Today in Supreme Court History: April 8, 1952

4/8/1952: President Truman signs executive order 10340. The Supreme Court declared this executive order unconstitutional in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v. Sawyer (1952).

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Edwards v. Pacific Fruit Express Co., 390 U.S. 538 (decided April 8, 1968): owner and supplier of railroad refrigerator cars was not a “common carrier by railroad” so as to allow suit under Federal Employers Liability Act (statute included other kinds of rail cars but not refrigerator cars; plaintiff was injured while servicing a refrigerator car at a maintenance plant)

Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of City of New Orleans, 44 U.S. 589 (decided April 8, 1845): Constitution does not prohibit states from outlawing certain religious practices (Louisiana ordinance against bringing corpses into churches for funerals) (abrogated by the Fourteenth Amendment)

United States v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 563 (decided April 8, 1968): “outside hoodlums” who attacked blacks after they ate at whites-only restaurant properly convicted under 18 U.S.C. §241 (the criminal equivalent of 42 U.S.C. §1983); 5 - 3 decision; in dissent Stewart, joined by Black and Harlan, point to legislative history and 42 U.S.C. §2000a-6(b) which states that Title 42 is the exclusive remedy for civil rights violations

United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (decided April 8, 1968): death penalty provision of Federal Kidnapping Act (applicable only after jury verdict finding that abductee was harmed) impermissibly burdens right to jury trial but can be stricken without invalidating entire Act

Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft, 224 U.S. 290 (decided April 8, 1912): United States can exercise eminent domain over patents (Army officer incorporated patented gun and gun carriage designs); patentee can’t sue for infringement but is entitled to just compensation, 28 U.S.C. §1498

Fontaine v. California, 390 U.S. 593 (decided April 8, 1968): conviction for marijuana sale vacated because prosecutor and judge commented on defendant’s failure to testify (informant witness was not available and they pointed out that defendant himself was the only one who could clear up whether he knew it was marijuana and chose not to do so)

Highland v. Russell Car & Snowplow Co., 279 U.S. 253 (decided April 8, 1929): upholding wartime Lever Act of 1917 fixing coal prices even though operators lost money thereby (dismissing suit for lost profits)

Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (decided April 8, 1929): upholding conviction for contempt of Congress; questions as to defendant’s company’s oil contract to supply naval vessels were not “personal” and were pertinent to inquiry (overruled by United States v. Gaudin, 1995, which held that pertinency is for jury to decide)

Helson v. Kentucky, 279 U.S. 245 (decided April 8, 1929): Kentucky tax on gasoline sold to ferries plying the Ohio River between Kentucky and Illinois violates Dormant Commerce Clause

Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Humble, 181 U.S. 57 (decided April 8, 1901): can’t dismiss married woman’s personal injury suit under law of Louisiana where they lived (and which did not allow married woman to bring suit alone) where injury occurred in Arkansas (which permitted her to sue on her own behalf) and where she sued in that state’s court; irrelevant that suit was removed to federal court

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Fr. Permoli’s lawyer tried to get around the earlier case of Barron v. Baltimore, under which the *original* 13 states weren’t bound by the Bill of Rights. But, said the lawyer, Congress in admitting Louisiana imposed a requirement of religious freedom. Court: And by admitting Louisiana as a state and approving its state constitution, Congress conclusively decided that Louisiana had met any conditions. No federal question.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks.

Yes, true. This argument was used less successfully in dissent by the second Justice Harlan when the Court was invalidating discriminatory and segregationist aspects of Southern state constitutions on Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection grounds. Harlan pointed out that the same Congress that approved the Fourteenth Amendment also approved those constitutions when those states were getting readmitted after the Civil War.

[SMP0328]

This argument was used less successfully in dissent by the second Justice Harlan when the Court was invalidating discriminatory and segregationist aspects of Southern state constitutions on Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection grounds. Harlan pointed out that the same Congress that approved the Fourteenth Amendment also approved those constitutions when those states were getting readmitted after the Civil War.

Thank goodness that reasoning didn't achieve a majority. Congress can't authorize a violation of the Constitution, even if the alleged authorizing is by the Congress that proposed the Constitutional provision at issue.