Today in Supreme Court History: April 2, 1980

4/2/1980: Justice Stanley Forman Reed dies.

Justice Stanley Forman Reed

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., 549 U.S. 561 (decided April 2, 2007): “modification” can mean different things in different (complicated) environmental statutes; the upshot was that coal-fired plant should have gotten a permit before upgrading

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of City of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318 (decided April 2, 2012): strip search upon incarceration is not unreasonable under Fourth Amendment

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 584 U.S. — (decided April 2, 2018): the guy at the auto dealership who tells you about service contract options doesn’t have to be paid overtime — he’s one of those people “servicing” autos who is exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act

Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. — (decided April 2, 2018): shooting plaintiff who was holding a knife over another woman and wouldn’t drop it does not violate “clearly established law” and therefore qualified immunity; §1983 allegation of excessive force dismissed

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, 572 U.S. 185 (decided April 2, 2014): statutory limit on total amount one person can donate to political candidates/committees violates First Amendment; 5 – 4 decision

Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 572 U.S. 273 (decided April 2, 2014): extra-contractual claim against airline which revoked frequent flyer status (misrepresentation, breach of good faith and fair dealing) preempted by Airline Deregulation Act

De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U.S. 303 (decided April 2, 1906): upholding Philippine divorce verdict; wife established adultery by proof that husband abandoned her and shacked up with three women, getting them all pregnant (I would say the wife made out her case)

Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (decided April 2, 2012): grand jury witness who allegedly fabricated evidence can’t be sued for damages under §1983; enjoyed same immunity as trial witness (can’t blame the accused for bringing suit; grand jury had returned three indictments, all of them dismissed for insufficiency of evidence)

Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (decided April 2, 2001): no deprivation of right to counsel when defendant charged with one crime (burglary) confesses to separate uncharged crime (murder of the occupants); 5 – 4 decision

United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (decided April 2, 1979): conversation with IRS agent admissible in bribery trial even though recorded in violation of IRS protocols

[F.D. Wolf]

In De La Rama, wife had sued for divorce or separation on the grounds of adultery, an equal division of community property, and alimony in the Court of First Instance in the Philippines (which was a U.S. territory from 1898 to 1946). That court ruled in her favor. The Filipino Supreme Court reversed, dismissing her petition on the grounds that she had committed adultery as well, citing a letter she had written, characterizing it as a "confession" of her adultery. She appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court held that the traditional rule that it had no jurisdiction in divorce cases did not apply to territorial courts. It also held that the Territorial Practice Act of 1874, which allowed it to review determinations of law but not findings of fact by the territorial courts, did not apply to the Philippines, because the Philippines Act of 1902, which organized the government, gave it authority to review both. It reversed the Filipino Supreme Court, determining that the letter was not, in fact, a confession of adultery. Justices White, Peckham, Holmes, and Day dissented on the issue of jurisdiction without opinion.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks!

[John F. Carr]

I disliked the Northwest case because the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is part of the background of common law, not a rule that Minnesota made up to evade federal regulation.

But the plaintiff wanted $5 million compensation for having his frequent flyer status revoked. I am not sympathetic in the least. He strikes me as a professional complainer.

[Dan Schiavetta]

agree

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Rehberg v. Paulk – If a grand jury finds that a witness lied to them, it should be empowered to demand a special prosecutor – who would be independent of the prosecutor who used the false witnesses.

Come to think of it, the grand jury should be empowered to demand a special prosecutor whenever it thinks the regular prosecutor has, shall we say, insufficient zeal in dealing with a particular crime.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I am surprised that your takeaway from that case is that it should be easier for grand juries to charge people than it currenty is.

[Martinned2]

Of course. Anyone with a even a passing familiarity with the American criminal justice system knows that its main problem is that it doesn't lock up nearly enough people.

[Krayt]

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 584 U.S. — (decided April 2, 2018): the guy at the auto dealership who tells you about service contract options doesn’t have to be paid overtime — he’s one of those people “servicing” autos who is exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act

I think this is the intake guy at the dealership when you bring your car in for repair. He notes your problem, then immediately launches into scam nickle dime repair add-ons, we'll do this, this, and this and suddenly you've got an extra hundred dollars of maintenance oil changes and whatever. "Service contract options", emphasis on the option. =D

He's a salesman. But he's not a car salesman, an actual repair man, or one of the girls running the parts window.

[SRG2]

Possibly amusing side note:

When I took my 1998 Cadillac Seville to the dealership with a potential head gasket issue, the intake guy called me back and said, almost verbatim, "listen, I get paid on commission. If you get this car fixed, I'm going on a two-week vacation to Tahiti."

