Today in Supreme Court History: May 29, 1917

5/29/1917: President John F. Kennedy's birthday. He would appoint two Justices to the Supreme Court: Byron R. White and Arthur J. Goldberg.

President Kennedy's appointees to the Supreme Court

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ledbetter v. Goodyear, 550 U.S. 618 (decided May 29, 2007): Title VII lawsuit as to sexual discrimination in employment (after 18 years plaintiff found that she was getting paid less than newly hired men in the same division) must be brought according to statutory language within 180 days of the act of unequal payment whether or not she knows about it (and of course she wouldn’t, unless she has a way to access the company’s payroll files every six months) (wording of statute changed to fix this result in January 2009 by the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill signed into law by Obama)

Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. 586 (decided May 29, 2018): police needed warrant to enter driveway and inspect stolen vehicle that was under a tarp, even though its shape was visible from the street and was parked in the same position as in photo of the (uncovered) stolen vehicle on defendant’s Facebook page

Lagos v. United States, 584 U.S. 577 (decided May 29, 2018): lender defrauded by Mr. Lagos not entitled after guilty plea to reimbursement of its private investigation expenses ($5 million) under Mandatory Victims Restitution Act provision which provides only for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in participating in government prosecutions (for example, child care, lost pay, train fare, etc.)

PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (decided May 29, 2001): ADA required professional golfer with circulatory condition (?? how could he play a round of golf?) to be allowed to use golf cart because golf course was “public accommodation” (Scalia’s dissent as to “this incredibly silly question” and “Platonic golf” is pretty funny)

Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (decided May 29, 1990): Double Jeopardy clause precluded prosecution for homicide after defendant pleaded guilty to DUI because arose out of the same conduct (Brennan and Marshall retired, and this was quickly overruled by United States v. Dixon, 1993; now Double Jeopardy protection applies only if the elements charged are the same)

NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, 532 U.S. 706 (decided May 29, 2001): nurse supervisors were not “employees” entitled to be included in collective bargaining because they exercise “independent judgment . . . in the interest of the employer” as defined in the National Labor Relations Act though (exercising Chevron deference) affirms NLRB rule that employer has burden of showing supervisor status

United States v. Southern Pacific Co., 259 U.S. 214 (decided May 29, 1922): voiding merger of railroads under Sherman Act; effect was to “materially reduce the free and normal flow of competition in the channels of interstate trade” (even though buyer had propped up seller by guaranteeing notes to the United States)

Bean v. Morris, 221 U.S. 485 (decided May 29, 1911): dispute between users of river that flowed from Montana to Wyoming and back again would be decided by common law as if there were no state boundaries

Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (decided May 29, 1911): Oklahoma legislature could change capital from Guthrie to Oklahoma City in a manner different from that specified by Congress in the Act admitting the state to the Union (suit was brought by Guthrie businessmen)

Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic Nat’l Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (decided May 29, 1973): radio station’s flat ban on political viewpoint ads did not violate First Amendment or Fairness Doctrine (since abolished) and did not violate “public interest” obligation placed on network by FCC (at issue were anti-Vietnam War ads by a private business group and Democratic National Committee ads expressing Party views and asking for funds)

[apedad]

Collins v. Virginia was an 8 - 1 decision with Justice Alito dissenting because he thought the search was not "unreasonable" which is the qualifier in 4A; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . . "

I agree - in this particular case - that the search was not unreasonable.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/16-1027/

[Dan Schiavetta]

I agree with Alito here. You can’t steal a car, show it off like a trophy of war on Facebook, and be surprised by the police searching it when you keep it there in your streetside driveway, barely disguised.

[SMP0328]

The decision is correct because it respects the property rights of the landowner. The police officer could have obtained a warrant, but instead blew off the Fourth Amendment as a mere inconvenience. He would have easily obtained the warrant but was too lazy to do so. How fortunate for Mr. Collins.

[Voize]

"Unsurprising" isn't one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.

[apedad]

But the key word is "unreasonable" and again - for this particular situation - I don't see the cop's action as unreasonable.

[Voize]

It's reasonable for the cop to want to look under that tarp, the question is whether it is reasonable for him to do it without a warrant.
This is where precedent comes in, to allow the law to become more definite over time rather than each case being one of first impression. In this case the state tried to apply the automobile exception but the Court corrected them that they weren't searching a vehicle, they were searching (the curtilage of) a house for a vehicle.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Isn’t this a “plain view” situation?

[SMP0328]

Not with the tarp over the bike. The officer had to go onto the property to look underneath the tarp. That's a warrantless search without exigent circumstances.

