Today in Supreme Court History: May 7, 1873

5/7/1873: Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase died. One month earlier, he dissented in the Slaughter-House Cases, and was the lone dissenter in Bradwell v. Illinois.

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Kelly v. United States, 590 U.S. 391 (decided May 7, 2020): The famous “blocked lanes on the GW Bridge” case which did such political damage to Chris Christie. Here, the Court throws out the wire fraud convictions of the officials who ordered the blocking because causing four days of traffic jams was not ”obtaining money or property” from the Port Authority such as the statute requires.

United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371 (decided May 7, 2020: The Ninth Circuit had decided sua sponte to bring in amici to brief whether there was a First Amendment problem with a statute criminalizing the encouragement of illegal immigration, an issue brought up by neither party. The Court held that this was improper and remanded to the Ninth Circuit to decide on the issues actually argued by the parties.

General Box Co. v. United States, 351 U.S. 159 (decided May 7, 1956): once a State donates its land to the federal government, the feds don't have to obey State procedures on notice when it appropriates timber already grown there by a private party

Screws v. United States (aptly named), 325 U.S. 91 (decided May 7, 1945): Defendant sheriff had beaten a black man to death. Conviction under Ku Klux Klan Act vacated because no evidence of intent to deprive victim of his civil rights. (!) Opinion written by William O. Douglas. (!!)

Blanchi v. Morales, 262 U.S. 170 (decided May 7, 1923): Puerto Rico (“Porto Rico”) statute allowing summary foreclosures was Constitutional. Very short opinion; the Court held that it was such a clear and simple question of law that it did not require briefs; it decided on the existing record.

[Commenter_XY]

Ah yes, Bridgegate = Kelly v US. I remember that well.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Amazing how that became a Federal offense to block traffic there, but "Free Speech" to organize High School Students to block traffic on US Route 3 *and* Mass Route 2. (I think that's the road they blocked off yesterday -- I know it runs by MIT.)

Those were minors -- DC&F (child protective) should have had the State Police take them all into protective custody and made their parents come pick them up. This is textbook CINS ("Child In Need of Services") because they were out in the street blocking 5000 lb vehicles -- and let the parents experience the traffic mess their little darlings created....

[Noscitur a sociis]

Amazing how that became a Federal offense to block traffic there, but “Free Speech” to organize High School Students to block traffic on US Route 3 *and* Mass Route 2.

Perhaps you missed the part where it wasn’t a federal offense?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Perhaps YOU missed the part where it went to trial as such.

How much did it cost for the accused to defend themselves?

[Magister]

Screws v. United States was presumably brought because the state would not prosecute the sheriff and other policemen of this murder. It should be noted that the Justice considered most left of all time could still rule for his interpretation of the law over his political preferences. A pity that it took Congress two decades to fix the effect of this case.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I agree. Thanks!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don’t think Douglas was leftiest of all time at the time (that would be Frank Murphy, by 1940s standards) – I think Douglas only became really radical some time later, after discarding his Presidential ambitions, so he longer cared about whether the public would approve his rulings.

[repeat of earlier joke deleted]

[Dr. Ed 2]

Please explain how Congress did fix this because I am not sure they did. Seriously - I will admit that I do not know.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Screws v. United States (aptly named), 325 U.S. 91 (decided May 7, 1945): Defendant sheriff had beaten a black man to death. Conviction under Ku Klux Klan Act vacated because no evidence of intent to deprive victim of his civil rights. (!) Opinion written by William O. Douglas. (!!)

I don't think that's right: the conviction was vacated because the jury wasn't instructed that it had to find the defendants willfully deprived the victim of his rights (just that they used excessive force. The court didn't find that there was no evidence of willfulness (or they wouldn't have permitted a retrial).

Apparently Screws was acquitted at the retrial.

https://thejacksonlist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/20100729-Jackson-List-More-Screws.pdf

[Dan Schiavetta]

“Willful” to me means “intent”, according to the discussion in the opinion. Although I could have phrased the procedural situation more accurately. Thanks.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But the issue isn’t that there was “no evidence of intent”; it was that the jury wasn’t instructed that it had to find the defendants acted with intent.

