Today in Supreme Court History: April 26, 1995

4/26/1995: U.S. v. Lopez decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (decided April 26, 1995): Gun-Free School Zones Act (prohibiting guns in school zone) exceeds Commerce Clause power because gun possession is not economic activity; 5 – 4 decision

Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (decided April 26, 2005): 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) (prohibiting gun possession by anyone “convicted in any court” of crime punishable by more than one year) does not apply to foreign convictions (here, in Japan for smuggling guns) (§922(g)(8), which restricted the gun rights of wife and child beaters, was later declared unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds, 61 F.4th 443, 3/2/23; the Court took up the appeal but hasn’t decided it yet)

Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (decided April 26, 1977): invalidating on Equal Protection grounds Illinois statute allowing non-marital children to inherit from intestate mothers but not from intestate fathers

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, N.J., 578 U.S. 266 (decided April 26, 2016): valid §1983 claim even though superiors’ belief that plaintiff (a policeman) was participating in political activity (not a permissible reason for demotion) was mistaken (he was at campaign headquarters for mayor’s opponent not to help with campaign but to pick up yard sign as favor to his bedridden mother)

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (decided April 26, 2006): one suing federal officials for malicious prosecution (an example of a Bivens suit, the federal analog of a §1983 suit against state officials) must show absence of probable cause for prosecution

Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (decided April 26, 2000): former president of company could not sue under RICO after being terminated on trumped-up charges after discovering and punishing corruption among subordinates because termination was not part of their racketeering

Pasquantinov v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (decided April 26, 2005): Canada liquor taxes are “property” within meaning of Wire Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1343, so scheme to defraud can be prosecuted despite rule at common law that courts can’t enforce tax laws of foreign sovereigns (I’m almost quoting from Thomas’s elegant 3-sentence introduction) (defendants smuggled liquor in from Canada without paying Canadian excise taxes) (so if the Court, as allowed by the statute, imposes a fine instead of a sentence, does the money go to the Canadian government?)

New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (decided April 26, 1995): ERISA did not preempt New York statute placing surcharges on benefits from hospital insurance plans governed by ERISA

Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (decided April 26, 1993): First Amendment violated by statute banning unwanted telephone call solicitations by CPA (he’s probably blocked by do-not-call laws now)

Long Island Water-Supply Co. v. City of Brooklyn, N.Y., 166 U.S. 685 (decided April 26, 1897): In 1886 the town of New Lots was annexed by the City of Brooklyn, which condemned a water supply system operated by a private company. The Court here holds that this did not violate Contracts Clause, art. I, §10, because it was a “taking” of property for public use for which the company was compensated.

[Krayt]

Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (decided April 26, 1977): invalidating on Equal Protection grounds Illinois statute allowing non-marital children to inherit from intestate mothers but not from intestate fathers

A non-marital child is a child whose biological parents weren't married to each other when that child was born or conceived.

Oh, bastards! Why didn't you just say so?

[Malika the Maiz]

That term, and their historical treatment, is really a bad one given it's a perfect example of inviting the sins of the fathers/mothers onto the child who had no responsibility in any way.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Trimble v. Gordon”

If the guy is intestate, how could he be the father of children?

You need testes to father kids, don't you?

[Brett Bellmore]

"United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (decided April 26, 1995): Gun-Free School Zones Act (prohibiting guns in school zone) exceeds Commerce Clause power because gun possession is not economic activity; 5 – 4 decision"

Technically, because Congress had neglected to assert that it was an economic activity: "Second, § 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element that would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce."

This was very much a 'magic words' decision, and Congress swiftly reenacted the law with the magic words added.

It's hard to say if the Court would uphold the reenacted version, because it's been very carefully shielded from accidentally generating any good test cases.

Also, additionally worth noting is that this came during the period when the Court was refusing all cases that explicitly raised the 2nd amendment as an issue, and so the Court analyzed the case utterly without regard to the 2nd amendment.

I'd really like to see this reenacted law face review again in the current environment.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You're probably correct. Thanks.

