Today in Supreme Court History: June 22, 1992

6/22/1992: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

something's wrong here

[Dan Schiavetta]

when I try to post case summaries I get an "unsafe site" message

[Mr. Bumble]

Somethings happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear...

[Dan Schiavetta]

Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (decided June 22, 1964): The obscenity case wherein Potter Stewart says, “I know it when I see it.” He is referring to “hard-core pornography”. But at issue here is a 1958 French film called “Les Amants” (“The Lovers”). (It’s on youtube at www. youtube.com/ watch?v=_WMb1V4bhA8. There’s no nudity or sex, though at 49:08 we see the lovers waking up in bed. Maybe the supposed obscenity is in the dialog -- I don’t speak French. The film seems mostly set in Algeria; see it just for the cinematography, which is beautiful.) Anyway, the Court (including Stewart) holds it to be not obscene.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

And here I've always been ranting how layers are the quibblers. I guess it's my turn.

It doesn't matter if you can speak French, only whether you can understand others speaking it.

Ba da ding!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Okay, I stand corrected. French sounds to me like people murmuring half-words and avoiding consonants.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I took French in high school and don't have that perspective any more, but that seems about right. They skip more letters than English does, but a bit more predictably.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I watched the film some years ago.

It calls to mind the “Moon Is Blue” episode of MASH. The idea even three justices was willing allow banning the distribution (even if it involved some risqué advertising) of this film is somewhat ridiculous.

Stewart might have been miffed by the reactions to his quip. He added “In order to prevent any possible misunderstanding” clarification to what he would deem hard core pornography in his dissent in Ginzburg v. U.S.

[Dan Schiavetta]

IIRC “The Moon Is Blue” was notorious because someone in it said “virgin” and no Biblical females were being referred to.

I saw the MASH episode when it first came out (this would have been 1983 or so, 30 years after the movie). I kept waiting for the V-word, and no one said it, I assume due to censor interference.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The script (and I remember this from watching the episode -- in syndication) has this bit:

"Well, one of the actors
did say "virgin."

That's because
everyone was."

https://subslikescript.com/series/MASH-68098/season-11/episode-8-The_Moon_Is_Not_Blue

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks — I remembered wrong.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[comment moved]

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Justice Robert Jackson is famous for his eloquent “no official, high or petty” passage in the flag-salute case.

Justice Holmes is remembered for many famous lines, including “freedom for the thought we hate.”

John Marshall is remembered for “we must never forget it is a Constitution we are expounding.”

And Stewart is remembered for “I know it when I see it.”

[not guilty]

Potter Stewart joked that the line would be engraved on his tombstone.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Olmsted v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (decided June 22, 1999): Americans with Disabilities Act outlaws “segregation” of disabled people and is violated when “mentally retarded” and schizophrenic women are kept in institutions when they could be placed in community based programs

[Dan Schiavetta]

Arizona v. Navajo Nation, 599 U.S. 555 (decided June 22, 2023): Treaty allowing Navajo use of water on reservation did not create duty to protect it (by affirmatively assessing water needs and building pumps, wells, etc.); 5 - 4 decision and one sees from how Kavanaugh starts his opinion how he frames the Navajo (and Mexico) as losers in a fair fight and the United States as a magnanimous winner: “The United States won the Mexican-American War and acquired vast new territory from Mexico . . . For the next two decades, however, the United States and the Navajos periodically waged war against one another. In 1868, the United States and the Navajos agreed to a peace treaty. In exchange for the Navajos’ promise not to engage in further war, the United States established a large reservation for the Navajos in their original homeland.” No mention of one-sided invasion or genocide. Gorsuch, who grew up in Colorado and is sympathetic to Native Americans, writes dissent.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why would mention those things?

[ReaderY]

Right. Its as if it was always the US’ land, the Navajo invaded it from elsewhere, and the US generously gave them some of its land in exchange for promising not to invade any more.

