Today in Supreme Court History: March 29, 1937

3/29/1937: West Coast Hotel v. Parrish decided.

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Adjusted for Inflation that 1936 Minimal Wage of 30 cents/hour would be $6.47, or close to what the current one is.

[Magister]

That was a state minimum wage; most states today have higher minimum wage than the federal minimum of $7.25. The federal minimum wage of 25 cents first introduced in 1938 would be equivalent to $5.50 today; that the 1936 wage is close in value to the current federal minimum wage is more an indictment of decades of failure to advance the minimum wage. Not that a minimum wage worker would consider a 10% pay cut to be that close to what they were earning.

[Mr. Bumble]

If the Federal government has the authority to set a minimum wage, do they also have the authority to set a maximum wage?

Asking for a friend

[Michael P]

Couldn't they just set a 100% tax rate above whatever maximum they want to impose?

[Magister]

Maybe? Nixon froze wages in 1971.

[Frank Drackman]

and prices, which there were so many ways to get around, Comic Books back then were 15 cents for the montly ish-yew, all of a sudden, they went to bi-monthy for 40 cents, or stayed monthly, but added a few pages and were 20 or 25 cents, of course I was so poor I bought most of mine at the used book store with the covers torn off for a nickle a piece

[Dan Schiavetta]

West Coast Hotels v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (decided March 29, 1937): The Big Switch by Justice Roberts, breaking with the “Four Horsemen” and voting to uphold a state minimum wage regulation. From now on he would vote against them. Was this vote coerced by FDR threatening to “pack” the Court? This decision came out shortly after the court-packing plan was announced, but Roberts had already declared his vote at the December 19, 1936 conference, after Chief Justice Hughes sat down to talk with him in light of FDR’s 1936 landslide victory. I don’t know if there were noises at that time to pack the court, but maybe in light of the landslide they saw it coming. In the 75th Congress the Democrats had a 79 - 16 edge in the Senate, and were 345 - 89 in the House.

Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (decided March 29, 2011): D.A. can’t be liable under §1983 for failure to train A.D.A.’s based on one screwup (failure to turn over exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland which led to conviction for armed robbery based on which defendant decided not to testify in later murder trial which led to murder conviction; both convictions consequently vacated due to Brady violation); opinion by Thomas, 5 - 4 decision

Mays v. Hines, 592 U.S. --- (decided March 29, 2021): habeas for ineffective assistance of counsel should not have been granted because though defendant and his girlfriend would have testified that he was at motel to have an affair and not to murder the victim who was found in the next room, evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and the jury would not have bought their story

Astra USA v. Santa Clara County, California, 563 U.S. 110 (decided March 29, 2011): medical facilities are not third-party beneficiaries of contracts between drug manufacturers and federal government under which manufacturers get Medicare reimbursements; if facilities are overcharged, they can’t sue the federal government but have to alert the Secretary of Health who will order restitution

City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (decided March 29, 2000): upholding local ordinance prohibiting nude dancing, which required the girls to put on pasties and G-string (they’re probably grateful for that on cold nights); protected by First Amendment but ordinance is content-neutral; O’Connor, who wrote plurality opinion, has a dry sense of humor: “Even if Erie’s public nudity ban has some minimal effect on the erotic message by muting that portion of the expression that occurs when the last stitch is dropped, the dancers at Kandyland and other such establishments are free to perform wearing pasties and G-strings. Any effect on the overall expression is de minimis.” This ignores the fact that the “girls” make more $ when they dance completely nude, but that would make this a "commercial speech" case, where the scrutiny is less strict.

Illinois v. Abbott & Assocs., 460 U.S. 557 (decided March 29, 1983): Clayton Act allows Attorney General to hand over federal antitrust grand jury materials in state antitrust suit but state A.G. still has to show particularized need (at issue was bid-rigging in Illinois construction contracts)

United States v. Topco Assocs., 405 U.S. 596 (decided March 29, 1972): regional purchasing association for small/medium sized supermarkets which had virtual veto power in their own locality was violation of Sherman Act even though prices achieved allowed them to compete with national chains

Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532 (decided March 29, 1971): Equal Protection not violated by Louisiana statute precluding inheritance by “illegitimate” children even if acknowledged (I learned a new word, “tutrix”, a female guardian) (statute later declared unconstitutional by Louisiana Supreme Court, 388 So.2d 1151, 1980)

Moore v. New York, 333 U.S. 565 (decided March 29, 1948): record did not support contention that having black men tried for murder by special jury violated fair trial right (no evidence that blacks were excluded from special juries or that conviction rates were higher for black defendants) (special juries, screened for education and good morals, were abolished in New York in 1965)

Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507 (decided March 29, 1948): striking New York obscenity statute which on its face was impermissibly broad even though construed narrowly along First Amendment lines by New York’s highest court (defendant was selling magazine with lurid/lascivious crime stories)

[SRG2]

“Tutrix” is the feminine form of “tutor”.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

If I call a female tutor (for example, the one who teaches my grandchild) a “tutrix”, will she slap me?

[Commenter_XY]

That might depend on what you ask her to teach you...

[Magister]

It would also depend on what two tricks she thinks you're referring to.

[Frank Drackman]

Like "Aviatrix" for "Aviator" but when's the last time you heard of a "Naval Aviatrix"?? (my daughter's one BTW) Probably because it sounds to much like Dominatrix (don't think my daughter's one, don't want to know in any event)

Frank

[SRG2]

Re: Connick

Connick Senior was a crooked and malign DA who in a just society would have been put to a slow and lingering death. And the majority here were flatly wrong, but hey, Connick is one of us. Gotta protect the system.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks.

I didn’t mention who his child is because it would be unfair to the child.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Mays v. Hines, 592 U.S. — (decided March 29, 2021): habeas for ineffective assistance of counsel should not have been granted because though defendant and his girlfriend would have testified that he was at motel to have an affair and not to murder the victim who was found in the next room, evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and the jury would not have bought their story

Not quite: The person who was having the affair was the person who found the victim’s body, but the defense attorney didn’t ask him about the affair at the trial. The Sixth Circuit held that this was ineffective assistance of counsel because that someone could have shown that he was the real killer, which does seem pretty obviously wrong.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. Will correct. Usually my mistakes result from trying to be too brief. Here the correct summary would have been shorter and simpler.