Today in Supreme Court History: April 30, 1789

4/30/1789: President Washington's inauguration. He would appoint eleven members to the Supreme Court: Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth, and Justices Wilson, Blair, Cushing, Rutledge, Iredell, Johnson, Paterson, and Chase.

President Washington's Appointees

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (decided April 30, 1900): Kid shot a gun into the air for fun. Tribal policeman (his cousin) had no right to arrest him, such that he had self-defense argument when things came to a head the next day when the policeman drew a gun on him. The extensive account of the facts describes a slower-moving frontier society and might have made a good episode of “Gunsmoke”, though with an all-Native American cast. (The defense that one has the right to resist an unlawful arrest is no longer permitted, at least not in South Dakota where this incident happened, S.D. Cod. L.§22-11-5.)

Berra v. United States, 351 U.S. 131 (decided April 30, 1956): can’t give jury the choice of convicting for felony (filing false tax return) or misdemeanor (submitting false valuation) where same facts supported either charge (overlap was removed by later Code change, see Sansone v. United States, 1965)

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (decided April 30, 2007): electronic sensor for pedal position adaptable for short-legged people was too “obvious” to be patentable in light of then-existing technology (unfortunately no diagram is provided) (my knowledge of pedal mechanisms is intimate but it begins and ends with my 1959 VW Beetle)

Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28 (decided April 30, 1986): error to refuse request to question prospective jurors as to racial bias in capital crime prosecution involving black defendant and white victim

Wilkins v. United States, 441 U.S. 468 (decided April 30, 1979): petition for certiorari should have been entertained even though 17 months late due to court-appointed attorney’s inaction after defendant wrote to him repeatedly requesting that a petition be filed; this petition was pro se, supported by affidavits from wife and minister; remanded to Circuit Court so that proper, lawyerly petition could be filed (this was a Mann Act case; not clear how it turned out)

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (decided April 30, 1979): Due Process requires that showing of mental illness requiring commitment must be made by “clear and convincing” evidence, not just preponderance (though preponderance will be enough if already criminally tried and acquitted on insanty defense, see Jones v. U.S., 1983)

Comm’r of Internal Revenue v. Bilder, 369 U.S. 499 (decided April 30, 1962): rent paid for winter Florida apartment can’t be deducted as medical care expense even though was following doctor’s orders to spend cold months in warm climate (fact that wife accompanied him might have been a factor, but what did they expect?)

Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115 (decided April 30,1956): The CPUSA argued that it wasn’t a “Communist-action organization” (controlled by Moscow, dedicated to world Communist revolution) requiring registration and monitoring. Here, there was so much perjured testimony that the finding against them had to be vacated. Case remanded; no record of what happened after this. (My understanding is that though the CPUSA marched in lockstep with Moscow, it was their choice to do so, and there was internal debate between world revolution and single-country revolution.)

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (decided April 30, 2007): police enjoyed qualified immunity after stopping high-speed car chase by ramming car from behind, causing loss of control of vehicle and injuries; §1983 suit dismissed

Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (decided April 30, 2007): Microsoft can make lots of $ infringing AT&T’s voice recognition patent so long as it’s sold overseas (even though master disk holding software was made here with disks for sale made abroad)

[David Nieporent]

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (decided April 30, 2007): police enjoyed qualified immunity after stopping high-speed car chase by ramming car from behind, causing loss of control of vehicle and injuries; §1983 suit dismissed

That's accurate, but it fails to describe the salient point of the case. To wit: if the accuracy of a video in evidence is itself uncontested, then judges can rely on the video to grant summary judgment regardless of the contradictory assertions of a litigant.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That was the determinative piece of evidence, but this did not seem to me to be an evidence law case.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The part about the video is the part that is important (to anyone besides Messrs. Scott and Harris).

[David Nieporent]

Right; as a 4A/QI case it broke no new/interesting ground. Every time I've seen the case cited, it's been for the proposition that the court can consider video evidence and disregard contrary testimony on SJ.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That doesn’t seem like new ground. When does video evidence not supersede contrary testimony? Courts hold that all the time. Maybe the case is cited because this time it was SCOTUS saying it.

[David Nieporent]

When does video evidence not supersede contrary testimony? Courts hold that all the time.

