Today in Supreme Court History: April 19, 1920

4/19/1920: Missouri v. Holland decided.

The White Court (1920)

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Nelson v. Colorado, 581 U.S. 128 (decided April 19, 2017): striking down on Due Process grounds Colorado statute requiring acquitted defendants who seek recoupment of the restitution, fees, etc. they have been required to pay to prove their innocence by clear and convincing evidence (being found not guilty was by itself enough proof)

Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (decided April 19, 1920): Missouri can’t prevent federal game warden from enforcing Migratory Bird Treaty Act (which was based on 1916 treaty with Britain as to protecting birds in Canada and the U.S. and which declared that birds were the property of the respective national governments)

McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (decided April 19, 1978): Free Exercise clause violated by statute forbidding clergy from serving as delegates to state constitutional convention

Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247 (decided April 19, 2011): Ex parte Young exception to state Eleventh Amendment immunity (a legal fiction that a state official who acts illegally has “stripped himself” of his authority and can be sued individually) applies to suit by independent state watchdog (advocating for the intellectually disabled) against state hospital official unlawfully refusing access to records

Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (decided April 19, 2005): investors of corporation which allegedly gave false impression as to FDA approval of new drug resulting in artificial inflation of stock price could allege fraud but not economic loss because no showing of loss due to stock later falling

Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (decided April 19, 1995): moving for reconsideration of deportation order doesn’t toll 90-day deadline for filing appeal (as might be implied by Administrative Procedure Act)

Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S. 476 (decided April 19, 1995): prohibiting showing alcohol content on beer labels violates First Amendment right to free speech (belch!) (brewers wanted to get into “strength wars”)

J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 (decided April 19, 1994): Equal Protection violation for state to exclude men from juries in paternity suits (yeah, I would say so!)

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (decided April 19, 2004): no Double Jeopardy when defendant convicted in tribal court for assaulting non-Indian policeman was charged in federal court for assaulting (same) federal officer; Congress had allowed tribe to be its own sovereign

Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (decided April 19, 1977): corporal punishment in public school is not “cruel and unusual punishment” and does not require a hearing

[SRG2]

The Greatest Justice Who Ever Lived or Who Shall Ever Live wrote in dissent in Nelson

"In my view, petitioners have not demonstrated that defendants whose convictions have been reversed possess a substantive entitlement, under either state law or the Constitution, to recover money they paid to the State pursuant to their convictions"

Pages of preposterous drivel follow.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1256_5i36.pdf

Basically, once you've paid the money to the Court, you can kindly fuck off. This is legalism at its worst.

[SRG2]

JEB v Alabama contains one of Scalia's classic dissents - a well-written splenetic and hysterical screed.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/127/

This must have been one of Blackmun's last decisions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 (decided April 19, 1994): Equal Protection violation for state to exclude men from juries in paternity suits (yeah, I would say so!)

This is a little misleading! The holding is that a peremptory challenge to a juror based on sex is forbidden in the same way as a peremptory challenge based on race.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks -- will rephrase

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Could there be triple jeopardy?

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (decided April 19, 2004): no Double Jeopardy when defendant convicted in tribal court for assaulting non-Indian policeman was charged in federal court for assaulting (same) federal officer; Congress had allowed tribe to be its own sovereign

State, federal, and tribe all piling on would seem to be legal.

Heck, throw in a few foreign countries, eventually someone will get the desired result.

I understand the dual sovereignty argument. What if, say, France prosecutes someone who is acquitted, and later comes to the US, and the courts decide his French prosecution was inept or corrupt and want to prosecute themselves? From there it’s only a short quibble to let the Feds treat state prosecutions similarly, especially when ex-Confederate states pulled their usual tricks on lynchings and bogus crimes.

It’s also bullshit that OJ was innocent of the criminal charges but guilty of the civil ones.

Legal systems are far more enamored of ritual and procedure than justice.

[SMP0328]

It’s also bullshit that OJ was innocent of the criminal charges but guilty of the civil ones.

Would you have preferred a double-win or double-loss for The Juice?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I personally think he was guilty, the cops were incompetent and made themselves look so bad that the jury took advantage of it. I just don’t like double jeopardy and the idea that a criminal trial can acquit while the civil trial convicts. The whole thing stank. There shouldn't even have been a civil trial once acquitted.

[SRG2]

It's a matter of probabilities. If you think someone is 75% likely to be guilty of an offence, they should be acquitted - but why should they escape altogether when it's likely they did it?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is fine with me. Watering it down is not. Better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be convicted, and all that.

[SMP0328]

So, you would apply BARD to civil cases? That would make a huge number of civil cases unwinnable.

[SRG2]

You don't go to prison in a civil case and you don't get a criminal record.

[David Nieporent]

The civil trial didn't convict, and didn't place him in jeopardy.

[David Nieporent]

There is no such thing as "guilty of the civil ones." Civil cases do not decide guilt or innocence.

[not guilty]

"It’s also bullshit that OJ was innocent of the criminal charges but guilty of the civil ones."

Neither O. J. Simpson's guilt nor innocence has ever been judicially determined. As with every criminal case, the jury was not tasked with determining innocence. He was determined to be not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and later determined to be civilly liable by a preponderance of the evidence.