Today in Supreme Court History: March 23, 1870

3/23/1870: Justice Joseph Bradley takes oath.

Justice Joseph Bradley

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Comcast Corp. v. National Ass’n of African American-Owned Media, 589 U.S. — (decided March 23, 2020): owner of African-American owned network must show that race was related to being denied a spot on cable TV service (“but-for” causation); remands to examine Complaint under proper standard

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (decided March 23, 1993): upholding against Due Process attack INS regulation prohibiting release of juvenile aliens if no family member or guardian to claim them (plaintiffs in custody were teenagers suspected of being deportable)

Allen v. Cooper, 589 U.S. — (decided March 23, 2020): Congress has no power to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity as to copyright violations (state posted plaintiff’s videos of shipwreck; Court strikes down relevant section of Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990)

Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538 (decided March 23, 1972): Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. §2283) did not prevent federal court from staying on Due Process grounds pre-suit garnishment of wages permitted by state law; no “state proceeding” in existence yet

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (decided March 23, 1970): state can’t terminate welfare benefits without hearing

Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (decided March 23, 1908): state can’t (without a hearing) set rates so high that railroads would be forced to go to court to contest them

Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U.S. — (decided March 23, 2020): upholding against Eighth Amendment attack Kansas statute prohibiting insanity defense as to guilt (can be asserted only as to sentencing)

South Florida Water Mgmt. District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95 (decided March 23, 2004): tribe protested pollution due to pumping water from Everglades pond without special permit; Court remands to trial court for proper analysis

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (decided March 23, 1999): Daubert rule (that expert testimony must be based on reliable principles reliably applied) also applies to non-scientific testimony (precluding expert testifying as to cause of tread wear pattern on allegedly defective tire who could not determine how many miles it had been driven)

Lyng v. International Union, United Automotive, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 485 U.S. 360 (decided March 23, 1988): upholding against First Amendment and Fifth Amendment attack Reagan-era rule cutting off welfare benefits if one member of the household had job but was on strike

[John F. Carr]

Goldberg is important because it abolished the dichotomy between "rights" and "privileges". For decades after there was still a notion that the government could act arbitrarily if it recited the word "privilege".

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[Dilan Esper]

"Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292"

Very important case. It's the source of what you will sometimes hear referred to as the "Flores settlement", which is a big reason we can't just detain all of the migrant families who cross the border as a lot of conservatives demand. The settlement protects migrant children against overcrowded detention.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just another good reason to do away with "settlements".
Try the case and have a judicial decision.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Didn't Ex Parte Young also deal with state sovereign immunity (or the lack thereof)?

[Dan Schiavetta]

That was a different Young. Younger than this Young.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Oops, I beg your pardon.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Wait, I checked and it seems to be the same case. Is Young younger than himself?

[Dan Schiavetta]

You’re right. My summary dealt only with the merits. I should add the procedural issue which ended up being the important part of the holding. Thanks!

[John F. Carr]

Ex Parte Young was a step towards abolishing sovereign immunity but it left the law a long way from where it is now. A traditional rule of equity said courts should not enjoin criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court made an exception, adding

Finally, it is objected that the necessary result of upholding this suit in the Circuit Court will be to draw to the lower Federal courts a great flood of litigation of this character, where one Federal judge would have it in his power to enjoin proceedings by state officials to enforce the legislative acts of the State, either by criminal or civil actions. To this it may be answered, in the first place, that no injunction ought to be granted unless in a case reasonably free from doubt. We think such rule is, and will be, followed by all the judges of the Federal courts.

How time flies. A century ago one plaintiff might sue the Attorney General to test the legality of a tariff applied to it. In Ex Parte Young the nominal defendant, the Attorney General, had exclusive power to enforce the law in question. Now we have a series of double class actions, a test case where (for example) all people in a state are represented by one plaintiff and all law enforcement officials in a state are represented by the Attorney General. The plaintiffs in the Texas SB8 wanted an order preventing medical regulators from disciplining them. The main goal was not to avoid discipline. If one plaintiff got one injunction against anybody then the remaining plaintiffs expected to be able to use that as a wedge to get the originally ordered relief: any court clerk who stamps an abortion-related pleading as accepted for filing is guilty of contempt. Any the standard for granting an injunction has been weakened from "reasonably free from doubt" to a 51% chance.

What case first allowed an injunction against the Attorney General to bind all law enforcement officials and prosecutors in the state?

[Purple Martin]

In a Younger Than Thou sense, is Brigham Young younger than Neil Young? Personally, I think Young Thug might be youngier than both.

[Krayt]

Saturday open thread.

Putin blames Ukraine. Ukraine says Putin special forces did it.

Just noting the parallel to the very early days of covid, where there was talk not just of did China accidentally release it, but perhaps deliberately. A chinese official came out and said the US military did it.

That got quickly walked back by China. But it left an odd taste, almost as if it was a preperatory counter-claim to some real world, official finding China did it deliberately. As if an official would make such a statement in a dictatorship sans blessing. That idea quickly fell by the wayside, but it still seemed odd.

And here we are this morning. Putin vows revenge…against what? Isis? Ukraine? And if he does a savage attack against Ukraine, will Trump praise him as if the silly Ukraine idea were true?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I am outraged by Donald Trump’s hypothetical future misconduct.

I’m open to the possibility that Putin may have pulled a more murderous version of the Tonkin Gulf incident. But I seem to recall that there’s people in the area, and outside it, who are willing to kill Russian civilians without Putin’s blessing.

Some impartial group (if any are left) should ask Putin for the freedom to come in and investigate the shootings. See what’s going on.

[Mr. Bumble]

Comments like yours make another open thread seem like a bad idea.

[Krayt]

I gave something for everybody!

[NvEric]

"As I speak today, which is yesterday's tomorrow, the death count is 134. By tomorrow, which will become today, making this now yesterday, more deaths will be added. Therefore, we must pay our respects today for yesterday's losses and begin to morn the loss of life tomorrow, which will then be today, due to these assault weapons, which are designed to kill people, not just in this country, but out there in the world, which is not here, but is there instead. In both places, today is the same as will tomorrow be also, but will also be called today when it arrives." KH