.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (decided March 22, 1989): When I was a kid I calculated that if NYC’s governing body was apportioned by population, it would have to have 43 members before Staten Island deserved a single seat. The Board of Estimate, ruling “Greater New York” since its founding in 1898 and consisting of three citywide officers and the five borough presidents, grossly violated “one person, one vote”. This case finally put an end to that.

[Frank Drackman]

51st anniversary of that historic meeting between Nixon, Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Dean, and John Mitchell, where at the end, when it was just him and Mitchell, Milhouse uttered the (in)famous lines,
"I don't give a shit what happens. I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up or anything else, if it'll save it, save this plan. That's the whole point. We're going to protect our people if we can."

Of course when the transcript was released, the Fake News left out the last sentence, which totally changed the meaning.

Frank "I am not a crook!"

[SMP0328]

On this date in 1972, Congress submitted the Equal Rights Amendment to the States for ratification. By the time ratification time limit, even if including the extension, it received 35 ratifications, 3 short of the required 38 (three-fourths of the States); 5 States claim to have rescinded their ratification.

Since then, 3 more States have ratified and supporters of the ERA claim that makes it the 28th Amendment. The Trump and Biden Justice Departments issued reports rejecting that claim.

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

So you are going to post as if hugely important but act as if you can't tell your ass from tree

[SMP0328]

Try that again, but this time make it coherent.

[Krayt]

No weasel tricks. It should be clear to all to be an amendment to the Constitution. Changing the rules after you sent it out, and after some states voted on it under the old rules is weasel.

Claiming a state can’t rescind its vote is weasel, and irrelevant, as The People now look askance at their ovelords weasley cramming things down their throat.

Running off to court to finagle a ferenghi argument on something that should be obvious is weasel. A court should have no say.

Whether it is a new, approved amendment should be obvious to all, with no Lord or Master ordering The People to accept something sketchy.

[Frank Drackman]

Too bad it didn't pass, we could have had women getting killed in combat!

[Dan Schiavetta]

The problem was that Congress put a time limit on ratification. It doesn’t have to do that (Coleman v. Miller, 1939), but in 1972 the ERA did not seem all that controversial and it seemed like it should pass quickly. Democrats supported it, and the Republican Party had made it part of their platform every presidential year since 1940. Then the religious right got involved and started scaring people, and the Reagan – George HW Bush generation of Republicans found it convenient to switch sides.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No harm done. Turns out we don't need an ERA to enact broad equality between men and women. Soon, I strongly suspect, the final barrier - male-only draft registration - will fall.

[Krayt]

It's ironic one of the "scares", that ERA would do away with separate men's and women's bathrooms, has partly come to pass, pushed by the same folks who supported ERA and claimed that that was a false scare tactic.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Margrave:

To an originalist, women have no rights (because they had none to the Framers) except the right to vote (19th Amendment).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don’t know about originalists, I’m open to any philosophy which reserves constitutional change to the amendment process.

“except the right to vote (19th Amendment)”

“Other than the right to vote – protective of so many other rights – what have the Romans ever done for us?”

Isn’t it curious that once women got the right to vote, the Republicans agitated for the ERA to narrow the range of things women could vote for? Traditionally, men haven’t been the only supporters of “sexist” laws. Whether you like protective labor legislation for women or not, many women supported it, and it was one reason the ERA was delayed.

And would you be interested if Gallup did a poll on how many woman wanted to be subject to conscription on the same terms as men? What would be the results of such a poll, I wonder? Not that it would matter to the People Who Matter.