[Paladin_44]

Something amiss - at the usual logon page there's no ability to see comments.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The holdup seems to be the summary of the R.A.V. case.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (decided June 22, 2018): warrant needed for cell phone records over a period of six days which revealed defendant’s whereabouts (including being at place and time of robbery); without saying so, Court holds that 18 U.S.C. §2703(d), which allowed court to sign subpoena for telecommunications records “relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation”, violates Fourth Amendment requirement of warrant based on probable cause

City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409 (decided June 22, 2015): City code requiring hotel operators to keep records of all guests and provide them to police on demand (the purpose was to detect and punish sex trafficking of children and smuggling of migrants) violates Fourth Amendment

Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226 (decided June 22, 1964): twelve black students were convicted of refusing to leave whites-only restaurant but then the law changed (so as to outlaw segregated restaurants) -- but -- Maryland had a general “savings” statute that preserved liability after any change in law; Court remands back to Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals of Maryland (which held that it was bound by the savings statute, 236 Md. 356, even though the prosecution joined with defendants in urging vacatur!)

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (decided June 22, 1964): a pre-Miranda case excluding statements by an arrestee whose request to see his attorney was repeatedly refused and who was not advised of his right to remain silent

Jones v. Jones, 234 U.S. 615 (decided June 22, 1914): upholding Tennessee law that married slaves could pass their property to children but not other descendants, a rule which did not apply to other married couples (WTF!) (estate passed to widow of the decedent and not to his siblings as would have happened in this case with a white couple) (WTF!)

Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (decided June 22, 1981): police searching a house with a warrant have the right to detain anyone in the house in aid of the search (here, they found narcotics and arrested the guy they had ordered not to leave)

Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (decided June 22, 1987): strikes down Arkansas rule prohibiting hypnotically refreshed testimony (here, murder defendant testifying that her gun in fact went off by mistake)

[Krayt]

Yikes on the hypnosis.

[SRG2]

Predictably, Alito and Thomas dissent in Carpenter and Patel.

And fwiw I cam confident that Rehnquist and Scalia would have no problem with hypnotically-refreshed testimony from a prosecution witness, letting a jury decide after instruction from the judge.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Predictably, Alito and Thomas dissent in Carpenter and Patel.

You mean because they were correct?

And fwiw I cam confident that Rehnquist and Scalia would have no problem with hypnotically-refreshed testimony from a prosecution witness, letting a jury decide after instruction from the judge.

I am completely certain that neither would have believed such a rule was unconstitutional.

[SRG2]

You mean because they were correct?

No, because they favour the government wrt searches.

I am completely certain that neither would have believed such a rule was unconstitutional.

Sauce for the goose...they approved of a rule prohibiting the defence from presenting such evidence. You must surely see the inconsistency.

[Noscitur a sociis]

without saying so, Court holds that 18 U.S.C. §2703(d), which allowed court to sign subpoena for telecommunications records “relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation”, violates Fourth Amendment requirement of warrant based on probable cause

What do you mean? I haven’t seen that interpretation anywhere. Certainly law enforcement continues to use 2703(d) orders to obtain just about every other kind of non-content information.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Subpoenas are insufficient. They must get warrants.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Let me rephrase.

The Court was holding that the statute was unconstitutional as applied. "Consequently, an order issued under Section 2703(d) of the Act is not a permissible mechanism for accessing historical cell-site records. Before compelling a wireless carrier to turn over a subscriber's CSLI, the Government's obligation is a familiar one—get a warrant." Id. at 317.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I’ve tried four times and it won’t post my R.A.V. summary. Well . . . maybe someone else can summarize it? 50 words or less.

[F.D. Wolf]

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (decided June 22, 1992): ordinance that banned display of symbol which one knows or should know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" violates First Amendment (here, allegedly burning a cross on lawn of black family).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks — I couldn’t have put it better myself !

[Jerry B.]

Trespassing, however…

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Carpenter v. United States was a case when Roberts wrote for the liberals & the other conservatives dissented.

The Jones case sounds like a violation of both the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. But, John Harlan wasn't on the Court any more to remind them of the fact, I guess.