Today in Supreme Court History: March 24, 2009

3/24/2009: Citizens United v. FEC argued for the first time.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (decided March 24, 1966): poll tax violates Equal Protection (though literacy tests are o.k.)

Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. 411 (decided March 24, 2022): execution stayed because defendant had valid argument that prohibiting his pastor from laying hands on him in the execution chamber violated First Amendment (state allowed pastor to lay on hands, and Ramirez was executed on Oct. 5, 2022)

United States v. George, 228 U.S. 14 (decided March 24, 1913): homesteader lied about his time of residence on land but residence by statute has to be proven by two non-homesteader witnesses; administrative rule only, so conviction for perjury vacated

Black v. Thorne, 111 U.S. 122 (decided March 24, 1884): only nominal damages for patent infringement (fuel formula for producing steam) because infringer did not save money on the production of steam, even if saved money overall

Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265 (decided March 24, 1919): Arizona law restricting working hours for women in hotels did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause; did not apply to employees in restaurants along train lines (i.e., interstate commerce)

Bank of Iron Gate v. Brady, 184 U.S. 665 (decided March 24, 1902): tort claim booted from federal court when death of defendant brought value of case below jurisdictional minimum (evidently overruled by St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 1938 (“events occurring subsequent to the institution of suit which reduce the amount recoverable below the statutory limit do not oust jurisdiction”)

Kaiser v. New York, 394 U.S. 280 (decided March 24, 1969): wiretapped conversations (in pay phone in bar) were not illegal at the time so are admissible in state prosecution

Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (decided March 24, 1976): federal courts will abstain in state water rights dispute where federal government got dragged into state court by McCarran Amendment even though government sued in federal court first (McCarran Amendment gives automatic consent for federal government to be joined in any water rights suit) (this case is the source of the “Colorado River abstention” doctrine)

Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (decided March 24, 1976): This is Dr. Benjamin Spock, of “Baby and Child Care” (a very reasonable and sensible book for new parents — the first sentence is, “You know more than you think you do”). Here, Spock, running for president on the People’s Party and trying to distribute political literature at Fort Dix, fails in overturning a regulation prohibiting political speech (though not other types of the speech) at Fort Dix even if invited.

Houston Community College System v. Wilson, 595 U.S. 468 (decided March 24, 2022): no First Amendment retaliation claim when trustee of public college was censured by his board for “inappropriate” and “reprehensible” conduct; not an adverse action, and criticism comes with the territory (fittingly, he was censured for bringing multiple lawsuits against the board)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (decided March 24, 1966): poll tax violates Equal Protection (though literacy tests are o.k.)”

Although I think the Court had previously upheld literacy tests, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 abolished them.

As for poll taxes, there was already an amendment – the 24th – against poll taxes in *federal* elections (Presidential and Congressional). The Harper decision banned poll taxes in state and local elections as well.

Only a small number of states – five, I think – had poll taxes by then, so it may seem a minor case. But it shows the Court’s willingness to improve on the Constitution as actually written.

(Even without the 24th Amendment, of course, poll taxes motivated by racism would still be unconstitutional under the 15th Amendment, which would seem to be a good basis for eliminating then-existing poll taxes, but the Court decided to go further and say that all state and local poll taxes were unconstitutional regardless of motive).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[Brett Bellmore]

IIRC, what the Court had said about literacy tests was that they were constitutional if honestly implemented. Which in practice they never were, of course.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes

[Bob from Ohio]

"improve on the Constitution as actually written"

Approving or sarcastic comment?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, it wasn't sarcastic, I love courts usurping power.

/sarc

[John F. Carr]

The execution of Ramirez with priest attending may have looked like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6QzY6KbCUQ#t=172

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Wow, SNL sure used to be funny.

[Mr. Bumble]

Long ago and far away.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Eh. Sometimes.

[Frank Drackman]

Rodney D and Bill Murray on SNL? how did I miss that one? Probably because my family was so poor we couldn't pay attention! Our Christmas Tree had no Tinsel, we used to wait for Grandpa to Sneeze! My Uncles dying wish? he wanted me on his lap, he was in the Electric Chair!!!"

Frank

[JasonT20]

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=142111

I also like how Josh notes that this was the date when Citizens United was argued for the first time. The original arguments were over the narrow question of whether Citizens United could show their film. It was when the conservative justices want to go much further and strike down so much of the campaign finance law at the time that they scheduled new arguments covering those questions.

[bernard11]

They got the first part right, and the second badly wrong.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem with Citizens United is the myth of corporate "citizenship" that was somehow created by the 14th Amendment.

Individual natural persons can and should be allowed to say whatever they damn well please -- but I draw the line at corporate personhood....

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The problem with the arguments both for and against Citizens United is that they start from the premise of how much to protect the victim, rather than how much to limit the government.

[bernard11]

I think the problem is that it unreasonably lumps membership organizations that are incorporated together with normal business corporations, including, particularly unwisely, large public companies.

These are two different things.

[Brett Bellmore]

The lumping together started with the side opposed to Citizens United, though. They were attempting to leverage the case for regulating political activities of profit making companies like ADM to win the power to silence political non-profits like the NRA.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

See? There you go again, thinking about which victims to protect, rather than limiting government.

It's really really clear that the Bill of Rights limits governments. Choosing to ignore that is silly.

[Krayt]

The court was very careful to explicitely point out it didn’t derive from corporate personhood. Rather, The People take their rights with then wherever they go, and Congress cannot strip them as the cost of admission to take advantage of things like corporations.

Also, a Justice: So you're saying if it's a month before an election, this book is illegal?

Government lawyer: Yes

And we're done here.

[JasonT20]

Rather, The People take their rights with then wherever they go, and Congress cannot strip them as the cost of admission to take advantage of things like corporations.

That kind of sounds like part of the rationalization for corporate personhood to me.

On the one hand, I figure that it is perfectly reasonable to treat a corporation the same as a person for many legal purposes. But to ascribe a group of people that have formed a corporation as having the same rights that individuals have would only make sense (to me) if they also have the same potential liabilities and responsibilities.

Can shareholders be liable for fines or be sent to prison if the corporation is found to have violated the law? No. A shareholder had to invest in the company prior to going public or purchase their shares later in order to own part of the company, and the worst that can happen is that their shares become worthless, right?