Today in Supreme Court History: April 9, 1923

4/9/1923: Adkins v. Children's Hospital decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (decided April 9, 1923): striking down District of Columbia minimum wage law for women as interfering with freedom of contract (a right which, BTW, the Constitution does not protect against federal interference) (overruled by, among other cases, West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 1937)

NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404 (decided April 9, 1962): Court of Appeals cannot apply stricter “substantial evidence” standard of review for NLRB reinstatement-and-back-pay decisions despite financial effect on employer; must apply same deferential standard as in cease-and-desist decisions

Schulz v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 350 U.S. 523 (decided April 9, 1956): trial judge should not have directed verdict for defendant in Jones Act case; jury could have connected negligence (forcing husband tug operator to work on icy, cold night) with injury (finding his body in water with flashlight in his hand, even though he might have fallen for some other reason than slipping on ice)

Shepherd v. Florida, 341 U.S. 50 (decided April 9, 1951): reversing conviction of four black men for raping 17-year-old white girl, citing Cassell v. Texas, which held that exclusion of blacks from grand jury violated Due Process; Jackson, with Frankfurter concurring in judgment, noted that jurors had read press accounts that falsely stated men had confessed, uncorrected by sheriff (reading their opinion, one sees that this was not the half of it); “these defendants were prejudged as guilty and the trial was but a legal gesture to register a verdict already dictated by the press and the public opinion which it generated”

Moser v. United States, 341 U.S. 41 (decided April 9, 1951): applying for exemption from military service during World War II (on the basis that he was a citizen of a neutral country, Switzerland) does not bar him from later applying for naturalization

Comm’r of Internal Revenue v. Smith, 324 U.S. 695 (decided April 9, 1945): for capital gains tax purposes stock of another corporation per stock option agreement with employer is valued at time stock is actually received and not when option exercised

Phipps v. Cleveland Refining Co., 261 U.S. 449 (decided April 9, 1923): fees for state inspection of petroleum products which provided revenue to the state far in excess of the cost to it of inspection burdened interstate commerce and violated Dormant Commerce Clause

Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. James, 125 U.S. 447 (decided April 9, 1888): patent suit involving design of post office boxes; patentee loses because defendant’s design did not have key patent feature (boxes being connected such that breaking into one destroys the overall woodwork)

Sarlls v. United States, 152 U.S. 570 (decided April 9, 1894): beer is not “spiritous liquor or wine” under statute criminalizing bringing such into “Indian Country”

United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48 (decided April 9, 1951): taking of Indian lands is not “taking” under Fifth Amendment and therefore usual rule of no interest allowed on claims against United States applies

[John F. Carr]

"Substantial evidence" is already a deferential standard.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not with agency determinations in such a situation, apparently. The Court wanted “misapprehension or gross misapplication of the applicable standard” deference. Which sounds pretty extremely deferential.

[SRG2]

More on Shepherd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groveland_Four

No doubt the present Florida government would not want such cases discussed in Florida schools.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Probably not.

Like I said, my summary doesn't tell the half of it.

[Jerry B.]

Note that the sheriff was a Democrat.

[SRG2]

Note that the sheriff was a racist white Southerner and probably a Christian.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You would have been a Democrat in the American south of 1951, too, Jerry B.

A bigoted, drawling, half-educated, worthless, destined-for-defeat-and-then-registration-as-a-Republican Democrat.

Not much different from the whining, defeated, resentful, bigoted rube you are today

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"No doubt the present Florida government would not want such cases discussed in Florida schools."

I don't know - has the case been discussed in Florida schools at any time? Was it discussed before DeSatan and then DeSatan had it dropped from the curriculum?

[Dan Schiavetta]

If so, only as a part of a “both sides” discussion, apparently. The current Florida official benchmark for teaching the Jim Crow era requires “Instruction as to acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans” (my emphasis). See
https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/20653/urlt/6-4.pdf

It then lists six riots/massacres but doesn’t mention that all of them were perpetrated by whites on blacks.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

All the examples they cite are horrific incidents of white-on-black violence, as would be brought out in any classroom instruction.

I guess DeSatan's white supremacist agenda hasn't been fully fulfilled, even in the curricular standards you yourself cite.

[defaultdotxbe]

From the wiki article:

On January 11, 2019, the Florida Board of Executive Clemency, with newly seated Governor Ron DeSantis at the helm, unanimously agreed to pardon the Groveland Four. "Seventy years is a long time", DeSantis said before taking office. "And that's the amount of time four young men have been wrongly written into Florida history for crimes they did not commit and punishments they did not deserve."

[Krayt]

United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48 (decided April 9, 1951): taking of Indian lands is not “taking” under Fifth Amendment and therefore usual rule of no interest allowed on claims against United States applies

What other takings are there? By treaty? Act of war?

[Krayt]

Act of war then treaty then here's a reservation for you then, finally, Congress said, ok, you can sue us for taking your stuff.

Four of the tribes,[2] the Tillamooks, Coquilles, Too-too-to-neys and Chetcos

Too too toney?