[Voize]

The officer didn't observe it in plain view, it was under a tarp.

What he did see was a photograph suggesting that under that tarp was a stolen motorcycle, evidence in support of probable cause that would look great in a warrant application.

[David Nieporent]

Title VII lawsuit as to sexual discrimination in employment (after 18 years plaintiff found that she was getting paid less than newly hired men in the same division) must be brought according to statutory language within 180 days of the act of unequal payment whether or not she knows about it (and of course she wouldn’t, unless she has a way to access the company’s payroll files every six months)

In fact, Ledbetter did know about it — she testified as much in her deposition — which is why she didn't bother arguing for a discovery rule. (Which the Supreme Court declined to consider since she had not requested it.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. Will rephrase. It looks, rather, like the Court wanted her to file a new claim every 180 days (still an unworkable result).

[John F. Carr]

We had a case in Massachusetts where a man was convicted of DUI causing severe bodily injury, served his sentence, was released, and was brought back into court for DUI homicide after the victim died years later. I think if the victim had been dead at the time of the first trial the defendant could not have later been charged with homicide. Personally, I like the old "year and a day" rule distinguishing hurting from killing.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Breyer was a Goldberg clerk.

Gorsuch was a White clerk.

[wolfefan]

Erle Stanley Gardner’s 1957 book “The Case of the Lucky Loser” saw Perry Mason raise the same point as in Grady v Corbin in defending a man accused of murder who had previously been convicted of vehicular manslaughter for the same event. There, the judge overruled Mason and allowed the trial to continue.

[Magister]

It would probably have been kind of a short book if the judge had dismissed the murder charge, or at least not involved Perry Mason much.

[Bob from Ohio]

"?? how could he play a round of golf?"

The physically hard part is walking the course. That is why Tiger is having difficulties on the final days of tournaments.

The actual golf takes lots of skill but is not that tiring.

[Commenter_XY]

On this day, the NYC trial of POTUS Trump went to the jury.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ex-POTUS

[Krayt]

Well, let’s see if the United States of America joins Russia, Venezuela, Turkey, China, and half the countries on Earth, and almost all through human history, in throwing a political opponent into prison.

This is not “our finest moment”, showing nobody is above the law. That is a subset of “‘everybody is equal before the law”, which also includes things like not turning the investigative and prosecutorial power of the United States against opponents.

That this is disinterested concern for rule of law is a lie, as evidenced by every chance where such was not required, gleeful behaviors to git ‘im were revealed.

When it was impeachments, people around here revealed with glee they had the honor to go after him for political reasons, to get an opponent.

When some were concerned he might pardon himself, they gleefully sent the info down to New York “just in case.”

They facetiously lied they needed his taxes so Congress could study and change laws if necessary, when everyone knew it was so they could leak them to embarrass him, which was done.

The sheer number of unending initiatives becomes a boy who cried wolf effort, and belies mere concern for rule of law.

Things like the 4th and 5th Amendments aren’t really to protect the yokels, though they do. They are part of a conscious design principle to stop the King from turning the power of government against his political opponents.

Rich and poweful people have their fingers in a lot of pies. The King knows he need only dig deep enough to find something to tag an opponent with.

In every step of the way, these protections, designed to protect the powerful from each other, have been abused against the very people they were supposed to protect.

Yay, Venezuela, Turkey, Cuba! Our heroes! Kasparov, the greatest chess player in history, sat in jail for irritating The Man in Power.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

If Trump is convicted in NY, it is unlikely he will get a prison sentence since it is a relatively minor non-violent felony, first offense, etc. That seems to be the general assumption from those in the know.

The number of countries that have prosecuted a leader of the country does not just include the likes of China. In this country, governors and other leading officials were prosecuted, some going to prison. A sitting vice president in effect pled out to avoid prison.

[SRG2]

If anything, the US's issue is failure to prosecute.

I wonder, though, when Trump was talking about locking Hillary up, whether Krayt was as offended.

[Krayt]

If you read here, you know I regularly called him Donald "Lock her up!" Trump, and suggested all this was cosmic justice for him.

So yes. Be informed by facts, and not what your echo chamber informs you to non-sentiently think.

[SRG2]

Fuck off, Krayt. I don't inhabit echo chambers nor have I any interest in doing so.

I note that you didn't actually respond directly. You could have said, "yes, I was just as offended." But you deflected.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Josh Blackman content.

https://theintercept.com/2024/05/29/leonard-leo-donor-law-schools/