Today in Supreme Court History: April 24, 1963

4/24/1963: Sherbert v. Verner argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (decided April 24, 1944): allegation that faith healing advocates knew that their claims of religious belief were false and were used just for solicitation was precluded by Free Exercise Clause; entire mail fraud indictment thrown out even though question of defendants’ good faith in their beliefs was not submitted to jury (this was the “I Am” movement, followers of the late “Guy W. Ballard, a/k/a George Washington, Jesus”)

United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73 (decided April 24, 1916): any White Slave Traffic (Mann Act) offense can be prosecuted in D.C. because element of offense is failing to mail in registration of woman to immigration office in D.C. (though offense can also be prosecuted in the state where the mailing should have been from)

Ngiraingas v. Sanchez, 495 U.S. 182 (decided April 24, 1990): can’t sue under §1983 in territories such as Guam, just in states (assaulted by police and forced to sign confessions)

Jenner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U.S. — (decided April 24, 2018): “artificial entities” like (foreign) corporations can’t be sued under Alien Tort Statute (bank allegedly funded terrorism) (so here, a corporation is not a “person”)

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 584 U.S. — (decided April 24, 2018): no separation of powers problem with Patent Office procedure for “inter partes” review (post-patent review sought by outside party which can result in patent being canceled; decision can then be appealed in federal court)

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (decided April 24, 2001): can make warrantless arrest where no “breach of peace” (here, officer noticed driver and children all in front seat without seat belts, and she was also driving without a license and without insurance; defendant’s account makes the officer look vindictive and unprofessional)

Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (decided April 24, 1990): This is actor James Stewart, and the movie “Rear Window”, based on a 1942 magazine short story by Cornell Woolrich, who assigned his rights to the production company (formed by Stewart and Alfred Hitchcock) and promised to renew the copyright and assign the rights to the renewal, but died before the original copyright expired. With dissemination of the movie in the 1980’s in various media, the publisher (which held copyright on the entire magazine issue) sued for infringement. The Court holds that the original copyright (Woolrich’s) is not extinguished when incorporated into a derivative work (the movie).

North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (decided April 24, 1979): don’t have to explicitly say, “I waive my right to remain silent”; defendant (arrested on another charge) refused to sign “Advice of Rights” form though agreed to talk; inculpatory statements should have been excluded

Parham v. Hughes, 441 U.S. 347 (decided April 24, 1979): upholding against Equal Protection attack Georgia statute precluding father of child he never formally acknowledged from suing for wrongful death

Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (decided April 24, 1979): Oklahoma statute prohibiting interstate sale of minnows violated Dormant Commerce Clause (apparently there are “licensed minnow dealers”; they’re used for bait — no not the dealers, the minnows)

[Magister]

I used to be co-owner of a bait shop which sold live bait including minnows, and the state regulated resellers and producers of live bait.

Presumably Oklahoma could still set standards for minnows to be sold in Oklahoma as long as the rules were the same for in-state and out-of-state producers.

[Michael P]

Sherbet v. Verner is not as well-known or interesting as Custard v. Gelato.

[mulched]

Custard won, and I got fat on the settlement.

[Brett Bellmore]

Vernors has been bought out multiple times, and somewhere along the way somebody decided to change the recipe, and it's never been the same. I guess aging it for several years in an oak barrel wasn't very economical?

[Krychek_2]

I thought I already posted this but I'm not seeing it so my apologies if it comes through twice.

One of the unfortunate side effects of capitalism is that when there is a conflict between putting out a good product and making more profits, profits generally win. This is especially true when a smaller company, that had been putting out a good product, gets bought out by a bigger company that only cares about the bottom line. You can always tell when a smaller company has been bought out because their quality usually heads south.

[Mr. Bumble]

See Dr. Pepper.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Where "good" is up to the producer as informed by consumers. Consumers are king in capitalism, and just because one consumer, you, doesn't like the other consumers' definition of "good", doesn't give you any moral kingship to blame capitalism for satisfying the majority of consumers.

If you think producers should earn less profit to produce what you and few others like, you are free to pay extra, send some donations, and rectify this moral monstrosity. You could even start your own company and make less profit than your competitors.

[apedad]

"Consumers are king in capitalism . . . . "

Except with commercial airlines.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Except where government interferes, meddles, and otherwise distorts the market relationship.

[Krychek_2]

Just when I think you can't possibly say anything any more stupid than your previous comment, you manage to top yourself.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Can't refute it, can you, thus the resort to insults.

[Krychek_2]

Why would anyone engage with you when you’re as dumb as a box of rocks?

Air travel has gotten objectively worse since deregulation. So, since the corporate buyouts and to use Mr. Bumble’s example, has Dr. Pepper, and so has Dunkin Donuts. There is simply no plausible argument that they’ve gotten better. And whether or not government should be involved — and to a larger extent than you probably think I tend to agree with you that it should not — does not change the fact that it’s a failing of capitalism.

Capitalism mostly benefits people at the top. If you’re fine with that, great, but don’t get your tail in a knot when someone points out that fact.

I will also say that when I travel internationally, I tend to fly the national airline of wherever I'm going if it has one, because I know the government-run airline will have better service than the private carriers. Just took an Air Qatar flight from Doha to Miami; the service even in economy was amazing. If turning a profit isn't your primary motivation, you can deliver a higher quality product.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Air travel has gotten objectively worse since deregulation."

Its gotten much cheaper. So many more people can use it, and do. Air travel prior to deregulation was expensive and used by a select group.

Air travel used to be like cruising on the Queen Mary, now its like going by Greyhound. If you want the Queen Mary, you can buy first class seating though.

Cruises have a similar arc. Mass appeal based on cheaper prices.

Also, air traffic on commercial lines is much, much safer. Last time a US line suffered a fatal crash was in 2009.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

If my arguments are as dumb as you assert, surely it would be easy to refute them.

