Today in Supreme Court History: June 19, 1992

6/19/1992: New York v. U.S. is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (decided June 19, 1961): exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment applies to state prosecutions as well as federal (police improperly searching for evidence related to bombing found obscene materials instead; Ms. Mapp, once engaged to the boxer Archie Moore, had what might be called a “colorful” life)

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (decided June 19, 1992): New York’s Tenth Amendment challenge against the United States (not an original jurisdiction case, probably because two N.Y. counties were co-plaintiffs) dismissed as to federal statute allowing states to receive money to house out-of-state nuclear waste, and to refuse waste that does not meet guidelines, but Tenth Amendment does prohibit requirement that state take title to undisposed internal waste

McWilliams v. Dunn, 582 U.S. 183 (decided June 19, 2017): murder defendant needing mental health expert to evaluate defense (Ake v. Oklahoma) is entitled to someone seriously working on the case, not just psychologist volunteering occasional spare time and not present at sentencing hearing

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (decided June 19, 2017): denial of trademark as “disparaging” for name of Asian band which was an anti-Asian slur (“The Slants”) (the band’s purpose was to “reclaim” the term) was in violation of the First Amendment (I wonder -- if it was a racist white band dressing in “yellowface” which wanted to use the term in the original hateful sense, would the result have been the same?)

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (decided June 19, 2000): Establishment Clause prohibited student selected by student council from reciting prayer over public address system before each home football game (suit was brought by Catholic and Mormon parents)

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (decided June 19, 1961): Maryland could not require notary oath to include belief in God

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (decided June 19, 2017): refuses to extend Bivens remedy to illegal aliens detained after 9/11 attacks and subjected to harsh and abusive conditions (remember this photo http://www.aljazeera.com/ news/2023/3/20/reporters-notebook-taking-the-hood-off-20-years-later); confinement was “pursuant to a high-level executive policy created in the wake of a major terrorist attack on American soil” and such suits would need specific Congressional authorization

Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (decided June 19, 1972): rejected Curt Flood’s antitrust challenge to the reserve clause even though other professional sports are not exempt from antitrust (I remember the New York Times editorial criticizing this decision; it was entitled “Misty-Eyed Justice” and pointed to the flowery paean to baseball in Blackmun’s opinion) (this suit in effect ended Flood’s career; he got the Colin Kaepernick treatment afterwards)

Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (decided June 19, 2017): striking down on First Amendment grounds a statute prohibiting convicted sex offenders from using social media which they know include minors as members

Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (decided June 19, 2008): trial judge properly refused schizophrenic murder defendant’s request to be his own attorney (though he was found competent to testify) and appointed counsel (the judge in the Colin Ferguson trial should have done this)

[Dilan Esper]

I actually think the result of Matal v. Tam is the same if the band is overtly racist. Obviously they choose plaintiffs for a reason, but The Slants would have still filed an amicus brief in the case brought by The Yellow Faces, and there would still be plenty of argumentation about how the statute affected legitimate discourse. See, e.g., Hustler v. Falwell for a nice example of this.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (decided June 19, 2008): trial judge properly refused schizophrenic murder defendant’s request to be his own attorney (though he was found competent to testify) and appointed counsel (the judge in the Colin Ferguson trial should have done this)"

This is a serious case with a real victim and a serious mental health condition and is tragic all around. Plus schizophrenic doesn't necessarily mean multiple personalities.

So this is not the time for jokes about having one of his personalities assigned to represent him, or the mechanics of questioning himself on the stand, or anything tasteless like that.

[Dan Schiavetta]

? I didn’t make any jokes here. Do you remember the Colin Ferguson trial? The man was psychotic. He was not multiple personality (and as someone who worked in mental health for 10 years I know very well the difference between schizophrenia, 290.10 in the DSM III-R, and multiple personality disorder, I don't know the DSM code for that because I didn't have any clients with that).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sigh, I was doing the Nixonian saying-something-while-saying-I-won't-say-it schtick.

Oh, well, I guess he joke didn't go over well.

[apedad]

Re Torcaso v. Watkins

Some religious groups have occasionally argued that, in Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court "found" secular humanism to be a religion. This assertion is based on a reference, by Justice Black in footnote number 11 of the Court's finding, to court cases where organized groups of self-identified humanists, or ethicists, meeting on a regular basis to share and celebrate their beliefs, have been granted religious-based tax exemptions. (wiki)

Footnote 11 states, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."

Apparently Justice Black misspoke since The Secular Community says, "Join the growing number of people who have rejected the superstition, antiquated dogma, and divisiveness represented by religion, in favor of a lifestyle based on science and reason and a moral code built on progressive values." (Is Rev. K their leader?)

