Today in Supreme Court History: May 14, 1973

5/14/1973: Frontiero v. Richardson decided.

Comments

[Michael Ejercito]

Frontiero is inconsistent with early rulings like Minor v. Happersett and Bradwell v. Illinois.

That written, the odds of the Supreme Court revisiting what they (in my opinion) erroneously decided in Frontiero are nil.

[Krayt]

I'm fine revisiting stuff if it increases personal rights, even sans amendment. This is in keeping with the concept of rights as not necessarily enumerated, nor would it have to be considered such back in the day.

Not fine arguing times have changed, therefore government gets a vast new power to control things, sans amendment. The people increasing their rights at their whim, yes. Government power holders increasing their power at their whim, no.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Loving v. Virginia

[Dan Schiavetta]

Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (decided May 14, 1973): gender is a “suspect class” so any discrimination is subject to “strict scrutiny” (Air Force treated married males and married females differently in regard to housing and medical benefits)

Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504 (decided May 14, 2001): The Padres did not offer Steve Garvey a contract extension for 1988 and 1989. He demanded arbitration per the MLB agreement, alleging collusion with other teams (looking at his stats, his last useful year was 1986, and the Padres saved him from late-career humiliations like what Steve Carlton was going through at the time). The arbitrator ruled against him despite a self-incriminating letter written by Ballard Smith (Padres president), he appealed, and the Court of Appeals vacated the award as “industrial justice” and sent it back to arbitration. The Court holds that it is not the business of the courts to review an arbitration award on the merits, even when the arbitrator’s factfinding is “improvident and even silly”, and restores the award. (An arbitrator’s decision is called an “award” even when he rules against the claimant.)

United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (decided May 14, 1984): Young attorney, inexperienced in criminal matters, given only 25 days to prepare for complex $9.4 million mail fraud trial involving four years of government investigation and thousands of documents, and with some witnesses still not tracked down. Yet the Court does not find “ineffective assistance of counsel”.

McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (decided May 14, 2018): Experienced attorney strategically decided to admit his client committed murders and pursue mental instability defense despite defendant’s repeated insistence that he didn’t do it. This was ineffective assistance of counsel.

Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. 453 (decided May 14, 2018): federal government has no power under the Constitution to regulate state sponsorship or operation of sports gambling (invalidating the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act)

Byrd v. United States, 584 U.S. — (decided May 14, 2018): evidence of heroin found in rented car after warrantless search suppressed because driver who was not listed by renter as an authorized driver but who was driving with her permission was entitled to Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy

Dahda v. United States, 584 U.S. 395 (decided May 14, 2018): District Court warrant that improperly authorized some wiretaps outside the District’s jurisdiction was still valid as to those within

United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 584 U.S. 381 (decided May 14, 2018): challenge to District Court policy permitting gratuitous use of full body restraints on defendants attending nonjury proceedings was not a “functional class action” and therefore dismissed as moot when challengers’ criminal cases were resolved

[SMP0328]

Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. 453 (decided May 14, 2018): federal government has no power under the Constitution to regulate state sponsorship or operation of sports gambling (invalidating the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act)

That case was about the anticommandeering doctrine, which provides that the 10th Amendment prohibits Congress from ordering State governments what to do or not do. The PASPA banned States from repealing or reducing their bans on sports gambling. The Murphy majority said this violated the doctrine.

The vote was 7-2 regarding commandeering, 6-3 regarding severability (Breyer did not think all of PASPA should have fallen). The Cout did not rule on Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate sports gambling.

[David Nieporent]

United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (decided May 14, 1984): Young attorney, inexperienced in criminal matters, given only 25 days to prepare for complex $9.4 million mail fraud trial involving four years of government investigation and thousands of documents, and with some witnesses still not tracked down. Yet the Court does not find “ineffective assistance of counsel”.

And yet Trumpkins will pretend that Trump is being uniquely railroaded if his lawyers only have half a year and an unlimited budget to prepare for his trials.

[Noscitur a sociis]

United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (decided May 14, 1984): Young attorney, inexperienced in criminal matters, given only 25 days to prepare for complex $9.4 million mail fraud trial involving four years of government investigation and thousands of documents, and with some witnesses still not tracked down. Yet the Court does not find “ineffective assistance of counsel”.

Not quite—the court found that the decision below was wrong to find that (essentially) the short time and denial of a continuance created a presumption of prejudice, and that instead there needed to be a demonstration of something specific the lawyer did wrong. On remand, the Tenth Circuit concluded that there was and again reversed the conviction.

Byrd v. United States, 584 U.S. — (decided May 14, 2018): evidence of heroin found in rented car after warrantless search suppressed because driver who was not listed by renter as an authorized driver but who was driving with her permission was entitled to Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy

Similarly, the Supreme Court held that the defendant had standing to challenge the search. On remand, the lower courts found that the search was valid and affirmed the conviction. (This is what has happened in just about every fourth amendment case where the defendant “wins” in the last 40 years.)

[David Nieporent]

Similarly, the Supreme Court held that the defendant had standing to challenge the search. On remand, the lower courts found that the search was valid and affirmed the conviction. (This is what has happened in just about every fourth amendment case where the defendant “wins” in the last 40 years.)

Yep; Orin has repeatedly pointed that out. Even when the lower courts rule that the search was not valid, the defendants don't usually benefit because the courts rule that suppression of the evidence is not the proper remedy because of the good faith exception.

[SMP0328]

Many Crim Pro wins became Pyrrhic Victories. In Ernesto Miranda's case, it was also ironic. He was convicted after being retried. Years later, he was murdered during a bar fight and the suspected killer used his Miranda rights to avoid even being tried for the murder.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/miranda-ernest

[Noscitur a sociis]

I thought I remembered that the Third Circuit ended up finding the good faith exception applied on remand back when the case originally came out. Turns out they did, but then actually changed their mind when the defendant filed a petition for rehearing... only to affirm after finding that the search was supported by probable cause.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks