Today in Supreme Court History: June 9, 1970

6/9/1970: Justice Harry Blackmun (no relation) takes oath.

Justice Harry Blackmun

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

"No relation". Well duh.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Yeah, weird. Who knows, maybe he's been asked and wants to forestall further questions.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He wants us to think he’s been asked. This is a man who grabs any chance to show a personal connection to the Court, even if it’s a connection that might exist only in people’s minds.

Or to be more generous, he’s making a little joke.

[Frank Drackman]

Me-Yow!, let me know when the Cat fight starts!

[F.D. Wolf]

FFS, it's a joke.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ordinarily I would think so, without hesitation, but Josh’s lack of self-awareness always surprises me.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're right . . . mostly because with the additions of Calabresi and Blackman, and Mr. Volokh's hard turn toward hard-right wingnuttery, everything at the Volokh Conspiracy is a joke these days.

[Tempe Jeff]

Including your drivel, repeated endlessly in search of relevance. You're a warped, twisted bitter old man, Mr. Potter.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No free swings, clingers.

[Tempe Jeff]

Pathetic comeback, indeed. You apparently have no life outside of this blog. Thus, making you a casualty of the 'war' you claim to be winning. Carry on as far as Eugene allows you.

[Tempe Jeff]

Listen and watch if you dare. This describes you well, Mr. 'Potter'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgKg_yPT3z0

[Dan Schiavetta]

Carey v. Population Services Int’l, 431 U.S. 678 (decided June 9, 1977): statute prohibiting sale of non-prescription contraceptives, and contraceptives to minors, violated Due Process right to privacy/liberty (you can see Brennan’s hard work here -- cobbling together a majority but with fractured opinions)

Randon v. Toby, 52 U.S. 493 (decided June 9, 1851): fact that loan was used to buy slaves which had been illegally imported from Africa to Texas did not make it an “illegal contract” such that plaintiff could not sue on the loan; Court compared this argument to a man who won’t pay his tailor because the importer had smuggled the cloth

Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (decided June 9, 2016): judge must recuse himself in death penalty habeas petition because he was the D.A. who brought the prosecution

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (decided June 9, 2011): patents are presumed valid (35 U.S.C. §282); defendant claiming invalidity must prove by clear and convincing evidence (i4i had developed document editing method independent of metacodes; original source code had been destroyed, so evidence adduced as to possible waiver via prior sale) (Microsoft eventually lost; it continued to infringe, but i4i lost motion to reopen action and cite for contempt, see 398 F. Supp. 3d 90, 2019)

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 579 U.S. 59 (decided June 9, 2016): Double Jeopardy bars prosecutions of the same conduct (illegal gun sale) by Puerto Rico and by the federal government; unlike a State, P.R. is not a separate “sovereign”

Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40 (decided June 9, 2016): District Court judge has power to recall jury and instruct them to re-deliberate after they returned a baseless verdict (finding $0 in damages in auto injury case even though both sides had stipulated to at least $10,136)

CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U.S. 1 (decided June 9, 2014): “superfund” law (CERCLA) preempts state statutes of limitations but not state statutes of repose (which start to run when a specified event occurs); North Carolina statute of repose barring actions brought more than 10 years after last culpable act (sale of property) applied to dismiss suit against polluter who had sold the property 24 years previously (statute of limitations by contrast began to run from date of damage/discovery)

Omaha & C.B.S.R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 230 U.S. 324 (decided June 9, 1913): street railroads (run not on land owned by the railroad company but on public street as an aid to street traffic) did not fit definition of “railroad” in the ICC Act of 1887 and therefore ICC had no power to set rates

United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (decided June 9, 1977): speedy trial requirement of Sixth Amendment does not apply to time between crime and indictment (here, 18 months) even if delay is unexplained (opinion written by Marshall!)

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (decided June 9, 1980): upholds against Takings Clause and Privileges and Immunities attack California law requiring owners of private property open to public to allow political speech (here, students in shopping center had set up table protesting “a United Nations resolution against Zionism”) (this must have been the infamous resolution equating Zionism with racism -- ironic because some early Zionists were antisemites, who were glad to pack Jews off to faraway Palestine; even the Nazis arranged it early on)

[F.D. Wolf]

Pruneyard did not involve a California law per se, but rather the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constitution. In a 4-3 decision, it held that that the petition and free speech clauses of the state constitution protected the right to petition at shopping centers. Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 592 P.2d 341 (Cal. 1979). In doing so, it overruled a case with substantially identical facts it had decided all of five years earlier. Diamond v. Bland, 521 P.2d 460 (Cal. 1974).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. Though the Court, not having authority to directly adjudge the state constitution, analyzed under the federal.

I went to law school in California and at the time Pruneyard was a contentious decision, as applied to protesters outside abortion clinics. I was on the law review when it published an article on the decision by our Con Law prof. IIRC I was in charge of cite-checking it.

[SRG2]

Williams had a dissent by Roberts – joined by Alito – who evidently thinks that judges are above reproach and who doesn’t accept the Caesar’s Wife principle, and another one by the Greatest Justice Who Has Ever Lived And Whoever WIll Live, Thomas, who thinks that as the original case was criminal but the current case is civil, it’s two different things so no recusal is needed. Plus the plaintiff is scum.

[F.D. Wolf]

Three years after he left the Court, Harry Blackmun portrayed Justice Joseph Story in Steven Spielberg's 1997 film Amistad. (I haven't seen the film, so can offer no opinion on the performance.)

As best I can tell, the only other (future) justice to do an acting turn was Byron White in a role as an uncredited party in Otto Preminger's 1962 film Advise and Consent. (I would rate the film as "okay".) The scene would have been filmed in the fall of 1961 when White was the Deputy Attorney General, the number two man in Justice Department under Robert Kennedy, but by the time it was released in July 1962, White was on the Court, having been nominated and confirmed in April 1962.

During filming, everybody in D.C. wanted to be in the movie, and several are. Other uncredited party guests in the same scene included Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, President Kennedy's secretary Evelyn Lincoln, and White's wife Marion Stearns White. The film marks the feature film debut of Betty White as a Senator based on Margaret Chase Smith. Director Otto Preminger offered a role as a Senator to Martin Luther King, Jr., even though there had not been a black Senator since Reconstruction, nor would there be another until the election of Edward Brooke from Massachusetts in 1966.

[Magister]

1997 film Amistad. (I haven’t seen the film, so can offer no opinion on the performance.)

OK, summer SCOTUS history movie reviews are starting a little unevenly, but maybe this will generate some momentum.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Mine will start on July 1.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh joy!
Kidding, but hope you will back off on reviewing pornos.
Not a prude but there are countless great (and not so great) films
to choose from.

[Frank Drackman]

Whenever I'm feeling down, I watch the opening scenes of
1: "Top Gun"
2: "Patton"
3 "Amurican Gigolo"
OK, mostly Amurican Gigolo

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

A Blackman can't get a break in the "Man"s world.