Today in Supreme Court History: April 29, 1745

4/29/1745: Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth was born.

Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (decided April 29, 2021): “notice to appear” served on people subject to deportation (and which stops the time accrued in this country) must contain all the information the person needs on a single form, not on various forms sent at various times (this is another example of Gorsuch’s clear and informal writing style)

Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 587 U.S. --- (decided April 29, 2019): The TVA, owned by the federal government, by statute can sue and be sued, but retains some governmental immunity. Here the Court, construing the TVA statute, holds that the usual immunity for liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act for “discretionary functions” (decisions by officials, as opposed to negligence in how those decisions are carried out) does not apply to the TVA, and suit for damages due to failure to warn of a downed power line could proceed. (Sounds like negligence to me anyway!)

Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (decided April 29, 2015): upholding against First Amendment attack state rule prohibiting candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting funds for their campaign; integrity of the judiciary is a “compelling state interest”; 5 - 4 decision

McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (decided April 29, 2013): Virginia allows only its own citizens to request records under its Freedom of Information Act. This does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause. (One plaintiff, from Rhode Island, was trying to find out why a court had waited so long to issue a decision on child support he was retroactively owed; another, from California, was trying to get real estate tax records for a client.)

Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586 (decided April 29, 2009): confession obtained in violation of Miranda (statement to jailhouse informant) can be used to impeach if defendant decides to testify (this is why I never went into criminal law: it’s great to free the innocent, but you make your money there by freeing the guilty)

Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580 (decided April 29, 2003): magistrate had authority to issue findings in §1983 case against prison doctors; though no explicit consent had been given, plaintiff had acquiesced in magistrate managing case and acting as judge at trial (my practice in federal court is to always consent; you don’t want to piss off the judge by forcing him to manage and then try your case, particularly if it’s a state law diversity case -- which is too mundane for those thinkers, who want to deal only with Great Constitutional Issues)

McLaughlin v. United States, 476 U.S. 16 (decided April 29, 1986): handgun brandished during bank robbery is “dangerous weapon” under statute even though unloaded

EEOC v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 476 U.S. 19 (decided April 29, 1986): Here we have one federal agency suing another, the EEOC seeking review of a FLRA ruling requiring the EEOC to accede to its union’s request for restrictions on contracting out work. The Court holds that the EEOC can’t raise arguments not made before the FLRA. Which is the plain language of 5 U.S.C. §7123(c).

Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (decided April 29, 1974): striking down California prison rules allowing censorship of mail without procedural safeguards and prohibiting legal interviews with law students and paralegals (overruled as to mail censorship by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 1989)

Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (decided April 29, 1981): one-person, one-vote principle not violated by restricting voting for directors of agricultural improvement district to landowners and weighting votes by acreage owned

[Malika the Maiz]

Could Young have been a P&I violation?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I think you’re right.

[apedad]

From the court's decision:

"Petitioners allege that Virginia’s citizens-only FOIA provision violates four different “fundamental” privileges or immunities: the opportunity to pursue a common calling, the ability to own and transfer property, access to the Virginia courts, and access to public information. The first three items on that list, however, are not abridged by the Virginia FOIA, and the fourth—framed broadly—is not protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause."

It then goes into detail for each four issues.

[SMP0328]

McLaughlin v. United States, 476 U.S. 16 (decided April 29, 1986): handgun brandished during bank robbery is “dangerous weapon” under statute even though unloaded

Seems like an obvious decision. Even with the handgun unloaded, you could still pistol whip someone.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

It's seldom easy to know it's not loaded, and some pellet guns look very real.

[David Nieporent]

It’s seldom easy to know it’s not loaded, and some pellet guns look very real.

Right. It's not because one could hit someone with it; if that were the standard then virtually any weapon would automatically be a dangerous weapon. It's (a) because unless the person fires the gun during the crime, or unless he's caught in the act, it's impossible to disprove an after-the-fact claim that the gun wasn't loaded; and (b) because unloaded guns pose the same risk that a bystander will react as if the gun was loaded.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

My standard is that whether it's a loaded gun or not, pellet or real, water pistol or finger in his pocket -- if the guy wants you to think he could kill you, he has no complaints when that's how it's treated.

[Dan Schiavetta]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhX3d5fjxOg

[Dilan Esper]

EEOC v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 476 U.S. 19 (decided April 29, 1986): Here we have one federal agency suing another, the EEOC seeking review of a FLRA ruling requiring the EEOC to accede to its union’s request for restrictions on contracting out work. The Court holds that the EEOC can’t raise arguments not made before the FLRA. Which is the plain language of 5 U.S.C. §7123(c).

They should have reenacted the scene in "Bananas" and had the federal government cross-examine itself.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I think Dorothi Fox was a better J. Edgar Hoover than Broderick Crawford. But I'm probably in the minority.

[David Nieporent]

my practice in federal court is to always consent; you don’t want to piss off the judge by forcing him to manage and then try your case,

Um, that's why the rules don't ask litigants to tell the judge which of them won't consent to the magistrate. You either file a joint consent or you file nothing.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I forgot about that, because it's never been an issue. In my experience both sides have always consented.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"(this is why I never went into criminal law: it’s great to free the innocent, but you make your money there by freeing the guilty)"

CLIENT: I swear I never robbed that bank!

LAWYER: Hmm...how are you going to pay me, then?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ha!