Today in Supreme Court History: March 26, 2012

3/26/2012: NFIB v. Sebelius is argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (decided March 26, 1962): federal courts have jurisdiction over suits alleging disproportionate redistricting in violation of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection (on remand the District Court approved mixed by county/by population plan, 206 F. Supp. 314, probably would not pass muster under later case law)

United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (decided March 26, 2014): prior misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence qualified as “use or attempted use of force” so as to criminalize gun possession under 18 U.S.C. §922 (taking guns out of the hands of wife-beaters, per §922, was recently declared unconstitutional by a Texas appeals court, United States v. Rahimi, March 2, 2023, as being inconsistent with “historical tradition”)

Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (decided March 26, 2002): upholding eviction of family from public housing based on violation of lease provision prohibiting illegal drug use by household member, even though drug use (by grandchildren) was blocks away and unknown to lessees; unanimous decision

Barnett Bank of Marion County v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (decided March 26, 1996): Florida prohibited banks from selling insurance, but preempted by federal law permitting it

United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (decided March 26, 1991): dismisses suit against federal regulators for negligent supervision of an S&L association which went belly-up; regulators’ informal methods were within Federal Tort Claims Act’s “discretionary function”

EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (decided March 26, 1991): Title VII (can’t discriminate based on race, religion or national origin) doesn’t apply overseas; American employer can discriminate against its American employee (superseded by statute, see Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 2006)

Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (decided March 26, 1986): stationing extra security officers in front row of spectator section did not deprive defendant of fair trial (he was being tried with four others)

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869 (decided March 26, 1985): charging out-of-state insurers higher tax rate violated Dormant Commerce Clause; “promotion of domestic business by discriminating against nonresident competitors is not a legitimate state purpose”. Opinion by Powell, who according to my legal writing professor was the clearest writer on the Court at the time.

Huddleston v. United States, 415 U.S. 814 (decided March 26, 1974): Another 18 U.S.C. §922 case, this time the provision criminalizing false statements made to registered gun dealers. In redeeming gun his wife had pawned, husband falsely told pawnbroker that he had never been convicted of a felony (redemption was “acquisition” under the statute).

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 587 U.S. — (decided March 26, 2019): under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, when suing foreign country can’t serve papers on embassy in United States; must serve foreign minister’s home office (suit for personal injuries due to terrorist attack)

[Dan Schiavetta]

On Castleman I should have mentioned, of course, that the Court granted cert. on Rahimi and heard argument on it on November 7, 2023. We're all waiting for the decision on that one!

[John F. Carr]

Rahimi addresses a separate issue: "Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face." Rahimi could win without invalidating the part of the statute concerning misdemeanor domestic violence convictions.

[F.D. Wolf]

There are a great many problems with family violence protective orders, at least in Texas, though other states seem to have similar processes. They are civil court proceedings, conducted by a judge alone in pro forma "hearings" that usually last about five minutes. (I have represented women seeking them). They are practically always granted. A judge has much incentive to grant them, and no incentive not to. No judge wants to appear in a news story as the judge who denied a woman a protective order who was killed by her husband/boyfriend (as if the protective order would have stopped him). The biggest problem, however, is the question of court costs. An applicant cannot be charged court costs, even if the application is denied. The alleged abuser, however, "may" be charged court costs if the application is granted. The applicant is represented by a state prosecutor. Being a civil proceeding, the respondent has no right to counsel, though he may hire one. Given all that, most protective orders are "agreed". Why would anyone agree to it? Because the prosecutor will agree to waive court costs if he does. And, again, the chances of prevailing are essentially nil anyway.

This is all pretty scant due process to take away a constitutional right.

[Dan Schiavetta]

There is also a Constitutional not to get beaten up.
Even when granted orders of protection are of limited use. As one woman said, as I was driving her to the women’s shelter, “They’re not worth the paper they’re printed on.” Yes, he can be prosecuted for assault, but that takes a long time. Therefore: to the shelter, often with the small children.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, but — as discussed at the time it came to SCOTUS — Rahimi chose not to challenge it on inadequate due process grounds.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Baker v. Carr - There are cases where reapportionment is racist, which would violate the 15th Amendment and not be a political question (I hope).

Some of the discrimination against city dwellers in these reapportionment cases may be based on the race of some of the city dwellers. That would of course be an unconstitutional motivation.

But what if racism isn't proven? Then the discrimination is against city-dwellers as such [to give the most frequent example of malapportionment]. Not a nice thing to do, but extending the 14th Amendment to voting rights would be wrong (as Justice Harlan explained in Oregon v. Mitchell, which sadly wasn't a majority opinion).

[I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction]

"four Justices found its requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance (26 U.S.C. 5000A) constitutional "
THis was the famous liar Obama's chance to dazzle the dumb,like Biden.yet years later we are asking whether Texas is experiencing an "invasion" --- and Obama was illegally forcing people buy insurance

[Dan Schiavetta]

Another newcomer, muted.

Why does this blog attract such people?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Yeah, some of the commenters here are so idiotic that they think NASA does a better job than Space-X!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Actually it does.

SpaceX kept screwing up things that NASA — having blazed the trail and learned things nobody yet knew, often the hard way — was doing as a matter of course by 1964, using slide rules and analog transmission.

[Mr. Bumble]

Talk about idiotic.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You sure are ignorant about NASA. Space-X too, since you won’t even admit they are doing things NASA can’t do, but the NASA ignorance is more amazing.

[Nige]

Space X are doing great if you take it that the purpose of Space X is to hoover up taxpayers' money for a billionaire.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe because they make things that work.

[Mr. Bumble]

You say that with such pride. What a pussy.

[Magister]

Kirkland has thoughts on that question, but you'd have to unmute him.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He's the only one who does this kind of thing from the left.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I wonder about this ...

(taking guns out of the hands of wife-beaters, per §922, was recently declared unconstitutional by a Texas appeals court, United States v. Rahimi, March 2, 2023, as being inconsistent with “historical tradition”)

Isn't this because it was "misdemeanor domestic violence"? What the heck is the misdemeanor variety? It sounds like another oxymoron. Did legislators or common law judges decide certain levels of chastisement were not felonious enough?

There's the real problem. If it's a misdemeanor, it's not serious enough to take away a fundamental constitutional right. But you hoplophobes can't stand to blame government for stupid categorizations, so you blame gun owners.

[Mike Hansberry]

Ah, who can forget those heady days when every single Dem in congress voted to regulate our economic decisions?

From PPACA:
EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE. -The effects described in this paragraph are the following:
(A) The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.

Gladys Kessler (Mead v. Holder):
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Congress had
a rational basis for its conclusion that the aggregate of individual decisions not to purchase health insurance substantially affects the national health insurance market. Consequently, Congress was acting within the bounds of its Commerce Clause power when it enacted § 1501

Ginsberg et al (NFIB):
First, Congress has the power to regulate economic activities “that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 17 (2005). This capacious power extends even to local activities that, viewed in the aggregate, have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. See ibid. See also Wickard, 317 U. S., at 125 (“Even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”)

If the mandate had merely been a tax on income with a corresponding tax benefit to those who purchased an approved insurance plan there would have been no court challenge. You might recall that President Obama during his 2008 campaign against Hillary actually chided her for the mandate in her plan. But the idea that a crisis ought not go to waste was too great for the Dems, and so rather than going the income tax route, they sought to have the courts rubber stamp the idea that Congress can control how each person spends his money even after paying all his income taxes. It was an insane power grab. so much so that Dems do not want to admit it even happened and would rather put the mandate down the memory hole.