[Dan Schiavetta]

In the dining hall with a bunch of born-again-Christian friends, at a college in the Midwest, I was finally asked if I was one. “No.” “Why not?” I said, “I don’t hate the secular world enough,” or something like that (probably something less harsh). This was 1977 and I was still trying to escape my Catholic upbringing, uncertainly. A better answer would have been, “Religion tries to deal with facts that are too big for human thought. They’re certainly too big for human language.” It would have taken a lot of practice, though. I wonder if any of them would have had a comeback to that.

[Krayt]

I refuse to worship a creature who sits there while babies are raped to death.

As he throws me into hell, wave at me, knowing who you're with.

[Martinned2]

“Religion tries to deal with facts that are too big for human thought. They’re certainly too big for human language.”

That's certainly a great phrase, but I'm not sure it means anything. I suppose what you were going for was some kind of Wittgensteinian 'worüber man nicht reden kann' distinction between matters of reason, science, and philosophy on the one hand and matters of raw faith on the other hand?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I’m not familiar with Wittgenstein, but I meant to say, all attempts to explain God are necessarily inadequate. So there’s no point in comparing one set of beliefs to another. Not sure what that makes me but “agnostic” is probably the closest word for it.

As for “faith”, that term itself is meaningless. Faith in what? The author of Letter to the Hebrews says it’s not based on evidence, but it is evidence of something beyond ourselves. (Heb 11:1) I don’t buy that. People can have faith in all sorts of b.s.

[Mr. Bumble]

" People can have faith in all sorts of b.s."
Like the law?

[apedad]

People can have faith in the law - or not.

But if you break the law, then you can end up facing the penalties - regardless of your faith.

[Martinned2]

Wittgenstein was quite religious but, particularly in his younger days, also quite in about banishing God from the realms of philosophy. Young Wittgenstein argued that philosophy (and science, etc) should be limited to meaningful questions, i.e. questions where all words/concepts were well-defined, and that questions about supernatural deities were not meaningful.

To quote the man himself:

6.52 We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and just this is the answer.
(...)
6.522 There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical.
6.53 The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other -he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy- but it would be the only strictly
correct method.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5740/5740-pdf.pdf

[John F. Carr]

The phrase "even if all possible scientific questions be answered" was written a decade before Gödel's famous incompleteness theorem.

[ReaderY]

Godel is a way out of Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein starts with the proposition that the propositions of arithmetic logic are complete (the first proposition, “the world consists of all that is the case,” says this if you look at how he defines things carefully.) He then proceeds to explain what the consequences of that being true would really be, leading to the conclusion that if it were so, you couldn’t do anything self-referential, and hence you couldn’t talk about language (or much anything else of real interest). And as a consequence, his entire book would be nonsense. Godel offered a less literary, more rigorous and mathematically technical, far less intellectually stimulating proof of a self-contradiction.

[ReaderY]

But Wittgenstein goes on to say that it follows from his theory that language is one of the things about which nothing can be said. And since the entire book is about language, that makes it meaningless.

Hence the very next (and penultimate aphorism):

6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: He who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (he must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)

He must surmount these propositions; then he will see the world aright.

The theist could reasonably argue that he is in fact the one who really understands, and has successfully surmounted, Wittgenstein. Whereas you Sir, having completely filed to understand what Wittgenstein is really getting at, remain mired in nonsense.

[Krayt]

I don't know if it was this case, but my understanding was atheism suffered the same religions protections of the First Amendment as a proper religion. It wasn't just protected by freedom of speech.

It just occurred to me, could atheist speeches be forbidden at schools the same way prayers are?

[Krayt]

I suppose so, and that would be proper. "God doesn't exist. Now come gather in the gym for a pep rally we don't go 0 and 9 again."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There is much debate on what "religion" entails.

On a recent episode of Freethought Radio, Professor Anthony B. Pinn talked about his book, "The Black Practice of Disbelief: An Introduction to the Principles, History, and Communities of Black Nonbelievers."

He thought it was acceptable to talk about "religion" as including those following his views on existence.

https://ffrf.org/news/freethought-radio/freethought-radio-june-13-2024/

"Secular humanism" can be a way to view "ultimate truths" in a way that can be labeled a "religion."

Religion is sometimes labeled negatively ("superstition, antiquated dogma, and divisiveness represented by religion"). But, some religions are not that divisive, are open-minded & up-to-date, and so on.