And then you make yet more idiotic assertions, that "Air travel has gotten objectively worse since deregulation" and "There is simply no plausible argument that they’ve gotten better".

Only for those who could afford air travel before deregulation. The great unwashed masses now fly when they couldn't before? Shall I assert that is what really bothers you, that you have to share cabin space with the plebes? That few airlines see any profit in catering to your kind?

Airline deregulation was a triumph for billions of people, at the cost of your exclusivity. What a shame.

You reek. There's an unrefutable assertion. Deal with it.

[Krychek_2]

And yet, adjusted for inflation, airline prices are significantly higher than they were in 1963:

https://www.in2013dollars.com/Airline-fares/price-inflation

"Between 1963 and 2024: Airfare experienced an average inflation rate of 4% per year. This rate of change indicates significant inflation. In other words, airfare costing $100 in the year 1963 would cost $1,094.29 in 2024 for an equivalent purchase. Compared to the overall inflation rate of 3.87% during this same period, inflation for airfare was higher."

[David Nieporent]

And yet, adjusted for inflation, airline prices are significantly higher than they were in 1963:

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, what should be an obvious red flag is: 1963? Why 1963? A completely random year. Not only was it arbitrarily chosen and likely picked as an outlier year to skew the comparison, but it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion since deregulation didn't take place until 1979. And flights are much cheaper now than in 1979.

Airline travel is far better than it was pre-deregulation. And the aspects that are worse are TSA rules, not capitalism.

[Krychek_2]

David, did you actually look at the link? It provides a handy graph for each year between 1963 and 2024. I don't know why they picked it; maybe because it was 60 years ago.

And no, it's not better. In the 1970s when I first started flying airfares were fully refundable, seats were comfortable and there was space between them, and the food was much, much better, more abundant, and included in the price of the fare. On my last flight with American Airlines they wanted ten bucks for a cold breakfast sandwich.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've still got the silverware from the in flight meal during my HS field trip to DC. TWA, you got to keep it as a souvenir.

Real stainless steel, too. Just a bit on the petite side.

[David Nieporent]

And no, it’s not better. In the 1970s when I first started flying airfares were fully refundable, seats were comfortable and there was space between them, and the food was much, much better, more abundant, and included in the price of the fare. On my last flight with American Airlines they wanted ten bucks for a cold breakfast sandwich.

Yes, back then you got a premier experience — whether you wanted to pay for it or not. (That's what "included in the price" means.) You can still get that now, and pay for it. But you have the choice not to, which is very good for people who can't afford to, or just don't want to. And as the market reveals, most people don't want to.

[Krychek_2]

And, as the link I provided earlier demonstrates, even adjusting for inflation people are still paying more after deregulation. Deregulation brought us both higher fares and a worse flying experience.

[Brett Bellmore]

Vernors was something of a niche taste, frankly. It was creamy, sure, but the ginger component was strong enough that, if you got a bubble up your nose, it just about blew the top of your head off. That's why it was so good in Boston coolers: The ice cream took the edge off, but it had enough authority that's all it did.

I expect that the chief motive for changing the recipe was to widen the appeal, turn it into a mass market product. The original Vernors was never going to be WIDELY popular.

It's kind of crazy to take a dominating niche product, and buy it just so you can turn your back on the niche. You'd think they could have just continued making "Vernors Classic" or something of that sort, even if they had to tone "Vernors" down to widen the appeal.

Well, the problem is that the original buyers appreciated that it had a big fan base in the midwest, and they just thought they could expand that base beyond the original market. But eventually it fell into hands that thought of it as just another name for "ginger ale", and treated it accordingly.

Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf, while the consumer is king, the manager is frequently an incompetent servant to that king. More than one brand has been run into the ground by disinterested managers who had no empathy for the market they were serving.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Yes, that's the difference between free markets and the immortal coercive monopoly we call government. Individual business bureaucracies come and go, taking their mistakes with them, and the remaining businesses have lessons to learn from, if they want to. Government is nothing but a single bureaucracy whose managers have no incentive to learn what their consumers want, and every incentive to do whatever increases their fiefdom.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, but professional management in practice don't have a lot more motive to learn what their consumers want. Unlike owner/managers, their fate isn't tied to the company they manage. Famously, the most dangerous moment for any company is when the founders pass it off to 'professional' management, that's the moment when a lot of successful companies start dying. Certainly happened to my previous employer.

The chief difference is that I can't be forced to buy sucky Vernors-in-name-only. I can be forced to 'buy' government. So individual companies may die, and take cherished products with them, but the market thrives anyway. But sucky government doesn't die, it just goes on being sucky.

[apedad]

North Carolina v. Butler: ” . . . inculpatory statements should have been excluded.”

cc, is that your op?

Because the SC said the defendant’s self-incriminating testimony WAS admissible even when there is no expressed waiver of Miranda rights.

This case was from 1979 and in my time as a federal officer (90s), we only asked for verbal confirmations.

Do you understand your rights?
Are you willing to answer questions?
Do you want a lawyer?

IIRC, if the person refused to answer the questions but wanted to talk then the guidance was to get with the local Staff Judge Advocate (military).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks I’ll look at it again

[Dan Schiavetta]

P.S. Good God — my connection to this situation is even closer than yours. When I looked at the opinion again it became clear to me that the conversation with the FBI agent took place in the same office space later occupied by my law firm!! (The FBI was the prior tenant.) I could have been sitting at the same spot where he refused to sign that form!! There I was, litigating broken pinkies due to sidewalk cracks, not realizing I was at a place where Constitutional history (if not accurate summaries of Constitutional cases) was being made!

[John F. Carr]

If only you had arrived in time.

[Dan Schiavetta]

How true!!