(Since the defendants apparently didn’t request such a jury instruction and the evidence of intent was overwhelming, this was probably wrong at the time and definitely wrong under modern doctrine. But hey, William Douglas wasn’t the worst human being to sit on the Supreme Court for nothing.)

[F.D. Wolf]

A Pardon Story Worthy of O. Henry

Elbert Hubbard (not to be confused with his nephew, Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard) was an artist, writer, and philosopher, perhaps best remembered as the founder of the Roycroft artisan community in East Aurora, NY in 1895, which is still around today. His philosophy, of which I claim no expertise, was interesting, if not completely coherent. For example, he seemed to be something of a socialist, but also believed that employees owed a fierce, almost unquestioning duty of loyalty to their employers. A Harvard graduate, he said, “Every man should have a college education in order to show him how little the thing is really worth.”

Hubbard also published a number of newspapers during his life, including The Philistine. A series of laughably tame jokes got him charged and convicted with six counts of sending obscene materials through the mail in federal court in New York in January 1913. District Judge John Hazel, best known as the judge who administered the presidential oath to Theodore Roosevelt after the death of President William McKinley, fined Hubbard $100 on one count and suspended any sentence on the other counts, contingent on Hubbard's good behavior.

Hubbard waited all of two weeks before applying to President William Howard Taft for a pardon. Taft, who had lost re-election and would be leaving office on March 4, responded that any pardon would be premature. Hubbard let the issue lie for a while, but when World War I erupted in Europe, he was determined to singlehandedly end it. He wanted to secure an interview with Kaiser Wilhelm, but was unable to get a passport because he was still under his suspended sentence. He personally went to the White House on March 22, 1915, where he confronted presidential secretary Joseph Tumulty, demanding to speak with President Woodrow Wilson. Tumulty informed Hubbard that Wilson was presently in a Cabinet meeting, but at Hubbard's insistence, Tumulty interrupted the meeting. Hubbard received a full presidential pardon the next day. Hubbard and his wife set sail for Europe six weeks later.

Elbert Hubbard, his wife Alice Moore Hubbard, and 1,191 others died on this day, May 7, 1915, when the ship they were on, the RMS Lusitania, was struck by a torpedo fired by German U-boat. Hubbard's original pardon, signed by President Wilson, is on display at the Elbert Hubbard-Roycroft Museum in East Aurora, NY.

[SMP0328]

This guy was cursed. Gets convicted for lame jokes, fights to get a pardon, and then dies with his wife on Lusitania. Who is the witch he pissed off?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, the ultimate irony is that it was sunk by the guy he was going in to interview.

[Syd Henderson]

Seems like an overreaction by the Kaiser.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sinking that ship was not good tactical policy.
I am convinced that it was the load of "butter" and the load of "beef" that became a secondary explosion and were detonated by the torpedo. The U Boat captain was surprised that one torpedo had the effect it did - remember this was WWI.

They also had a bleepload of .303 rifle ammo, but that was (a) declared and (b) those shells didn't detonate. They wouldn't -- but other stuff likely would and I'm convinced did.

Same thing with the Gaza hospital -- Hamas had unstable explosives inside it and when the other group had a rocket go off course and land in the parking lot, the supersonic shock wave from that set off the explosives in the hospital.

Tactically, it was a bad move for the Germans to sink that boat, but I do understand why they did.. Heck, the .303 ammo was a declared cargo on the manifest....

[Noscitur a sociis]

He personally went to the White House on March 22, 1915, where he confronted presidential secretary Joseph Tumulty, demanding to speak with President Woodrow Wilson. Tumulty informed Hubbard that Wilson was presently in a Cabinet meeting, but at Hubbard’s insistence, Tumulty interrupted the meeting. Hubbard received a full presidential pardon the next day.

This gambit would probably end less auspiciously today. Although in both cases, the petitioner would no longer be concerned with getting the pardon for very long…

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What a fascinating story, thank you! I hope the scientologists don't run the museum.

"A Harvard graduate, he said, “Every man should have a college education in order to show him how little the thing is really worth.”"

It seems that at least in this respect, people are at work to this very day to implement Hubbard's vision.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I use the Dr. title in my profession to remind my critics that I actually have more degrees than they do, so I am not impressed with their MEds.....

[Noscitur a sociis]

If anyone thinks Chase’s eye looks a little strange—when he was nine, his father stabbed him in the eye and blinded him.