Today in Supreme Court History: June 20, 1837

6/20/1837: Justice David Josiah Brewer's birthday.

Justice David Josiah Brewer

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649 (decided June 20, 1980): Boxes of films of gay male sex addressed to “Leggs” (pseudonym) instead got delivered to “L’Eggs Products” (makers of pantyhose) who called the police. When viewed these films revealed not only “bizarre” sex (would probably seem tame to us now) but also the name of the sender, who was arrested for obscenity. The Court holds that the FBI’s viewing of the films was a Fourth Amendment violation; they should have gotten a warrant. (What about the surprised mailroom clerk at L’Eggs? At what point was he required to stop looking into the contents of what a United States agency had delivered to him? Wasn’t the delivery presumptively valid? — cf. the judge’s ruling in “Miracle on 34th Street”.)

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (decided June 20, 2002): executing intellectually disabled people (I think that’s the term for it now) is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth Amendment (overruling Penry v. Lynaugh, 1989, citing “evolving standards of decency” and the trend of states outlawing the death penalty in such cases) (defendant, convicted of armed robbery and murder, had an IQ of 59)

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (decided June 20, 1979): attaching an offsite device to record calls from a house (a “pen register”) is not a “search” requiring a warrant because the person “voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company” (that’s a stretch, I think)

American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n, 588 U.S. 29 (decided June 20, 2019): large cross in now-busy intersection originally erected to honor World War I veterans could stay where it was without violating First Amendment Establishment Clause (this is the “Bladensburg Peace Cross”, see the Wikipedia article)

McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (decided June 20, 2019): Member of board of elections (McDonough) was charged with forging absentee ballots. He was acquitted and brought a §1983 suit against the prosecutor (Smith), who had allegedly fabricated evidence. Here the Court holds that the statute of limitations for the §1983 suit began to run not when the evidence was adduced at trial but when the verdict came in. This case arose in Troy, N.Y., and from the opinion one sees that Smith and McDonough had a “history” in local politics and Smith’s (alleged) fabrication of the case against McDonough was hardly subtle. But the detailed trial court order finally granting summary judgment to Smith reveals a different picture, 2022 WL 3279348 (Aug. 11, 2022).

American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (decided June 20, 2011): common law nuisance suit against power plants by downwind states alleging greenhouse gas emission preempted by Clean Air Act; remanded to determine effect of preemption (don’t know what happened afterward)

Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (decided June 20, 2005): statute of limitations to sue for newly recognized right begins to run from date of court ruling recognizing new right, not from when a court declares it has retroactive effect (here, defendant convicted of continuing criminal enterprise cited

Richardson v. United States, 1999, which declared for first time that jury must be unanimous on each criminal act, but argued that limitations period began with a 2002 Circuit Court decision declaring Richardson to be retroactive; this argument was rejected — seems like an unfair result)

National Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582 (decided June 20, 1949): Congress could by statute modify the Constitution’s definition of diversity jurisdiction to include suits between D.C. residents and those of other states (instead of just between citizens of different states, which is how the Constitution reads; note that D.C. did not exist in 1787) (a complicated opinion, because the Court has to dance around a typically hardass ruling from John Marshall in 1804 holding that D.C. residents cannot bring diversity suits outside D.C. because it is not a “state”)

Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (decided June 20, 2016): improper search of drug dealer was overlooked, and all evidence found admitted, because it turned out there was a warrant for his arrest anyway, for a traffic violation

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (decided June 20, 1991): state judges can be automatically discharged at age 70 even though it’s age discrimination (federal age discrimination statute doesn’t apply) (did you know that the average age of active federal judges is 68?) (and that’s just the active judges — the average age of the senior judges is 113)

[apedad]

" . . . the average age of the senior judges is 113.)"

Um, that doesn't seem right.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, I was being tactful. It's actually 117.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

This must be an example of that "humor" that you humans are always using.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I was assisting an important case in federal court when we got the trial judge assignment. I don't remember his name but by the time of trial he would be 90 years old. We looked at each other and quickly settled.

[apedad]

How can that be “average” when the current oldest living person is 117?

Or are you stating a Trump Truth?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I believe it’s what’s sometimes colloquially referred to as a “joke”.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trump regularly says outrageously wrong things, then when he's called on it he backs away by saying he was joking. And it never hurts him. I should do more of that.

[Magister]

Are we completely certain that all senior judges are actually living? I'm keen for the movie reviews later this summer to include "Evidentiary Hearing at Bernie's".

[Dilan Esper]

Obviously the obscenity aspect of Walter comes out quite differently now, but I would also say I would expect the 4th Amendment issue to come out differently in the other direction. There’s a lot of “third party calls in the cops” cases and they usually go in favor of the government. And even if the government can get a warrant, it's going to come in as inevitable discovery.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I think that would depend on the mailroom clerk. Does he have to call the police? He might “swing that way”, consider these films a treasure, and take the box home. Maybe even write Mr. Walter. Or give it to some man in the office he knows is gay (remember, this is the fashion industry).

[Dilan Esper]

Courts are pretty pro-police on inevitable discovery rulings. Especially since the warrantless search occurs after the guy DOES call in the cops.