[CJColucci]

The term “religion” is unavoidably equivocal. It can refer to “religious belief,” in the sense that, say, the doctrine of Papal infallibility is something that Catholics believe. It can also refer to “beliefs about religion,” in the sense that a Presbyterian can believe that Catholics believe in Papal infallibility, It can also refer to both senses simultaneously. Our Presbyterian has both a belief about religion — that Catholics believe in Papal infallibility — and a religious belief — that the doctrine of Papal infallibility is wrong. Atheists can have beliefs about religion. Like our Presbyterian, our Atheist believes that Catholics believe in Papal infallibility and that Papal infallibility is wrong. He differs from the Presbyterian, however, because while their shared belief in what Catholics believe about Papal infallibility is clearly a belief about religion, the Presbyterian presumably disbelieves in Papal infallibility because it conflicts with the beliefs characteristic of Presbyterianism — a religious belief — while the Atheist disbelieves in Papal infallibility not because he has a different religious belief, but because he has none, and anything he believes about Papal infallibility is a belief about religion.
For legal purposes, it makes the most sense to hold that “freedom of religion” covers both religious belief and belief about religion.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I agree with the last sentence.

What "religion" exactly means rarely decides a case.

It comes up now and then, and various lower courts have tried to figure out how to define "religion."

[apedad]

“There is much debate on what “religion” entails.”

That’s because there are no objective factors that folks can point to which would define religion (or a religion).

And the only way religion will be fully defined is if the Big Kahuna him/her/zirself arrives and lays down the law.

(I sometimes wish this would actually happen because I bet there would be A LOT of religious people who would be really upset.)

[SMP0328]

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (decided June 19, 1992): New York’s Tenth Amendment challenge against the United States (not an original jurisdiction case, probably because two N.Y. counties were co-plaintiffs) dismissed as to federal statute allowing states to receive money to house out-of-state nuclear waste, and to refuse waste that does not meet guidelines, but Tenth Amendment does prohibit requirement that state take title to undisposed internal waste

The decision that beathed new life into the Tenth Amendment and helped lead to nationwide sports gambling (Murphy v. NCAA).

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (decided June 19, 2000): Establishment Clause prohibited student selected by student council from reciting prayer over public address system before each home football game (suit was brought by Catholic and Mormon parents)

Contrast this decision with Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. The former involved government-imposed prayer, the latter was considered private prayer. The government is not to impose prayer, nor prohibit others from praying.

Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (decided June 19, 1972): rejected Curt Flood’s antitrust challenge to the reserve clause even though other professional sports are not exempt from antitrust (I remember the New York Times editorial criticizing this decision; it was entitled “Misty-Eyed Justice” and pointed to the flowery paean to baseball in Blackmun’s opinion) (this suit in effect ended Flood’s career; he got the Colin Kaepernick treatment afterwards)

Part 1 of Blackmun's opinion was an ode to baseball that was completely irrelevant and was joined by no other Justice. It was immature, asinine, and unprofessional.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. All true.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Arthur Goldberg, formerly a justice, argued the case for Curtis Flood.

Many people panned his performance.

("one of the worst arguments I'd ever heard – by one of the smartest men I've ever known")

It was not his first time at the rodeo. He was one of the advocates in the famous Steel Seizure Cases.

[SMP0328]

What was so terrible about Goldberg's oral-argument performance?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One discussion noted he "bumbled" and rambled through the argument, "first half of his presentation was consumed with barely relevant minutia," and so on.

https://blogs.kentlaw.iit.edu/iscotus/baseball-and-the-supreme-court-remembering-flood-v-kuhn/

I also saw references to him being unprepared and sounding bored.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Did not come through in the clutch. Which was not usually true of Mr. Flood.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

New York v. U.S. appears to be one of those cases that were made more complicated than they are.

The majority wanted to use it to take a certain doctrinal path. But, it is unclear how good of a vehicle it truly was.

===

Mapp v. Ohio (one of the "Landmark Cases" in the interesting CSPAN series) has various interesting components. For instance, it is a pre-Griswold case that talks about a "right to privacy."

A majority of the state court below would have struck down the conviction on free speech grounds but the court had a supermajority rule that was not met. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually protected the possession of obscene material in one's home in Stanley v. Georgia.

The justices used Mapp v. Ohio to apply the exclusionary rule to the states. The argument was only briefly cited by an amicus and a few justices thought it was "bad pool" to use that approach.

The crime involved in the case had a lot of colorful details. For instance, the police were investigating the bombing of Don King's (yes that one) home.

[Hugh]

A while back Professor Blackman made an offhand assertion that Justice O’Connor didn’t write any opinions of note in her long career. This case is refutation #1 of many to that statement.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Reference is made in a later post about how the Mapp majority relied on an argument by an amicus.

This is seen as a bit of a gotcha for Dobbs critics somehow.

A fifty-year precedent is more significant than one under 15 years old with much lower reliance interests.

Anyway, it would have been a good policy to set the case for reargument to address the validity of overruling Wolf v. Colorado.

BTW, the main oral argument did reference a search and seizure claim.