When I had taken my Trek 2100 out of the trunk to cycle back home, the mechanic said, "nice bike" and I responded, "it's worth more than the car, haha." Well, as the repair would have cost $5,000 and the car would then be worth $4,500, I wasn't wrong.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Krayt:

The plaintiffs in that case might have been people that you go to in the garage when your car comes in for repair (or maintenance), and who incidentally talk about service plan options, but in construing the statute the Court (in the process of throwing out regulations improperly issued by the Dept. of Labor) lumps such people in with “salesmen” and so seems broader than that.

P.S. As for the "girls" in the parts window, you are quite correct about that. A young attractive female who actually knows what she's doing can write her own ticket in that line of work.

[Krayt]

I don't remember their fine reasoning, but IIRC it was a literal textual interpretation so no nuance required. And from what I remember from this decision's discussions, that is the happy path for judges since they can just point to it and they're done. The law lists 1, 2, or 3, and these guys aren't that.

[Krayt]

Once I went in because my key fob went bad, so I needed a new one. This guy breezily punched in a parts guy on speakerphone who said they were $60. Well, that was their internal cost for that patented part. The intake guy's hand almost burst into flame punching through the atmosphere so fast to turn off speakerphone. Of course, they doubled it for markup, then cloned that amount for labor, total 4x their internal cost.

I'll stick with scam artist.

[apedad]

captcrisis, your review of Kisela v. Hughes seems a little off and Amy Hughes was not holding a knife "over another woman."

"(Officer) Garcia spotted a woman, later identified as Sharon Chadwick, standing next to a car in the driveway of a nearby house. A chain-link fence with a locked gate separated Chadwick from the officers. The officers then saw another woman, Hughes, emerge from the house carrying a large knife at her side. Hughes matched the description of the woman who had been seen hacking a tree. Hughes walked toward Chadwick and stopped no more than six feet from her."

https://www.scribd.com/document/465391543/Kisela-v-Hughes-Supreme-Court-decision

Hughes was holding a knife and took a few steps toward Chadwick but wasn't directly over or near her.

[Lee Moore]

No more than six feet is a different idea from no less than six feet.

Ditto inches, as the actress said to the Bishop.

[Martinned2]

I was surprised that I'd never heard of this justice, but he retired as far back as 1957. I was about to say/imply that he'd served during a pretty boring period, but something like this does seem worthy of applause:

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) – In 1935, a unanimous Supreme Court in Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45 (1935), had held that political parties in Texas did not violate the constitutional rights of African American citizens by denying them the right to vote in a primary election. But in Smith v. Allwright, the issue came before the Court again. This time, the plaintiff alleged that the state, not the political party, had denied black citizens the right to vote. In an 8-to-1 decision authored by Reed, the Supreme Court overruled Grovey as wrongly decided. In ringing terms, Reed dismissed the state action question and declared that "the Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions." The lone dissenter was Justice Roberts, who had written the majority opinion nine years earlier in Grovey.

[Martinned2]

Another early civil rights case:

Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 328 U.S. 373 (1946) – In a 7-to-1 ruling, Reed applied the undue burden standard to a Virginia law which required separate but equal racial segregation in public transportation. Reed found that the law created an undue burden because uniformity of law was essential in certain interstate activities, such as transportation.

[Martinned2]

But in Brown he didn't come out looking so good. (Still quoting his Wikipedia page.)

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) – This was recognized as a critical case even before it reached the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren, realizing how controversial the case would be for the public, very much wanted to avoid any dissents in the case, but Reed was the lone hold-out. Other members of the Supreme Court worried about Reed's commitment to civil rights, as he was a member of the (then) all-white Burning Tree Club in Washington, D.C., and his Kentucky home had an all-white restrictive covenant (a covenant which had led Reed to recuse himself from a civil rights case in 1948). Nonetheless, Reed had written the majority decision in Smith v. Allwright and joined the majority in Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950), which barred separate but equal racial segregation in law schools. Reed originally planned to write a dissent in Brown, but joined the majority before a decision was issued. Many observers, including Chief Justice Warren, believed a unanimous decision in Brown was necessary to win public acceptance for the decision. Reed reportedly cried during the reading of the opinion.

[Dan Schiavetta]

At least he wasn't like Robert Jackson, who had a clerk (named William Rehnquist) who was telling him to vote "no".

[Krayt]

Did he cry because he was sad at disappearing ways of life, or because someone looked into his soul and saw he had truly changed?

[Martinned2]

Who knows, but it's a great story regardless.