Today in Supreme Court History: April 13, 1896

4/13/1896: Plessy v. Ferguson argued.

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

That's a precedent that'll last! 58 years anyway. So you can have your Segregated Dorms at Williams College, Wesleyan, Brown, MIT, Columbia, Corn-hole, wow, a literal "Murderer's Row" of the factories producing the Reverend's "Bettors".
Coincidentally (or maybe not) Amurica's Correctional Facilities are the other major Institution offering Segregated umm,
"Living Facilities"
You just can't have a law saying it's OK

Frank

[Dan Schiavetta]

Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (decided April 13, 1942): city could ban public distribution of handbills which argued political issue as a pretext but really were advertising (exhibiting submarine for profit) (overruled by Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 1976)

Smith v. Springdale Amusement Park, 283 U.S. 121 (decided April 13, 1931): mechanical arm running along dog track with lure was not patentable (pretty obvious, I think — any dog will chase any arm holding what it thinks is food — in fact a lot of humans are like that, with money)

Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 233 U.S. 325 (decided April 13, 1914): not a denial of Equal Protection to make railroads doubly liable, with attorney’s fees, for killing livestock if they refuse to pay for loss

Doullut & Williams Co. v. United States, 268 U.S. 33 (decided April 13, 1925): damage to pilings on lower Mississippi caused by vessel is within admiralty jurisdiction

Hart v. Virginia, 298 U.S. 34 (decided April 13, 1936): no federal issue and therefore no habeas jurisdiction where state law self-defense defense to murder charge had been rejected by jury

Herron v. Southern Pacific Co., 283 U.S. 91 (decided April 13, 1931): in case brought by man whose car collided with a train, federal court can ignore state constitution provision that contributory negligence is always a question for the jury and direct verdict for defendant (I don’t think his holding survives Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, particularly when you read the Court’s rationale, which calls contributory negligence a rule of procedure)

Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565 (decided April 13, 1896): can’t contest de facto exclusion of blacks from state grand juries if it’s not de jure (obviously this is no longer good law)

Montgomery v. United States, 162 U.S. 410 (decided April 13, 1896): conviction of postal clerk for stealing money from mails affirmed; not entitled to entrapment defense (letters containing money had been mailed by inspectors to what clerk knew were fictitious addresses)

Amy v. Shelby County Taxing District, 114 U.S. 387 (decided April 13, 1885): state’s decision to allow back taxes to be set off by other obligations did not impair its contracts with bond holders

Wilson v. Everett, 139 U.S. 616 (decided April 13, 1891): appeal pursued only for the purposes of delay (this was before the era of certiorari and the Court was required to hear most appeals), i.e., appellant knew Court had no power to review facts, would be met with sanctions

[Krayt]

Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (decided April 13, 1942): city could ban public distribution of handbills which argued political issue as a pretext but really were advertising (exhibiting submarine for profit) (overruled by Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 1976)

We can’t let The People get away with a pretext of free speech to access other free speech we can’t ban but banned anyway.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Restrictions on commercial speech (e.g., hawking a submarine exhibit) have always been subject to lesser scrutiny. People will always be trying to make $ and it's not as easily squelched by government action as political speech.

[Krayt]

Increased scrutiny is part of my sarcasm. Problems with lying or distortive advertising is one thing. Banning because commercial is another.

Speaking of which, in my YouTube shorts funny scroll wall, one ad was Tom Hanks speaking of how some female doctor had cured diabetes but Big Pharma was getting in the way. I couldn't believe he was involved in such transparent snake oil, so I looked her up. Apparently she's cured kidney disease as well. I had suspected Tom's voice was the latest perfect AI simulation, and it was perfect, but tbe visual the mouth movements didn't match, and there wasn't a thing on him being behind any such. I flagged it as a scam.