Today in Supreme Court History: June 1, 1925

6/1/1925: Pierce v. Society of Sisters is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (decided June 1, 1925): striking down Oregon statute requiring all children to go to public school as infringing liberty right of parents to decide how to educate their children, and property right of Catholic school plaintiff which would lose business

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (decided June 1, 1931): This important case struck down on First Amendment (Fourteenth) grounds statute allowing state to enjoin newspaper publishing of “malicious, scandalous or defamatory” material (articles at issue named gangsters and law enforcement who were suspiciously not pursuing them).

Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174, 598 U.S. 771 (decided June 1, 2023): NLRA Act did not preempt employer’s state law tort against striking workers for concrete they left behind in trucks which solidified

United States v. Cooley, 593 U.S. 345 (decided June 1, 2021): tribal officer had power to conduct (otherwise legal) search and detention of non-Native American driver on public highway running through reservation (Breyer’s opinion notes that “most people living on Indian reservations are not Indians” — I honestly never knew that)

Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942) (decided June 1, 1942): government not required to provide attorney for criminal defendant who can’t afford one; affirming conviction for robbery (overruled by Gideon v. Wainwright) (one assumes Mr. Betts acted as his own lawyer at trial but one Jesse Slingluff is listed as his lawyer before the Court)

NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288 (decided June 1, 1964): this entertaining opinion blows to bits the b.s. reasons the Alabama Supreme Court upheld an order forbidding the NAACP to do business in Alabama, from rejecting a brief which was in fact punctiliously drafted, to claiming the right to “oust” the organization for not paying a licensing fee when state rules provided merely for issuing a fine

Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, 575 U.S. 790 (decided June 1, 2015): Chapter 7 (liquidation) debtor can’t void junior mortgage (11 U.S.C. §506(d)) even when property is already underwater due to senior mortgage

Dunbar v. Dunbar, 190 U.S. 340 (decided June 1, 1903): agreement to pay alimony not in the form of a court order but still not dischargeable in bankruptcy

Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573 (decided June 1, 2020): court can’t review INS’s determination that noncitizen can be deported but can review his claim (under 1984 international Convention Against Torture) that he would be tortured if he’s sent back (guilty of larceny but might be tortured in Lebanon as member of Druze religion) (remanded to Circuit Court which let him stay, 824 Fed. Appx. 667)

Mifflin v. R.H. White Co., 190 U.S. 260 (decided June 1, 1903): author is not protected by copyright in publisher’s name (superseded by Copyright Act of 1909) (at issue were articles published in the Atlantic Monthly written by plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.; it’s odd that Holmes Jr. didn’t recuse himself) (the articles were called “The Professor at the Breakfast Table” and would have made fascinating reading; Dr. Holmes, who prefigured Darwin on evolution and Freud on the unconscious, was a more interesting person than his son, who confined himself to the dreary topic of law, though he did write a children’s book)

Ebeling v. Morgan, 237 U.S. 625 (decided June 1, 1915): chronic ripper of mail sacks chargeable separately for each sack (three years prison time per sack x 5 sacks = 15 years) (arguably overruled by Bell v. United States, 1955, which rejected a Mann Act formula of 2½ years per woman x 2 women = 5 years)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Near v. Minnesota”

The law allowed the courts to use a nuisance theory to shut down an allegedly scandalous newspaper. The focus of the Court opinion was the claim that this was prior restraint – forbidding future issues of a newspapers because they allegedly published illegal stuff in the past. Much of the "respectable" press was OK with this - the main guy attacking the law was the right-wing clinger Col. Robert R. McCormick, the publisher of the Chicago Tribune. See Fred Friendly, Minnesota Rag.

(Wilson got away with something analogous during World War Uno – jacking up the postage of newspapers’ future issues based on allegedly publishing seditious material in the past. A policy actually upheld by Supreme Court, Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U. S. 407 (1921).)

[Krayt]

Freedom of speech continues to move in the correct direction, decade after decade, even with the occasional fits and starts. A unanimous decision just a few days ago.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks Margrave !

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Those who wish to operate or attend Catholic schools should be entitled to do so.

