Today in Supreme Court History: April 14, 1873

4/14/1873: The Slaughter-House Cases argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (decided April 14, 1873): Fourteenth Amendment (states can’t abridge “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”) doesn’t prevent states from abridging state rights, only federal rights (which the Court refuses to give examples of) (upholding state’s police power to centralize butcher operations for public safety reasons) (in lecturing on this case my Con Law professor, who like many law professors was unaware of how he came off, kept spitting out the phrase “the BUTCH-ers of New OR-leans!” like they were mass murderers; as the son of a butcher I resent how people use the verb “butcher” to describe shoddy or violent mishandling)
​
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 598 U.S. 175 (decided April 14, 2023): challenges to Constitutionality of FTC and SEC ALJ’s can be brought in federal district court (instead of the usual process of agency determination and then appealing to Court of Appeals) (claim was that ALJ’s were not accountable to President mixing of prosecutorial and adjudicatory powers; if this question gets litigated to a determination the implications are vast)

Butler v. Whiteman, 356 U.S. 271 (decided April 14, 1958): jury in Jones Act case should have been allowed to decide whether decedent killed while cleaning tug boiler at wharf was in aid of navigation, was a seaman and whether defendant’s negligence was a factor (overruled by McDermontt Int’l v. Wilander, 1991, to the extent that non-seamen can sue under the Jones Act) (sometime after 1991 I defended a Jones Act case where plaintiff was injured when his truck tipped over while loading pallets onto a ship)

United States v. Adams, 281 U.S. 202 (decided April 14, 1930): double jeopardy to prosecute making false entry in bank book where already acquitted as to making false entry as to same transaction in another book

Miller v. McLaughlin, 281 U.S. 261 (decided April 14, 1930): Nebraska can regulate fishing on its side of the Missouri River; does not interfere with interstate commerce with Iowa

Walling v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., 331 U.S. 17 (decided April 14, 1947): Fair Labor Standards Act not violated by arrangement where employees (servicers of oil wells) sometimes have to work more than 84 hours a week to get overtime due to wildly varying hours worked weekly (often less than 20, but also often more than 100 hours/week!) (this decision provoked Congress into amending the overtime statute, 29 U.S.C. §207)

Crane v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 331 U.S. 1 (decided April 14, 1947): homeowner’s taxable gain or loss as to property is measured by its fair market value at the time of acquisition without subtracting for mortgage

United States v. Resler, 313 U.S. 57 (decided April 14, 1941): local ordinance requiring license for storing coal did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause even though coal destined for interstate sale; no “continuity of transit”

Wisconsin v. Illinois, 281 U.S. 179 (decided April 14, 1930): orders Illinois to quit stalling and stop diverting Lake Michigan water from Wisconsin as previously ordered (“If its Constitution stands in the way of prompt action it must amend it or yield to an authority that is paramount to the State”)

Kentucky v. Indiana, 281 U.S. 163 (decided April 14, 1930): fact that state (Indiana) is being sued by its own citizens in dispute over contract with another state (Kentucky) to build bridge (over Ohio River) is no defense to original jurisdiction suit (by Kentucky) for breach of contract

Matters v. Ryan, 249 U.S. 375 (decided April 14, 1919): Two women (one English and one American) claimed to be the mother of the same baby, who was brought in from Canada by the American woman. Instead of threatening to cut the baby in two, the Court holds that any federal question presented by the allegation that immigration laws were violated by a minor being brought into the United States by a non-parent is “frivolous”. (unknown what happened after this)

[Dilan Esper]

At the end of the day, I do think the state had the right to regulate the butchers of New Orleans, but I think that the commentators (mostly on the Right but some on the Left as well) who think that SCOTUS butchered the privileges or immunities clause in the decision are also correct.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the reason the Court never undid that damage might have had something to do with the case relating to economic rights. By the time the Court was ready to accept 14th amendment incorporation, "Lochnerism" had become a swear word.

Argued, by the way, on January 11th, 1872, and reargued February 3-5th, 1873, decided on April 14th.

[not guilty]

"By the time the Court was ready to accept 14th amendment incorporation, 'Lochnerism' had become a swear word."

I don't think so. the era of Lochner continued until about 1937. First Amendment freedoms of speech and of the press were recognized as being applicable to the states as early as 1925. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925). See also, Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927).

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, "about" the time.

[Dan Schiavetta]

(I’m trying not to be offended by your use of the word “butchered”)

The case turns on the appearance of the words “of the United States” in the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. It must have been put there for a reason.

If this refers to only keeping hands off federal rights, then the butchers would have to show they were denied “Equal Protection” of some federal law. Which they could not.

If however the words are to make clear that the 14A's protection extends to every U.S. citizen, whether he's from that State or any other State, then “Equal Protection” can be used as an argument to oppose almost any kind of State action and the Court was not ready to go there.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you’re reasoning from the warped perspective that resulted from the Slaughterhouse cases, where the P&I clause is rendered essentially moot, and the EP clause has been enlarged in reach to compensate.

Of course the butchers’ case wasn’t an EP case. It was a P&I case. Giving them the win on a P&I basis wouldn’t have had any such consequence. It would simply have involved recognizing the right to pursue a livelihood as one of the protected Privileges and Immunities of citizenship. So, states would be denied the right to hand out monopolies on lines of business, and what's horrifying about that?

