Today in Supreme Court History: June 25, 1997

6/25/1997: City of Boerne v. Flores is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (decided June 25, 2013): preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 can no longer be enforced until Congress comes up with new racial discrimination data (current data was 40 years old) (immediately after this decision came down Republican states formerly under preclearance began enacting voting restrictions)

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (decided June 25, 1962): prohibits school-led prayer in public schools as violating First Amendment Establishment Clause

Chevron v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (decided June 25, 1984): the origin of “Chevron deference”; courts must defer to an agency’s “permissible construction” of a statute if Congress has not directly spoken on the issue (here, whether pollutants from different parts of a steelmaking plant are from one “stationary source”)

City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (decided June 25, 1997): upholding San Antonio’s refusal on zoning grounds to approve church expansion and declaring Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional (as applied to the states) because its requirement of “strict scrutiny” of restrictions on religious practice was for the courts, not Congress, to decide; holding was superseded by the thus-far-unabrogated Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act which is based on Congress’s Spending Clause power

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (decided June 25, 2014): need warrant to search an arrested person’s cell phone; it’s not a permissible “search incident to arrest”

Georgia v. South Carolina, 497 U.S. 376 (decided June 25, 1990): An original jurisdiction case as to ownership of new islands in the Savannah River created by natural avulsion/accretion; the Court rules for South Carolina as to some matters, and for Georgia in others, based on 1787 treaty, acquiescence in use, and other factors. Interesting to see the Court get into minute fact-finding as to a few square yards of shoals and islets. I imagine the issue will have to be revisited as nature continues to sculpt the area.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103 (decided June 25, 2020): upholds 1996 immigration act’s expedited procedure for removing aliens whose claim for asylum is deemed invalid (e.g., officer’s determination that there is no credible fear of persecution can’t be reviewed) (Sir Lankan crossing border who claimed he had been beaten in his home country); not prohibited by “suspension Clause”, art. I, §9, cl. 2 (Congress can’t suspend habeas except during rebellion or invasion)

Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. 579 (decided June 25, 2018): legislative good faith is presumed when redistricting; upholds against Equal Protection attack Texas redistricting except for one district into which Latinos were packed; 5 - 4 decision (in dissent Sotomayor argues that the Court had no jurisdiction to reverse the findings of the three-judge District Court because no specific injunction involved, 28 U.S.C. §1253)

United States v. Alford, 274 U.S. 264 (decided June 25, 1927): upholding conviction for failing to extinguish fire created “near” federal land though not on it; the word “near” in the statute was not too indefinite, given the danger of forest fires spreading to public land

Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (decided June 25, 1962): striking down on “cruel and unusual punishment” grounds California statute penalizing “being addicted to the use of narcotics” even when one hasn’t used them or possessed them within the state

[SMP0328]

Chevron v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (decided June 25, 1984): the origin of “Chevron deference”; courts must defer to an agency’s “permissible construction” of a statute if Congress has not directly spoken on the issue (here, whether pollutants from different parts of a steelmaking plant are from one “stationary source”)

Will this decision survive the week?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't think so.

Instead of a statute being construed by professionals who know what they're talking about, it will now be construed by judges who probably went into law because they flunked science and math.

[SMP0328]

Those professionals have a conflict of interest in that they are deciding on how much authority they have. Not surprisingly, they usually choose to read their authority broadly. Those professionals can submit an amicus brief to the appropriate federal court.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It's more a matter of a cardiologist saying that he, not a judge, should be the one reading and evaluating an EKG.

[SMP0328]

You have much more faith in bureaucrats than I do.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well — Chevron only requires deference, not capitulation. There's a point at which a make-more-work-and-power-for-ourselves mentality (best exemplified by Sir Humphrey) becomes transparent even to unsophisticated outsiders.

[jdgalt1]

The notion of bureaucrats being “professionals” and “experts” is the reason we have such a huge, horrendous bureaucracy. All bureaucrats should be presumed corrupt and partisan, all the time, and the law has a duty to protect the public from them, not them from the public.

The purpose of regulating any line of business is to keep the giant corporations in control of it by making it impractical for competitors to arise.

[Dilan Esper]

Will Robinson v. California survive this week?

[Syd Henderson]

Very likely.

[Area Man]

The City of Boerne is not San Antonio. It is, rather, Boerne. (It is, however, a small and quickly expanding city about 15-20 minutes outside San Antonio.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Noted, thanks.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Concerning Chevron, doesn’t the law already empower judges to appoint their own expert witnesses, if they want enlightenment on some technical area by an impartial and knowledgeable person? Or is that only for jury trials?

Why can’t judges rely on their own appointed experts rather than on rulings by one of the parties?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Today in Democrat Insanity:

The Democrat Pentagon has finally jumped the shark. The official Democrat Pentagon stance is policies focusing on non-binary identities is essential for national security.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6355620065112

We found recently that secret Democrat committees in the Democrat HHS were trying to proclaim being a Republican is a public health concern.

And now this.

[Syd Henderson]

Any of the first four cases could have been the case of the day. Some days you get a glut, others you celebrate the birthday of William Burnham Woods. (I was going to say Robert Trimble, but he authored Ogden v. Saunders and several other case in his two years on the Court.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

I'm proud to say that I've never gone the birthday route. Every day of the year I post nothing but cases that were decided that day. Some days the pickings are slimmer than others, esp. when the Court' s not in session.

[Syd Henderson]

Actually Ogden was a fractured opinion, and Wikipedia lists him as concurring in part and dissenting in part, but also as writing the majority opinion, and as a dissenter. I’m confused, as I’m sure people were at the time.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[relocated]

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“William Burnham Woods”

Seriously, what’s his real name, not some pseudonym he invented to reflect his Macbeth fandom?

[SRG2]

If even Alito goes along with a search case - Riley - you can conclude that it's rock solid.