[Krayt]

these films revealed not only “bizarre” sex (would probably seem tame to us now)

I'll bet it's tamer than an early season 3 episode of The Boys.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There is (at least as of April) a federal judge who is 100.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/oldest-us-judge-marks-100th-birthday-then-its-back-to-work

[SRG2]

Sotomayor, in Streiff:

"This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent."

Yup.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

But not as important as a birthday from the 1800s.

[Frank Drackman]

52d Anniversary of the Nixon-Haldeman convo with the "18 minute gap" (with Sleepy Joe we've had a "3+ year gap")
Milhouse was probably joking that Juneteenth would never be a National Holiday....

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

In case you missed it, yesterday was National Martini Day.

Also it was the anniversary of the day the Rosenbergs met Old Sparky.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just saw your comment on open thread. Should have known you wouldn't miss it.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I doubt it's a coincidence that 18 minutes is how long the original "Alice's Restaurant" is.

[SMP0328]

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (decided June 20, 1979): attaching an offsite device to record calls from a house (a “pen register”) is not a “search” requiring a warrant because the person “voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company” (that’s a stretch, I think)

A big stretch, but par for the course regarding a criminal procedure case for the Burger Court. That was the Law & Order court created by President Nixon.

American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n, 588 U.S. 29 (decided June 20, 2019): large cross in now-busy intersection originally erected to honor World War I veterans could stay where it was without violating First Amendment Establishment Clause (this is the “Bladensburg Peace Cross”, see the Wikipedia article)

This was one of the final nails in the coffin for the Lemon Test. The lower courts had struck down the cross as failing Lemon, but SCOTUS slammed Lemon and told the lower federal courts to never again apply it monuments. Three years later, in Kennedy, SCOTUS said to never again apply Lemon to anything.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The peace cross opinion had various opinions. Alito wrote a decent opinion for the plurality. I think the dissent (Ginsburg & Sotomayor) was probably correct. But, as Alito's opinions go, it was okay.

The justices weren't too impressed by Michael Carvin's (a repeat player, often promoting some conservative cause) attempts to parse things during oral argument. For those who think he is a bit of a jerk, it was somewhat amusing.

The young advocate for the separation of church and state had a hopeless case with this Court but did a reasonable job. She also does some animal rights work.

===

Justice Brewer is the sort of justice only some conservatives would probably care much about. He was on the Court for 20 years.

He did write the "we are a Christian nation" opinion that is cited both for discussion of statutory interpretation and concerns about religious establishments.

Footnote: He didn't vote in Plessy v. Ferguson because of a death in the family. Nonetheless, his record on civil rights suggests he would not find anything wrong with the majority opinion.

His Wikipedia entry does note he was a big public speaker, including promoting peace. That's a plus.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Former Justice Brewer was mostly a piece of shit.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Since even Wikipedia is more reliable than the Rev, I’ll quote the article on Brewer:

“He spoke prolifically on various issues, often drawing criticism from his colleagues for his frankness.  The topic about which he spoke most fervently was peace: in his public addresses he decried imperialism, arms buildups, and the horrors of war.  He supported the peaceable resolution of international disputes via arbitration, and he served with [Chief Justice] Fuller on the arbitral tribunal that resolved a boundary dispute between Venezuela and the United Kingdom.*  Brewer was not an unqualified pacifist, but [biographer Michal J.] Brodhead writes that he “was a tireless, dedicated, and eloquent advocate of peace and among the most visible and vocal critics of militarism in his time”.  He also expressed support for education, charities, and the rights of women and minorities.” 

In religion, he was an avid churchman, and his Christianity was of a specific kind: he “adhered to a liberal form of Congregationalism, focusing on Jesus’s ethical teachings and God’s love for humankind instead of sin, hell, and theological principles more generally.”

*I believe the Venezuela dispute threatened to bring the U. S. into war with Great Britain, so by helping arbitrate the case Brewer was arguably making a direct contribution to world peace.

[Syd Henderson]

Right now Venezuela is playing up a boundary dispute with Guyana that would give them half that country, and threatening invasion. I wonder if they are trying to negate this treaty.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You omitted the parts about the bigot who ruled against civil rights, especially when Blacks were involved, including his express support for segregation.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Leggs appropriate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMxLVIuozb8

[SRG2]

No-one has yet mentioned Atkins. IMO the dissent's critiquing the majority for using international standards is legitimate as a matter of law, but the decision is correct and dissenting is abominable.

Easy enough to craft an opinion concurring with the decision but on different grounds. On the other hand, the Goddard Trio would be expected to dissent.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Most unintelligent people don't murder. A low intelligence score doesn't mean an evil alignment. I presume we're not talking about the *insane* who can't tell right from wrong, but about those who are just dumb but can at least tell what's wrong.

[SRG2]

Do you favour the execution of 10-year olds who have killed? If not, why would you approve of the execution of someone with the intellectual and emotional capacity of a 10-year-old?

[Michael P]

Has the ten-year-old reached the limit of their intellectual and emotional development?

We have mores against harshly punishing children -- especially young children -- because we expect them to continue growing to a large degree, not simply because they are too stupid to know better. (This is also why it's legally easier to try a child as an adult as they get close to the age of majority.) An adult who kills is not entitled to a similar presumption.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Supreme Court has cited international standards as relevant for decades, including in Coker v. Georgia.

U.S. standards were the ultimate test. Foreign standards being informative is common, in state, federal, and international courts (some of which find U.S. Supreme Court rulings informative).