Today in Supreme Court History: June 15, 1804

6/15/1804: The 12th Amendment is ratified.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (decided June 15, 2020): Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits firing an employee for being gay or transgender (county didn’t know one plaintiff was gay until he joined gay softball league; other plaintiff happened to mention to his co-employee at a skydiving school that he was gay; third plaintiff was hired as male and “transitioned” due to gender dysphoria); Title VII also applies to transgender because fired “for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex” (Gorsuch, writing for a 6 - 3 Court, admits that the word “sex” as used in 1964 was not meant to cover these situations)

Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255 (decided June 15, 2023): Indian Child Welfare Act was not outside Congress’s Article I power (tribe could enforce ICWA preference for Indian family even though adoption by non-Indian family was supported by both biological parents)

Rosenberg v. United States, 345 U.S. 989 (decided June 15, 1953): denied stay of execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg; executed four days later for passing atomic secrets to the Soviets (case against Ethel was admittedly not strong but used unsuccessfully as “lever” to get Julius to talk; Julius could have cleared Ethel, saving her life, if he admitted his own guilt, which he could have done up to the last moment)

Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (decided June 15, 1964): evidence based on search warrant which was vague (based on hearsay, did not identify informant or particulars as to why heroin possession was suspected) should have been excluded

Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (decided June 15, 1969): vacated conviction based on false testimony by state witness (that he was not being paid for his testimony) which prosecutor did nothing to correct

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (decided June 15, 1964): Alabama can’t base its legislature on “federal model” (one senator per county); Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection clause requires both houses to be apportioned by population; in dissent Harlan points out Congress saw no problem with this setup in Alabama and other “reconstructed” states (“It is incredible that Congress would have exacted ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment as the price of readmission, would have studied the State Constitutions for compliance with the Amendment, and would then have disregarded violations of it”)

Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (decided June 15, 2006): evidence seized after illegally abrupt entry with warrant (waited only 3 - 5 seconds after announcing before opening door) is still admissible (i.e., not subject to exclusionary rule) because evidence would have been found even with proper entry; conviction for gun and drug possession affirmed; 5 - 4 decision

Golan v. Saada, 596 U.S. 666 (decided June 15, 2022): under Hague Convention, court can deny violent father’s request to return child to home country without considering “ameliorative measures” (e.g., order of protection, therapy)

Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639 (decided June 15, 2022): minimum wage/overtime state court suit allowed by California law despite arbitration provision in employment contract preempted by Federal Arbitration Act (FAA wouldn’t preempt suit under California’s “private attorney general” statute but plaintiff lacked standing)

Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249 (decided June 15, 1953): throwing out suit by homeowners against seller who sold house to black family (in violation of racially restrictive covenant) because order enforcing covenant would be state action violating Equal Protection (this reasoning would turn any private dispute that wound up in court into “state action”)

Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 (decided June 15, 1959): struck down state court requirement that indigent criminal defendant pay a fee to make motion for leave to appeal (the appealable “final judgment” here was the letter of the clerk rejecting the motion because no fee attached)

Mulloy v. United States, 398 U.S. 410 (decided June 15, 1970): threw out conviction for draft evasion because draftee’s documentation as to conscientious objector status was not formally considered

[F.D. Wolf]

The original Constitution provided:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.

The winner (provided he had a majority) would be President, and the runner-up would be the Vice President. The Drafters did not foresee two individuals running together as a ticket, which led to the debacle of the 1800 election, which, in turn, led to the Twelfth Amendment.

The reason for the proviso about casting at least one vote for a candidate from another state was the concern that all the electors would vote for two men from their own state. There was really no logical reason to carry this restriction over in the Twelfth Amendment, but its authors nonetheless did so.

[SMP0328]

I believe the drafters of the 12th Amendment thought it would be bad for the country to have the President and Vice President be from the same State.

Another change made by the amendment was to apply the Presidential Qualifications Clause to the office of Vice President. Before then, it was possible for the runner-up to become VP despite not being eligible for the Presidency.

[F.D. Wolf]

I believe the drafters of the 12th Amendment thought it would be bad for the country to have the President and Vice President be from the same State.

If that were the case, they could have easily prevented it by requiring the electors to vote for two individuals from two different states, as opposed to simply copying the old language verbatim. As it stands (and stood), two individuals from the same "State X" could still become President and Vice President, as the only electors barred from voting for both (but not one) of them would be the electors from State X itself.

I believe it is more likely just a case of the conservative tendency to adhere to tradition.

[David Nieporent]

I believe the drafters of the 12th Amendment thought it would be bad for the country to have the President and Vice President be from the same State.

But the Constitution permits that!