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you think Bruen killed the "sensitive places" holding of Heller?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, but it probably does require "sensitive places" to be justified by reference to the relevant historical practice, not just designated willy-nilly.

[Michael P]

(The ghost of) Anatole France, the city of Grants Pass, and the Supreme Court should consider that the law, in its majestic equality, forbids entitled twats and poor alike to camp in public spaces, block passage of religious minorities, and throw paint on sculptures.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would remind Anatole that the real world alternative to the majestic equality of the law isn't the poor getting special solicitude, but instead the rich and powerful getting it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Law exists to protect the weak and powerless. The rich and powerful don’t need it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ideally, sure, the law would exist to protect the weak and powerless. Because, ideally, the law would protect EVERYONE. The rich are as much a part of everyone as the poor, you know.

In the real world? The "powerful" are whoever are controlling which way the club of the law is being swung, and sometimes that's not the rich, as the author of The Gods Will Have Blood knew only too well.

So, no, I will maintain that his majestic equality is actually the best we can aspire to, because when the law abandons that equality, it just becomes a weapon for one group to beat down another. And the poor spend a lot more of history on the receiving end of that than the wealthy.

[Michael P]

Tell that to Donald Trump.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If Trump were not rich and powerful, he would currently be serving his fourth year in jail. After serving a number of jail terms in the 1980s and 1990s.

[Michael P]

In the same cell block as the Biden and Clinton crime families, no doubt.

[Brett Bellmore]

If Trump hadn't had the bad taste to win the 2016 election, none of these charges would ever have been brought in the first place.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yup, lèse-majesté cannot be forgiven.

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump had a long reputation of being "shady." Becoming even more famous resulting in an even brighter spotlight on him seems kind of natural...

Also, seeing as how Trump made political prosecution of his primary political opponent a chief part of his campaign it's a bit hard to sympathize with his cries that now this is happening to him. I guess it could be defended this way "no, no, we said lock *her* up, not him! A very different principle!"

[Bob from Ohio]

Campaign rhetoric is not the same as Biden and other Dems actually bringing the charges.

Trump passed on bringing charges, Biden did not. Trump is the bigger man, Biden is a schmuck.

[Malika the Maiz]

Didn't both Trump and Biden's DOJ's appoint special counsels to investigate? You think Trump ordered Durham not to bring charges in some way?

[Bob from Ohio]

Durham was not appointed to investigate Clinton. Good try.

[Michael P]

Bill Barr also says he specifically told Durham to exempt Obama and Biden from scrutiny: "I made it clear that neither President Obama nor Vice President Biden were in Durham’s crosshairs."

[Malika the Maiz]

That's why one of his (unsuccessful) charges was against a Clinton campaign operative?

[Krayt]

Trump also fought a lifetime battle against NYC red tape for the honor of building multiple giant buildings. Officials go into government to get in the way to get paid to get back out of the way.

After seeing this is how much of the world actually operates, I realized the idea of evil businessmen tempting sweet, naive officials working their gosh darned bestest for The People was a profound lie.

[Malika the Maiz]

Sounds like you traded overgeneralization fallicies.

[bernard11]

Don't kid yourself. Trump got away with a lot, not least embezzlement from his foundation.

The guy has always been crooked as a snake.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say he was entirely on the up and up. I said that he wouldn't have been prosecuted for this stuff if he hadn't won in 2016.

[Bob from Ohio]

"After serving a number of jail terms in the 1980s and 1990s."

FFS, that is just BS. You hate him but that is just a retcon fantasy.

[Malika the Maiz]

One has to wonder about people who wake up so angry about "entitled twats" like homeless people in Grants Pass but in the next breath sympathize with the persecution of poor old Donald Trump (nothing entitled about that guy!).

[Krayt]

Most people vote for whatever pol blabs they're gonna help the poor, then immediately move on with their own lives.

[Michael P]

No, homeless people are "the poor". I'm sorry that you can't read for shit and don't know your Anatole France.