Nonsense-teaching, superstition-based schools should not be accredited by educated, mainstream American society, though.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It was the Taft court – of course their opinions have some discussion of the rights of corporations.

But the key point is that “we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”

If you don’t like Catholic schools, or their instruction in secular subjects (which you don’t seem to know much about, not that this stops you), then the other petitioner in this case may be more to your liking. There’s nothing in this description about sectarian or superstitious teaching:

“Appellee Hill Military Academy is a private corporation organized in 1908 under the laws of Oregon, engaged in owning, operating, and conducting for profit an elementary, college preparatory, and military training school for boys between the ages of 5 and 21 years….the courses of study conform to the requirements of the state board of education. Military instruction and training are also given, under the supervision of an army officer.”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Schools that teach creationism -- or generally suppress science and warp history to flatter superstition, dogma, and supernatural nonsense -- are not legitimate schools. They teach nonsense. They should not be accredited. That decision is not near, but it seems nearly inevitable as mankind and society continue to progress.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You're starting to get it.

Schools that teach creationism

Like woke ideology?

or generally suppress science

Yes!

and warp history to flatter superstition, dogma, and supernatural nonsense

CRT, 1619, wokism, climate alarmunism, you've covered them all, well done!

are not legitimate schools.

Congratulation, Artie!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The Catholics in the U. S. have mostly gone progressive. The Pope is woke AF. Many Catholic schools might be confused with public schools in Fairfax County.

So spare me your lovers' quarrel with your religious allies.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is a relatively straightforward issue involving legitimate education and accreditation.

Some superstitious clingers can't handle it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Some day you'll post a reply which is responsive to what you're replying to.

I know you can do it, so the question is why don't you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What point were you trying to advance, clinger?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That you're an utter imbecile.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The opinion granted that "certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare" could be required.

If a parent sent a child only to non-public schools, the schools could be required to teach certain basic subjects, including sound science with the government providing oversight.

The religious education aspect of the education would be hands-off, except for general rules that apply to all teachers and schools.

I don't know how you split that up -- maybe the individual teachers of the state-required subjects are accredited.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It might be nice if the rev provided specific examples of private religious schools teaching secular subjects in a way which was inferior to what's on offer at the government schools.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Carry on,, clingers.

So far as better Americans permit, though. Not a step beyond. Thank you for your continuing compliance with the preferences of your betters. (You get to whine and whimper about it as much as you like, of course.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The article seems a bit shy about saying how *many* of the private schools in general, or the religious schools in particular, have the anti-evolutionist content you describe.

I suspect that most religious schools would comply with a law that school students must know about evolution and other basic scientific concepts, be able to explain them, and be able to relate them to a broader context. I suspect most religious schools already have such a requirement without a law. After all, as I mentioned elsewhere, many religious schools are on your side, politically at least, of the culture war, which by definition means they teach science properly.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

We believe with perfect faith that

-Men can get pregnant

-Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction

-Hate speech (such as denial of the above) isn't free speech.

World without end, amen.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A school that teaches creationism -- which is nonsense -- deserves accreditation no more than a school that teaches that the moon is made of green cheese, babies are delivered by storks, or Earth is flat.

Anyone who wishes to advance a different position should speak up.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm simply pointing to the religious nonsense-schools which exist on *your* side of the culture-war divide. Which includes plenty of Catholic schools. If you deny *that,* speak up.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Religious nonsense in legitimate public schools?

Are you high?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

He listed them. Manstruation is another one. Chestfeeding is useful.

1619, CRT, lots of religious dogma coming out of public schools.

Flat Earthers and creationists can't hurt anyone but themselves as far as being biologists or geologists.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Are you ignorant, or is your misrepresentation of my position deliberate?

Catholic schools are quite frequently your culture-war allies, as I’ve said more than once.

And don’t forget, among religious groups on your side of the culture war:

the Presbyterian Church, USA
the United Church of Christ
the Canterbury-oriented Episcopalians
the mainline Methodists
those Quakers who are in the Friends General Conference
the Metropolitan Community Church

Again, are your ignorant or simply choosing not to mention inconvenient facts?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You wingnuts apparently can't distinguish supernatural nonsense -- childish fairy tales, pure fucking fiction -- from policy debates that make bigoted, superstitious, right-wing hayseeds cranky.