Which, is, of course, Lochnerism. But the idea of citizens having economic rights being a horrific thing is of relatively recent origin, it wouldn’t have struck the people who wrote and ratified the 14th amendment as even a tiny bit outrageous. See Howard’s speech introducing the 14th amendment. “The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise;” Certainly seems apposite, doesn’t it?

[Krychek_2]

The problem is that, as with Ninth Amendment unenumerated rights, it’s wide open to interpretation, and therefore in the eye of the beholder, what is, and is not, a privilege and immunity. So it either becomes a dead letter if courts are understandably reluctant to make it open ended, or it makes it unconstitutional for the states to regulate much of anything.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I find this clause a bit vague, so let's pretend it isn't there!" does not strike me as a legitimate approach to constitutional interpretation.

[Dilan Esper]

That was Judge Bork's approach to the Ninth Amendment. He called it an "inkblot".

[Dan Schiavetta]

You could guess that the inkblot covered rights you wanted protected, or guess that it did not cover rights you did not want protected.

Bork was an interesting, eloquent, and very smart speaker. I met him once, at a reception afterwards where he had a cigarette in his mouth, a drink in one hand and a plate of pigs-in-the-blanket in the other. I told him he should lose weight and quit smoking. I turned out being right because he had a heart attack soon after.

[Dilan Esper]

Bork was very smart (and even made some very defensible decisions on the DC Circuit) but too doctrinaire. He was to the Right what Noam Chomsky is to the left.

[Brett Bellmore]

He might have had a chance of ending up on the Supreme court, but for the fact that he alienated a lot of people on the Right, too. So nobody had his back.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just to clarify, in my family, "pigs in the blanket" were cabbage rolls, Polish Golumpki. Is that what we're talking about here?

[bernard11]

It is interesting to me that the issue of rights in clean water does not seem to have drawn any attention. This begins as a classic Coasian situation, where the dispute arises only because those rights are not assigned.

It is one thing to say the butchers have a right to earn a living, and another to say they can pollute New Orleans' drinking water in the process.

Do the residents of New Orleans have a property right to clean water, or do the butchers have the right to pollute the water for their gain?

I think the right should belong to the New Orleanians, and that the state legislature can regulate the butchers in the interest of public health, because it seems easier for the butchers to clean up their act than for the city to move (though I'm not sure the chosen scheme was best. It smells a bit off to me.)

If you disagree then it is up to N.O. to deal with the problem.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It is one thing to say the butchers have a right to earn a living, and another to say they can pollute New Orleans’ drinking water in the process."

Yes, they are, if fact, completely different questions. And the state could have prohibited that pollution without creating a monopoly. It was the monopoly that was the constitutional issue here.

[F.D. Wolf]

It appears that the Supreme Court of Ontario held that Margaret Ryan, the Canadian woman who claimed her child had been taken to America, was the mother of the child, giving her custody. Matters v. Ryan (1919), 17 O.W.N. 232, aff'd, (1920) 19 O.W.N. 173.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

A Canada case (which is why nothing showed up in Westlaw!).

[Krayt]

Dna test on corpses would be interesting. I suppose the bebby could still be alive.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I wish the Rector of Westminster Abbey would give permission to DNA test the bones found in the Tower of London in 1674. Were they really the lost princes?

[NvEric]

"I don't mean to be mean, but I mean what I mean."
Context of a word used should focus meaning so that 'butcher' and 'butcher' mean and describe their intention for different uses.

Preparation of an animal for food is an art / science held in esteem for the skill required to obtain a proper product.

Whereas hacking away at a body to kill, in a blood lust, is usually a mindless/non-thinking/animal act likely to require a visit from law enforcement.

[bernard11]

There are those who argue that Solomon in fact knew which woman was the actual mother, and that his threat to split the baby was a bluff intended to bring out the facts publicly, and to enhance his own reputation for wisdom at the same time.

This was early in his reign, and his hold on the throne was not secure. This incident strengthened it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I think that's true. If he was going into it blind the risk was too great that things could go wrong. What if neither was the real mother? Everyone would be expecting him to actually cut the baby in two.

[Magister]

The Slaughter-House Cases were argued (per Blackman) and decided (per captcrisis) on the same day? I want to believe that Supreme Court was wickedly fast, but past experience engenders too much doubt.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Every source I checked says it was argued in February and decided (i.e., decision issued) on April 14.

[SMP0328]

The decision was on this date in 1873. Captcrisis is correct.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m sure Prof. Blackman will have a correction but by next year.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A Noble Prize for Achievement in Identifying Error in Today in Supreme Court History was earned by and awarded to captcrisis a year ago. Several commenters noticed that the Slaughter-House cases were argued not on April 14, 1873 (as Profs. Barnett and Blackman have repeatedly and falsely claimed) but instead were argued in January 1872 and reargued in February 1873.

These chuckleheads' failure to correct this mistake after it was identified by others is another example of what passes for scholarship -- Volokh Conspiracy-, Georgetown-, and South Texas-style -- in some circles these days.

Carry on, clingers. As best you can.