Today in Supreme Court History: May 1, 1871

5/1/1871: Knox v. Lee decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Knox v. Lee (Legal Tender Cases), 79 U.S. 457 (decided May 1, 1871): forcing creditors to accept new (paper) money for preexisting debts is not a Fifth Amendment “taking” which applies only to physical property (as pointed out in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 2021, “takings” are now more expansively defined)

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (decided May 1, 1989): Title VII plaintiff doesn’t have to prove but-for causation, just a motivating factor; defendant must show by preponderance a non-discriminatory reason for failure to promote (1991 amendment devised a different test, as noted in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, 2020, see March 23)

Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co., 581 U.S. 170 (decided May 1, 2017): (I didn’t know until now that this is the official name of that country) plaintiff must show that property at issue (here, oil rigs) was actually taken in violation of international law so as to invoke jurisdiction of the court under the “expropriation” exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; whether the property belonged to plaintiff is what is decided in “the merits phase of the litigation” (but isn’t a showing of violation part of the “merits”?) (case was later dismissed based on later appellate court holding that FSIA requires the property to be present in the United States, 2023 WL 1401372 (D. D.C., Jan. 31, 2023)

Arkansas Dept. of Health & Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (decided May 1, 2006): I do a CLE presentation on this case, which means it’s a boring topic: Medicare and Medicaid liens on personal injury settlements. Here, the Court holds that an Arkansas statute requiring recovery of the full Medicaid lien violates the prohibition on liens recovering “property” (42 U.S.C. §1395p) because it invades the part of the settlement not reasonably ascribable to medical expenses.

United States v. Robertson, 514 U.S. 669 (decided May 1, 1995): gold mine into which defendant invested ill-gotten RICO gains (from sale of cocaine) was involved in “interstate commerce” so as to satisfy RICO statute

Mallard v. United States District Court for Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (decided May 1, 1989): court can per 28 U.S.C. §1915(d) request (but not force) an attorney to represent indigent criminal defendant

Oklahoma v. Texas, 258 U.S. 574 (decided May 1, 1922): border of the ever-shifting Red River depends on the part of it that is navigable, a difficult question because at that point the “main channel” was a dry bed with streams around it; important because it involved oil and gas rights (both sides concede that all of the river bed belongs to Oklahoma; the map today shows the river and the border swing-dancing the whole way)

Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143 (decided May 1, 1944): white man allegedly hired black man to kill his wife; simply being held by police for 36 hours with little sleep means white man’s confession was not voluntary (even though police denied any coercive tactics); conviction vacated, and black man’s conviction therefore also vacated; Jackson dissents because no torture involved and can’t disturb state court’s finding that confession was voluntary

In re Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747 (decided May 1, 1968): long decision (with 96 headnotes!!) affirming the Federal Power Commission’s power to set rates and other requirements for gas drilled from the Permian Basin (areas of Texas and New Mexico)

Latta & Terry Constr. Co. v. British Steamship “Raithmoor”, 241 U.S. 166 (decided May 1, 1916): admiralty jurisdiction extends to suit for damage to pier hit by vessel

[SRG2]

I wonder whether the judge or jury in Ashcraft had residual doubts about Ware's- the black man's - guilt, by not sentencing him to death.

According to this article, there were multiple retrials.
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-memphis-press-scimitar/139882171/

They were ultimately freed - whether ordered released or acquitted at trial I couldn't find out in a quick googling.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

That article you linked to, both the way it was written and the world it described, reflects a bygone time and place.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

a bygone time and place

Not in the minds and aspirations of "traditional values," "conservative values," "religious values," and "family values" conservatives.

[taqmcg]

Apparently after the first conviction was overturned, the case was retried with the state using the results of the long interrogation but not introducing the confession itself. This resulted in a second conviction which also ultimately wound up in the Supreme Court a second time where it was once again overturned (Ashcraft v. Tennessee :: 327 U.S. 274, 1946).

[SRG2]

Thanks!

After Jackson had dissented in the first appeal, he took no part in the second appeal. I am curious why.

[taqmcg]

Looking at the Wikipedia entry for Jackson, I am reminded that he was one of the judges presiding over the Nuremburg war trials. He took a leave of absence from the court and I suspect that's why he was not involved in the the second Ashcraft decision. What happened after this second decision is unclear -- your newspaper clipping suggests there were at least four trials, and another commenter indicates that Ashcraft and Ware were eventually acquitted.
I'm struck by the relative speed of the process. An entire re-trial and renewed appeals back up to the Supreme Court for a final decision in less than two years.

[taqmcg]

… Not a judge but the chief American prosecutor. And Nuremb[e]rg.
Mea culpa.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Latta & Terry Constr. Co. v. British Steamship “Raithmoor”, 241 U.S. 166 (decided May 1, 1916): admiralty jurisdiction extends to suit for damage to pier hit by vessel"

The pier refused to move after repeated warnings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_and_naval_vessel_urban_legend

[Dan Schiavetta]

I’m reminded of the Arlo Guthrie song, “Reuben Clamzo”, about a hunter of giant predatory clams. According to Arlo’s intro, these clams could go on shore and had an inland range of 15 miles. Expanded admiralty jurisdiction?

[apedad]

Re: Mallard v. United States District Court for Southern District of Iowa

I like Justice Kennedy's concurrence:

"Our decision today speaks to the interpretation of a statute, to the requirements of the law, and not to the professional responsibility of the lawyer. Lawyers, like all those who practice a profession, have obligations to their calling which exceed their obligations to the State. Lawyers also have obligations by virtue of their special status as officers of the court. Accepting a court's request to represent the indigent is one of those traditional obligations. Our judgment here does not suggest otherwise. To the contrary, it is precisely because our duties go beyond what the law demands that ours remains a noble profession.

I join in full the opinion of the Court."

[Frank Drackman]

"The Rest of the Story"(HT P. Harvey) in Ashcraft v Tennessee: both were retried in 1946, acquitted, however the Black guy died in 1948 at age 26 (not sure if he was Insane, but probably penniless, as he couldn't find a job and was living with his parents*). Ashcraft remarried, with the next wife dying in 1957 at age of 54. Ashcraft died May 1970 at age 73, 1 day after his birthday (weird)

Frank

*born 100 years to soon