Today in Supreme Court History: May 11, 1942

5/11/1942: Gordon Hirabayashi "failed to report to the Civil Control Station within the designated area." The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of his conviction in Hirabayashi v. U.S. (1943).

Gordon Hirabayashi

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Smith v. Texas, 233 U.S. 630 (decided May 11, 1914): Texas statute restricting employment as a conductor to those who have already been conductors or brakemen for two years violates equal protection because it arbitrarily (and admittedly) excluded qualified applicants

Reeves v. Beardall, 316 U.S. 283 (decided May 11, 1942): resolving a split in the circuits: claim as to promissory note arose from different transaction from claim for breach of contract; dismissal acted as appealable final judgment despite survival of contract claim (superseded by 1946 amendment to FRCP 54(b), no final judgment until all claims are adjudicated)

Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604 (decided May 11, 1914): contempt proceeding against union for disobeying order to not boycott or urge boycott of stove making business dismissed because brought after 3-year limitations period

Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371 (decided May 11, 1891): ambiguities in language of federal grants of land are to be construed according to the law of the state where the land (here actually, a lake) is located

National Pork Producers v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (decided May 11, 2023): no Dormant Commerce Clause problem with California rule prohibiting sale in state of whole pork from animals not raised according to California rules preventing animal cruelty; rule did not discriminate against out-of-state producers and no substantial burden on interstate commerce (unlike, say, the truck-mud-flap case, see May 25 from last year)

Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Co., 140 U.S. 344 (decided May 11, 1891): no federal court Patent Power jurisdiction because agreement over transfer and use of prospective patent was question of state contract law

Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 316 U.S. 317 (decided May 11, 1942): tribe not entitled to compensation when federal government took back lands it had given to the tribe 16 years before

Delo v. Stokes, 495 U.S. 320 (decided May 11, 1990): stay of execution on second or successive habeas petition should be granted only when there are “substantial grounds” for the petition (this one was the fourth, with arguments that could have been made before, and stay was denied)

Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (decided May 11, 1988): Kentucky “rape shield law” violated Confrontation Clause by prohibiting cross-examination of alleged sexual assault victim; defendant wanted to show she had a live in boyfriend whose wrath she feared if she told the truth about sex with defendant being consensual

[Michael P]

I wonder what happened on remand in Olden v. Kentucky. The Court's account of facts makes it sound like the defendant had pretty much all the facts on his side.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I couldn’t find that out. I’m sure that was not the first time that situation came up. But to overcome the Shield Law a pretty convincing showing had to be made.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Couldn’t find much information about the case, but looks like he died in 2012.

https://www.lakelandchapel.com/obituaries/James-Olden?obId=1104197

[Michael P]

There was also a James Olden sentence to 40 years in prison for trafficking cocaine in 2004 (he lost his appeal to Kentucky's Supreme Court in 2006). I wasn't sure whether there might be two people of that name in the area.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (decided May 11, 1988): Kentucky “rape shield law” violated Confrontation Clause by prohibiting cross-examination of alleged sexual assault victim;

The case did hold that excluding the evidence at issue violated the confrontation clause, but it didn’t hold her Kentucky’s rape shield law did, because the rape shield law wasn’t the reason the evidence was excluded:

The court specifically held that evidence that Matthews and Russell were living together at the time of trial was not barred by the State's rape shield law. Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 510.145 (Michie 1985). Moreover, it acknowledged that the evidence in question was relevant to petitioner's theory of the case. But it held, nonetheless, that the evidence was properly excluded as “its probative value [was] outweighed by its possibility for prejudice.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A6. By way of explanation, the court stated: “[T]here were the undisputed facts of race; Matthews was white and Russell was black. For the trial court to have admitted into evidence testimony that Matthews and Russell were living together at the time of the trial may have created extreme prejudice against Matthews.” Judge Clayton, who dissented but did not address the evidentiary issue, would have reversed petitioner's conviction both because he believed the jury's verdicts were “manifestly inconsistent,” and because he found Matthews' testimony too incredible to provide evidence sufficient to uphold the verdict. Id., at A7.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks

[Dr. Ed 2]

"National Pork Producers v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (decided May 11, 2023): no Dormant Commerce Clause problem with California rule prohibiting sale in state of whole pork from animals not raised according to California rules preventing animal cruelty;"

Hmmm, I didn't know it was whole pork -- so this wouldn't apply to the butchered cryovaced pieces which is how most pork is delivered to supermarkets today, nor to processed pork (e.g. bacon, ham), nor to really much of anything with exception of whole pork for pig roasts, a niche market.

I don't remember news coverage at the time mentioning that it was limited to WHOLE pork.

Notwithstanding that, a year later, has this had an impact on the price and availability of pork in California?

[Jerry B.]

“Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 316 U.S. 317 (decided May 11, 1942): tribe not entitled to compensation when federal government took back lands it had given to the tribe 16 years before.”

Obviously, FDR was a racist for letting this happen on his watch.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess the government was the "Indian giver".

[Frank Drackman]

I have reservations about that ruling

[Sarcastr0]

Wait, are you saying FDR did something racist as President?

WHAT A DEVELOPMENT!

Liberalism is over, I guess. Pack it in, boys.

[Frank Drackman]

Nobody gets the Hirabsyashi Maru Scenario right