I guess it's nice that this white, male, disaffected blog gives you clingers a place at which you can huddle together for warmth as you await replacement, but sometimes I think this place starts to make you dumbasses actually believe that your preferences have a future in modern, improving-against-your-wishes, mainstream America.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Even an AI is programmed to understand the prompts it’s given.

Heck, even a computer from the 1980s could respond to prompts.

Yet you can’t understand basic points, elementary points which the 12-year-old children you love talking about so much, would be able to understand.

[Dilan Esper]

one assumes Mr. Betts acted as his own lawyer at trial but one Jesse Slingluff is listed as his lawyer before the Court

Just as Abraham Fortas represented Clarence Gideon before SCOTUS in Gideon v. Wainwright. SCOTUS will always appoint a lawyer for a pro se case unless the petitioner is a lawyer.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks — I didn’t know that. Is that per rule or custom?

[SMP0328]

I think it's a rule. SCOTUS doesn't want laypeople participating in oral argument with the Justices.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That would be a sight!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It used not to be. The last non-lawyer who argued won 9-0. He appears to have known the field involved though CJ Burger was annoyed when it seemed he could not answer certain legal-related questions. Be interesting to know how he did overall.

https://apnews.com/united-states-government-510b60138a644992a14406ab16e31a90

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Apparently, the rule that one arguing before SCOTUS must be a lawyer only dates to 2013 (Rule 28.8).

[Dilan Esper]

Key is even before the rule, they would routinely offer the appointment and most litigants would of course take it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“Let’s see. . . let’s pick someone off our bar roll we haven’t seen yet. . . Sir, how would you like to be represented by one J. Blackman?”

[Tj76130]

Yes thank you for your services sir now my name is Tyler... kinda like that would be legit contract or wait I didn't get picked...

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Ebeling v. Morgan, 237 U.S. 625 (decided June 1, 1915): chronic ripper of mail sacks chargeable separately for each sack (three years prison time per sack x 5 sacks = 15 years) (arguably overruled by Bell v. United States, 1955, which rejected a Mann Act formula of 2½ years per woman x 2 women = 5 years)"

Ebeling the Ripper.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Ebeling the Sack-Ripper.

I hope he adopted this as his prison nickname, just to scare off the other prisoners.

[NvEric]

Assuming the bags in question were clearly marked US MAIL?

Matter not if said bags were internally offended, i.e. willfully violated and or contents were actually fondled or otherwise disturbed ?

Seems excessive if only cut and not violated.

[John F. Carr]

I recall a much more modern case where a criminal went after an ordinary-looking truck that happened to be carrying mail and was punished under federal criminal law despite the lack of any way for the defendant to know that the truck was protected by federal law.

[SRG2]

Alabama might just as well have said, "we have a procedural rule that any association with the initials N, A, A, C and P must fuck off".

I wonder how quickly after the SC decision did Alabama let the NAACP operate, or whether there were cases which only reached lower courts trying to compel various Alabama officials to comply with the SC.

[NvEric]

NAACP must rename itself to be up on current nomenclature - NAAPC

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What inclines bigoted, superstitious old whites to believe they still get to tell Black people what to do?

Quit yelling from the porch and go back inside your mobile home, irrelevant clinger.

[Tj76130]

I've got a reason lawyer now that's what there there for

[Tj76130]

Could you all tell me what was the last tort claim filed that cited roe v wade

[NvEric]

United States v. Cooley
Cops are Cops, where ever their jurisdiction may be. Matters not where or whom may be in violation of local law, cops shall get them. Otherwise, one could do harm outside or inside a 'reservation' and escape, free of hinderance by either destination's law and escape enforcement.

Just why there are still 'reservations' is beyond the pail of rational thought. So-called 'reservations' should become, at minimum, semi-autonomous entities, if those within the boundaries so decide to be such, thus becoming semi-independent states or maybe fully independent countries.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Get an education, wingnut. Start with standard English, focusing on capitalization.

Backwater religious schooling does not count.

Or just get out of the way until replacement.