Not in the summary judgment context, where courts aren't generally supposed to weigh conflicting evidence.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (decided April 30, 1900): Kid shot a gun into the air for fun. Tribal policeman (his cousin) had no right to arrest him, such that he had self-defense argument when things came to a head the next day when the policeman drew a gun on him. The extensive account of the facts describes a slower-moving frontier society and might have made a good episode of “Gunsmoke”, though with an all-Native American cast.

Why do you call him a kid? The opinion describes him as another tribal police officer. (In an exception to the rule of nominal determinism, the victim was named John Kills Back.)

(The defense that one has the right to resist an unlawful arrest is no longer permitted, at least not in South Dakota where this incident happened, S.D. Cod. L.§22-11-5.)

Yes, the majority (universal?) modern rule is precludes forcible resistance to a peaceable arrest, even if it’s unlawful.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He was living "in his mother's house" and his brother had his own place. I suppose I over-assumed. Will rephrase. Thanks!

[Frank Drackman]

You know what they say about ass-uming

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Numero uno, I’m saddened beyond expression to find that Yogi Berra was a criminal.

As to the Communist Party, the SACB had further proceedings and again found CPUSA to be a Communist action organization, and the party was required to register as such, which the Supreme Court upheld in 1961.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/1/

But wait! In 1965, the Supreme Court specified that the *officers* of the Communist Party couldn’t be forced to file the registration papers, because that would be self-incriminatory.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/382/70/

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

Yes, I've commented on that 1965 case.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

They should have just had an AI perform the registration.

[bernard11]

I’m saddened beyond expression to find that Yogi Berra was a criminal.

Me too. But he really shouldn't have taken that fork in the road.

[apedad]

In 1789, President George Washington appointed (John) Rutledge as one of the inaugural associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Rutledge left the Supreme Court in 1791 to become chief justice of the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas and Sessions. He returned to the Supreme Court, this time as chief justice, following the resignation of John Jay in June 1795. As the vacancy came during a long Senate recess, Washington named Rutledge as the new chief justice by a recess appointment. When the Senate reconvened in December 1795, it rejected Rutledge's nomination by a 10–14 vote. Rutledge resigned his commission shortly thereafter and withdrew from public life until his death in 1800. He holds the record for the shortest tenure of any chief justice. His was the first Supreme Court nomination to be rejected by the Senate, and he remains the only "recess appointed" justice not to be subsequently confirmed by the Senate. (wiki)

[Syd Henderson]

Rutledge got involved in the discussion over the Jay Treaty. (He was against it.) Not a popular stance in a Senate that was 21 - 11 Federalist.

[Frank Drackman]

“Bad Elk”?? OK, it’s better than “Corn Pop” and I guess if “Bad Wolf”, “Bad Grizzly”, “Bad Snake” were already taken…I’d settle for being “Bad Elk”
Interesting case, if just for the names, Not sure if I agree with the Cap’n’s Police Work as the “Kid”, John Bad Elk, was also a Tribal Police Officer, who killed another Tribal Officer, a “John Kills Back” (for such a peaceful peoples, they sure have some violent names)
Short lived win for Bad Elk as he remained in prison where he died, insane and penniless, (well penniless anyway) August 2, 1900 awaiting retrial.

Good thing they didn’t know he’d paid off a Dance Girl…..

Although never overturned, it’s not considered “Good Law” or we’d have Indians killing Cops all the time

Frank “Uggh!”

[SRG2]

Utterly unsurprising that Powell and Rehnquist dissented in Turner.

[Frank Drackman]

Case had a happy ending though, Turner was executed in 1995

[Dan Schiavetta]

On today's Court Powell and Rehnquist would be swing votes. In Powell's case he would more often vote with the 3 "liberal" Justices.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Powell was a hard-core promoter of the interests of large corporations – both as a corporate lawyer and after joining the Court.

If the culture-war issues were taken from the table, Powell would be classified as an economic reactionary.

And wouldn't his "progressive" position on abortion fit in with the standard economic critique of corporate heartlessness - that profits are more important than human lives?

[Frank Drackman]

Imagine the Headline in the Pineridge Telegraph...
"John Bad Elk Kills John Kills Back"

Frank

[SMP0328]

Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (decided April 30, 1900): Kid shot a gun into the air for fun. Tribal policeman (his cousin) had no right to arrest him, such that he had self-defense argument when things came to a head the next day when the policeman drew a gun on him. The extensive account of the facts describes a slower-moving frontier society and might have made a good episode of “Gunsmoke”, though with an all-Native American cast. (The defense that one has the right to resist an unlawful arrest is no longer permitted, at least not in South Dakota where this incident happened, S.D. Cod. L.§22-11-5.)

