Today in Supreme Court History: June 2, 1952

6/2/1952: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (decided June 2, 1952): President cannot seize private property (steel mills which would cripple Korean War effort due to impending strike; steelworkers were willing to work for the war effort but mill owners sued) without Congressional authorization (Congress had refused to act) (this was just a motion for a preliminary injunction, i.e. the “shadow docket”, but Court decided entire case)

Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (decided June 2, 2014): international agreement criminalizing chemical weapons as codified by Congress did not apply to vengeful wife who spread toxic chemicals on husband’s car, mailbox and doorknob (give the prosecutor credit for creativity)

Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (decided June 2, 1969): amusement park was not “private club” under exception to Civil Rights Act of 1964 so cannot have segregated snack bar

United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (decided June 2, 2008): defendant who received commissions from bets in illegal lottery not guilty under money laundering statute which refers only to “proceeds” and defendant did not share in lottery profits

Ann Arbor Railroad Co. v. United States, 281 U.S. 658 (decided June 2, 1930): vacating Interstate Commerce Commission order rejecting rates proposed by railroads for transporting fruit from California because its reasoning was based on wording of a joint resolution of Congress as opposed to standards and procedures set forth in Interstate Commerce Act

Jenkins v. Delaware, 395 U.S. 213 (decided June 2, 1969): Miranda (applicable to trials after June 13, 1966) is not retroactive on retrial where first trial was before that date

Denver First Nat’l Bank v. Klug, 186 U.S. 202 (decided June 2, 1902): involuntary bankruptcy, now rare, allows a creditor to sue the debtor except if the debtor is a farmer (11 U.S.C. §303(a)); here the Court held it had no jurisdiction to review a jury finding of “farmer” for a couple of boring procedural reasons, but I didn’t even know there was such a thing as involuntary bankruptcy until I read this case

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (decided June 2, 1969): death sentence vacated because defendant not questioned about the voluntariness of his guilty plea and defense of hearing on sentencing was cursory; Court could rule on these questions even though not brought up in state court appeal

Capital City Light & Fuel Co. v. Tallahassee, 186 U.S. 401 (decided June 2, 1902): City did not owe business to electric company which was successor in interest after bankruptcy of municipal corporation chartered to provide city with power

Compaigne Francaise De Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (decided June 2, 1902): state had power to exclude foreigners from quarantined city despite Constitution giving power to Congress to regulate trade with foreign nations (art. I, §8, cl. 3); Congress could preempt local law but had not acted (I suppose this means there is no “Dormant International Commerce Clause”)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“(give the prosecutor credit for creativity)”

No, I would think “creative” prosecutors should be ordered by the jury to pay legal expenses of the acquitted defendant. Make the prosecutor personally liable and prohibit taxpayers paying these assessments.

(Even if defendant was a Bad Person, I wouldn't invoke a Bad Person Exception to my suggested reform)

[John F. Carr]

I think there should be a criminal case counterpart to the Equal Access to Justice Act.

[Purple Martin]

I would think cc should be given credit for using "air quotes" just before he typed creativity, just as you used "scare quotes" as you typed "creative."

[F.D. Wolf]

In Youngstown Sheet & Tube, Truman may very well have had statutory authority under the emergency provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which is exactly what the steel mill owners had expected him to utilize. Apparently, however, Truman was too embarrassed to do so because the Act had been passed by Congress over his veto. Instead, he relied on a claim of inherent, executive power, which, of course, the Court rejected. Notably, the membership of the Court included three former Attorneys General - Frank Murphy, Robert Jackson, and Truman's own former AG Tom Clark - all of whom sided with the 6-3 majority against Truman.

[Dan Schiavetta]

But Taft-Hartley could be used only against the unions, not against management. And the unions wanted to stay on the job anyway.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I look forward to Gerard N. Magliocca's book on Robert Jackson's concurrence. His books generally have been interesting and approachable (he favors short volumes that the average person could enjoy).

When it came out, I was wary about Bond v. U.S. A microbiologist misused dangerous chemicals for a personal vendetta. The international suppression of chemical weapons is an open-ended task and I was not sure it would not apply in this context.

The case set up various hypos that come off as ridiculous including poisoning dogs with chocolate and the like. There were other ways to prosecute her conduct. But, references to "the kitchen cupboard" are not quite all that was involved here.

I would have supported a narrow ruling on the true reach of the prohibition in question. A broad federalism-based ruling to me was unwise.

[Krayt]

It's like charging Andy with some international treaty on using war machines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAIzFIOJA2c

"Dwight, are your legs broken?"

"My right one's falling asleep a little bit."

[SRG2]

Daniel v Paul is one of those cases where a strict libertarian would, I think, side with the amusement park while disapproving of their conduct.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

In which state was the segregated snack bar underlying Daniel v. Paul located?

__ Alabama
__ Arkansas
__ Idaho
__ Mississippi
__ North Dakota
__ South Dakota
__ Tennessee
__ Any state in the top half of the "States Ranked by Educational Attainment" rankings

Please explain your selection. Thank you.

[David Nieporent]

What was the point of your post?

__ Trolling.
__ Trolling.
__ Trolling.

Please explain your selection. Thank you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why not go back to savoring Mr. Volokh's trans-white grievance-drag queen-Black crime-lesbian-trans-male grievance-Muslim-trans-conservative grievance-trans-racial slur feed, Mr. Nieporent?

That's what you're here for. That's what you and the former professor find "interesting."

[Mr. Bumble]

So says the misanthropic douche.

[David Nieporent]

Why not go back to lying about having been censored?

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

Libertarians were facing many such questions in the Civil Rights controversies of 1964-1965, eg should a racist businessman be forced to do business with someone of a race he disliked? A libertarian ideologue would say no: government interference in private business should be minimized. A libertarian statesman would say yes: the evils of Jim Crow were so great that some bending of libertarian dogma was justified.

[SRG2]

A libertarian statesman

Does any such person exist either now or then?