The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: April 27, 1822
4/27/1822: President Ulysses S. Grant's birthday. He would appoint four Justices to the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Waite, Justice Strong, Justice Bradley, and Justice Hunt.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
4 Justices? pretty good. When did he free his Slaves?
When the war ended and all his conscripts went home.
Grant owned one slave during his lifetime, a man named William Jones, who was gifted to Grant by his father-in-law. Grant freed Jones a little more than a year later, signing his manumission papers at the St. Louis courthouse on March 29, 1859. Grant's financial situation at the time was quite dire, and he could instead have sold Jones for at least $1000, the equivalent of about $38,000 in today's money.
Of him, Frederick Douglass said, "To Grant, more than any other man, the Negro owes his enfranchisement" and described him as "a man too broad for prejudice, too humane to despise the humblest, too great to be small at any point. In him the Negro found a protector, the Indian a friend, a vanquished foe a brother, an imperiled nation a savior.”
Indeed. His personal reputation and that of his presidency was tainted by the pseudo-historical Lost Cause Movement. More recent scholarship has greatly upgraded him and his Presidency. Truly one of the greats of American history, without a doubt.
His unfinished autobiography is available for free at Project Gutenberg and other places, and is a fantastic read.
Grant is VERY admirable in many ways, but his Indian policies were a lot more mixed than Douglass is saying. And then there was the scheme to annex Hispaniola....
Yes
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (decided April 27, 2011): Federal Arbitration Act preempts California common law rule against arbitration clauses in consumer contracts (dismissing suit by customers alleging that cell phone “giveaway” was fraudulent because sales tax added to bill)
United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398 (decided April 27, 1999): Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy was one of the only two people in the much-investigated Clinton Administration who actually got indicted (the other was Henry Cisneros). The indictment was for receiving improper gifts (for which he was acquitted). In a probably related case, a lobbyist was charged with giving him $5,900 in “gratuities” (food, hotel rooms, tickets to sports events, etc.). Court holds that the gratuities statute (18 U.S.C. §201(c)(1)(A)) does not apply because there is no showing of what Espy did in return for the gifts (how often can such a showing really be made?).
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 590 U.S. 255 (decided April 27, 2020): not a copyright infringement to reprint official annotated code (well, duh! hard to believe Georgia sued over this -- the Court says the fact that the code contains annotations makes this case “different” but for a lot of states the official code is an annotated one)
City of Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, 316 U.S. 168 (decided April 27, 1942): whether a city ordinance conflicts with state law (here, over whether milk can be sold in paper containers) should be decided by state courts even though technically federal court also has jurisdiction due to “lurking” Constitutional issue (not named but probably Due Process)
Montana v. Hall, 481 U.S. 400 (decided April 27, 1987): no Double Jeopardy problem with trying defendant for sexual assault after first conviction (for incest with stepchild) was reversed based on incest against stepchildren statute not yet being in effect at time of crime
U.S. Trust Co. of New York v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (decided April 27, 1977): Contracts Clause (as to Port Authority’s contracts with bondholders) was violated by New Jersey - New York agreement retroactively changing funding mechanism (for decades Robert Moses held king-like power over large sections of New York State because the Contracts Clause kept governors and mayors from interfering with his arrangements with bondholders of his “public authorities”; this ended with Gov. Rockefeller whose brother David’s bank, Chase, held most of the bonds and dropped all objections)
Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (decided April 27, 1976): informant gave defendant heroin which he then sold to undercover police officer; no entrapment because defendant was predisposed to commit crime (he had already offered to buy it for another informant who had heroin tracks on his arm)
Tooahnippah v. Hickel, 397 U.S. 598 (decided April 27, 1970): Will by Native American disposing of allotted land can’t be invalidated by Secretary of the Interior (who has to approve it, 25 U.S.C. §373) so long as it’s rational (doesn’t matter if it seems inequitable)
Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (decided April 27, 1965): Twenty-Fourth Amendment (invalidating poll taxes for federal elections) violated by Virginia statute requiring either paying poll tax or supplying certificate of residence
Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (decided April 27, 1903): federal court can’t order state to register black persons prohibited by state “reverse grandfather clause” statute from being registered (i.e., can only vote if your [necessarily white] grandfather could vote) (this decision was in effect later overruled)
In the Georgia copyright case, the dissenters were Thomas, Alito. Ginsburg and Breyer. I don't recall another instance of those four dissenting together.
As a former law review editor I was very aware that many (perhaps most) official state statute books were annotated. There was simply no non-annotated version. (I won't mention that I had a torrid affair with the assistant law librarian -- oops I just did!)
.
Clarence Thomas wouldn't cross the street for $5,900 in gratuities. That's, what, a one-way helicopter trip to a superyacht?
He might send Ginny across the street to collect a $5,900 goodie bag, though.
Gosh Josh, that’s astonishing. Inquiring minds what to know: What’s the probability that you share a birthday with 121 US Supreme Court Justices? What’s the probability that any given day is the birthday of 121 US Supreme Court Justices? What’s the horoscope today for any of the 121 US Supreme Court Justices? This is extremely important scholarship. What are the odds of the 121 US Supreme Court Justices being in any astrological sign? Were any of the 121 US Supreme Court Justices found dead on this day in the Supreme Court building? Were any of their mothers in the Supreme Court building when the 121 Justices were born? Could you open source any code your graduate students may write to automate these exciting findings? Possibly you could hire an editor and curator. Enough bot porn with your name on it and anything else from/about you gets lost in the daily shit soup.
You may be confusing something about Supreme Court justices and Josh Blackman's birthday with the number of jigawatts required to activate Doc Brown's DeLorean.
Is jigawatt a racial slur?
Only if you're Niggardly with them
The spelling is "gigawatt", but an Internet search suggests either the "hard" (g) or "soft" (j) pronunciation can be used. I have heard the hard pronunciation more often.
(1) The Reconstruction Congress reduced the size of SCotUS during the Presidential term of hard-line racist Andrew Johnson (1865-69), blocking Johnson from appointing any justices (Judicial Circuits Act, 1866). There were 8 justices when Grant became President in 1869. (Surprisingly, the Wikipedia article suggests that shrinking the court was driven by Chief Justice Salmon Chase for obscure personal reasons, rather than worry about who Johnson might appoint.)
(2) With the Judiciary Act of 1869, President Grant and Congress agreed on 9 as the permanent size of SCotUS, giving Grant one extra appointment.
Court packing!