Today in Supreme Court History: June 4, 1923

6/4/1923: Meyer v. Nebraska decided.

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (decided June 4, 2018): First Amendment protected cakeshop owner’s refusal on religious grounds to create a same-sex wedding cake

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (decided June 4, 1923): struck down on Due Process grounds state law prohibiting teaching of foreign languages to children before eighth grade (10-year-old child was taught German at a Lutheran religious school) (in those days most older Lutherans were German speakers; they were prosecuted for passing on their native language)

Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Comm’n of Florida, 496 U.S. 91 (decided June 4, 1990): lawyer was not misleading clients with letterhead identifying him as certified in trial advocacy by the NBTA (National Board of Trial Advocacy) despite impression some might get that NBTA was a governmental entity; censure vacated

Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (decided June 4, 2007): trial judge has first hand knowledge of prospective juror’s demeanor and should be deferred to as to whether he can be excluded based on suspicion that he would refuse to follow the law in reaching a verdict (here, whether he could apply the death penalty)

Madera Sugar Pine Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 262 U.S. 499 (decided June 4, 1923): rejects employer’s claim that paying worker’s compensation death benefits to family of resident alien residing in Mexico denied it Equal Protection (that employer had a cold, cold heart)

Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (decided June 4, 2012): Secret Service agents who arrested plaintiff for harassment (he criticized Vice President Cheney to his face about Iraq and touched his shoulder as he left) enjoyed qualified immunity; can’t say it was contrary to law to arrest for probable cause in retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights

English v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72 (decided June 4, 1990): 42 U.S.C. §5851(g) (making it unlawful to terminate nuclear industry employees in retaliation for making safety complaints) does not preempt state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (harassed due to making noise about failure to properly decontaminate work areas)

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (decided June 4, 1928): wiretapping a telephone was not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment (overruled by Katz v. United States, 1967)

Walling v. Harnischfeger Corp., 325 U.S. 427 (decided June 4, 1945): incentive pay structure for piecework (electrical components) had effect of evading Fair Labor Standards Act §7(a) which requires overtime to be 150% of regular rate

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (decided June 4, 1951): Smith Act (forbidding attempt to overthrow government through violence) does not violate First Amendment because it is restricted to speech advocating plan of violence; affirmed convictions of Communist Party-USA founders

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (decided June 4, 1923): struck down on Due Process grounds state law prohibiting teaching of foreign languages to children before eighth grade"

This was a response to massive immigration (which ended a year later) and a desire to have immigrant children LEARN ENGLISH.

And -- it worked....

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

It was a response to WW I.

AND IT WAS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

[wolfefan]

The children were learning English.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

It would have been nigh on impossible to stop them.

[John F. Carr]

So piecework pay was generally abolished in America by 1945 for employees. That prompted me to look up UK rules, because I remember one of Alistair MacLean's heroes talking about piecework rates in a novel set in the 1960s. In the UK piecework pay is allowed. The employer is supposed to set the rate per unit of production so that a slightly below average worker makes at least minimum wage. The employer may not dictate specific hours of work. The employer may limit working hours to the time the business is open.

[Drewski]

I'm not sure that Masterpiece Cakeshop summary is entirely accurate. They held that Colorado's process was hostile to whatshisname's religious claim, and explicitly declined to rule on whether his refusal was protected. I think they were hinting pretty hard, though.

[Area Man]

I was also going to point that out.

[David Nieporent]

Should be noted that Dennis was narrowed a few years later, and then ultimately overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969; the latter held that the abstract advocacy of criminal behavior is constitutionally protected. In Dennis, the govt didn't argue that there was an actual plan to overthrow the govt. (If so, the defendants would've been guilty of attempt, conspiracy,)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks

[apedad]

I agree with Justice Ginsburg's Concurrence comments in Reichle v. Howards:

Were defendants ordinary law enforcement officers, I would hold that Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), does not support their entitlement to qualified immunity. . . Nevertheless, I concur in the Court’s judgment. Officers assigned to protect public officials must make singularly swift, on the spot, decisions whether the safety of the person they are guarding is in jeopardy. In performing that protective function, they rightly take into account words spoken to, or in the proximity of, the person whose safety is their charge.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Court stresses the need for the Secret Service to be close by the officials they protect. This means they necessarily overhear the official’s confidential conversations, with others or talking on a cell phone. And they can be forced to testify as to what they overheard, even if it’s the President. Rubin v. United States, 1998 (where the dissent notes the many times the SS has foiled assassination/assault attempts by being close by).

[SRG2]

That immediacy should be the only grounds for QI. And indeed, was that not the only grounds when QI was originally invented?

[apedad]

Agree and if, for example, the Secret Service agents chased and then apprehended a suspect, then normal 4/5A safeguards should apply.

[Drewski]

No; the first QI grant was for arresting 15 priests eating lunch. You see, some of the priests were black and the cops felt this may lead to a breach of the peace.

[SRG2]

Thank you for the correction! 🙂

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Were they eating at a bar? And where were the minister and the rabbi?

[Commenter_XY]

Is Dennis still good law?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't know if they uttered the magic words, "overruled," but they may as well have done so.

Brandenburg allows greater leeway for speech which advocates violence.

[Sarcastr0]

Judge Cannon grants leave to Amicus Curiae Josh Blackman to present 30 mins oral argument on June 21.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Next up, he will talk about flags in front of SCOTUS.