If the police want to abduct you without just cause, who are you to argue?

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (decided April 30, 2007): police enjoyed qualified immunity after stopping high-speed car chase by ramming car from behind, causing loss of control of vehicle and injuries; §1983 suit dismissed

The case was dismissed because the Court determined the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment, not because of QI.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If the police want to abduct you without just cause, who are you to argue?

If you think that an arrest isn’t justified, you should try to murder the police officer.

[Voize]

If you believe some of the commenters here, the entire point of the Second Amendment is that the police officer is the tyrant King George in disguise and you should definitely be able to murder him.

[Frank Drackman]

That's about right (HT J. Seinfeld)

[SMP0328]

If you think that an arrest isn’t justified, you should try to murder the police officer.

Thank you, Captain Hyperbole. My point is that if the police are legally justified in arresting, or otherwise detaining, a person, that person should not be punished merely for resisting. We can agree that resisting should be something short of killing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"We can agree that resisting should be something short of killing."

How is the officer supposed to know that the resistor is not trying to kill him?

Your view would lead to more police shootings. Submit and rely on the courts is safer for everyone.

[SMP0328]

I agree that letting the police arrest you is the wiser course of action, but if a person resists and a court later determines the arrest was unlawful, that person should not be punished. This is especially true when considering that police consider anything short of immediate obedience to be "resisting."

[Dan Schiavetta]

At some point one can imagine an arrest being so outrageously unlawful that can resist it. Or let's say you're running to save someone's life but the officer arrests you on a b.s. charge because he wants to see that person die. Resist!

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that letting the police arrest you is the wiser course of action, but if a person resists and a court later determines the arrest was unlawful, that person should not be punished.

People being arrested tend to be poor judges of whether an arrest is lawful, and of course it's virtually impossible for anyone to know that ex ante anyway. A society living in a state of ordered liberty should incentivize peaceful resolution, with the opportunity to adjudicate and award appropriate compensation later.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“People being arrested tend to be poor judges of whether an arrest is lawful, and of course it’s virtually impossible for anyone to know that ex ante anyway.”

Seriously? A person being arrested has no way of knowing whether his arrest is illegal? The chilling thing is, it may be true. If true, it would be a sign we’re in a police state.

Of course it’s a bad idea to resist arrest. But an innocent person charged with resisting arrest should be able to argue his innocence of the underlying allegation as a reason for him not to be convicted of resisting. Otherwise the police could make completely arbitrary and illegal arrests, and the indignant innocent person who, unwisely but understandably, refuses to be baselessly imprisoned, should not have his innocence transformed into guilt for that reason.

Unwise as it is, I would hate to live in a country where sheeplike people submit graciously to unlawful detention. Let them be punished if the arrest was lawful, and not otherwise.

[David Nieporent]

A person being arrested has no way of knowing whether his arrest is illegal?

Most of the time, that's correct. Whether an arrest is legal turns on whether there's probable cause, not whether the person is actually guilty. A person may know the latter — though of course: guilty of what? — but most likely isn't in a position to know the former.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Thank you, Captain Hyperbole. My point is that if the police are legally justified in arresting, or otherwise detaining, a person, that person should not be punished merely for resisting. We can agree that resisting should be something short of killing.

The case you’re commenting on is literally about a defendant who was convicted of murder for killing a police officer trying to arrest him.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“The case was dismissed because the Court determined the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment, not because of QI.”

It can be phrased either way. They had QI (meaning case dismissed) because they did not violate the 4A.

[SMP0328]

I thought QI meant the police-officer/government-official violated the Constitution but got off the hook because the subject action was not clearly established to be such a violation. If there’s no violation, there’s nothing from which to be immune.

It's like the difference between having immunity from criminal prosecution and being acquitted. The first means you will not be punished even if you committed the crime, while the second means the law considers you to have not committed the crime.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That's all correct, AFAIK.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As a doctrinal matter, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if they didn't violate the constitution. But obviously that's not the part of qualified immunity that's controversial, so I agree that it's a little misleading to label such a decision that way in the absence of additional context.