Today in Supreme Court History: June 29, 1992

6/29/1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (decided June 29, 1992): invalidated on “undue burden” grounds Pennsylvania statute requiring spousal notice for abortion; left in place requirement of waiting period and parental consent for minors

Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (decided June 29, 2004): enjoined on First Amendment grounds enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act which penalized providers that allowed minors to access “harmful content”; injunction ended up being permanent

Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 594 U.S. --- (decided June 29, 2021): Congress can delegate to private entity right to sue state under eminent domain (here, Natural Gas Act delegating to Penneast to obtain right-of-way for pipeline)

Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (decided June 29, 2023): defense to Title VII (religious discrimination) claim, that employer would incur “undue hardship” in accommodating religious practice, requires showing of substantial cost; clarifying Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, 1977, which had been misunderstood as requiring only something more than de minimis (Evangelical sued because required to work on Sunday after USPS started delivering for Amazon; case remanded for fact findings)

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (decided June 29, 1972): death penalty in three cases appealed was “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of Eighth Amendment (short per curium 5 - 4 opinion, followed by concurring and dissenting opinions) (decision in effect abolished the death penalty nationwide; in Gregg v. Georgia, 1976, Court allowed death penalty if arrived at by established factors presented to jury during sentencing trial)

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (decided June 29, 2020): the makeup of the CFPB (a single Director with significant executive authority removable by President only “for cause”) violated separation of powers

Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety, 597 U.S. 580 (decided June 29, 2022): Texas state trooper enlisted, was sent to Iraq, was disabled due to exposure to toxic smoke, and came back to ask for re-employment in any way they could use him. They refused. The federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act allowed him to sue Texas in state court. The Court holds that this does not violate the Eleventh Amendment which applies only to suits in federal courts.

Arbitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, 600 U.S. 412 (decided June 29, 2023): Lanham Act (trademark infringement) does not extent to overseas infringement (remote controls for construction equipment)

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. 629 (decided June 29, 2022): state courts had concurrent jurisdiction with tribal courts over crimes on reservation committed by non-Indians against Indians (father prosecuted for neglect of his stepdaughter)

Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (decided June 29, 1995): struck down attempt to create second black majority Congressional district due to grotesque boundaries (on the map it looked like a cat with a very long tongue jumping up to snare a spider)

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (decided June 29, 2009): Title VII (equal opportunity in hiring) was violated when city hired black firefighters for management positions even though none passed the qualifying exam (whereas 19 white and 1 hispanic applicant did pass)

Bacchus Imports v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263 (decided June 29, 1984): struck down Hawaii’s tax exemption for in-state manufactured brandy as violating Dormant Commerce Clause

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard University, 600 U.S. 181 (decided June 29, 2023): after years of chipping away at it, the Court finally kills race-based affirmative action as violating Equal Protection; race cannot be used even as a “plus factor” in a multi-step process; 5 - 4 decision

[F.D. Wolf]

Torres v. Texas DPS had nothing to do with where a lawsuit is filed. Its main holding was that Congress could abrogate a state's sovereign immunity under its war powers. This was the "plan of the Convention", and the states had agreed to this waiver of sovereign immunity when they had ratified the Constitution. It is essentially a companion case to PennEast Pipeline (decided that same day), which likewise held Congress could abrogate state sovereign immunity under its eminent domain powers. Both cases are dubious (in my opinion) 5-4 decisions (though, curiously enough, with slightly different 5-4 lineups in each case). The dissenters in Torres were Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett; in PennEast, they were Thomas, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Barrett.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[Area Man]

Students for Fair Admission was 6–3, not 5–4.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Lots of opinions in that case, and I miscounted. Thanks!

[David Nieporent]

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (decided June 29, 2009): Title VII (equal opportunity in hiring) was violated when city hired black firefighters for management positions even though none passed the qualifying exam (whereas 19 white and 1 hispanic applicant did pass)

That wasn't the issue. The issue was that the city threw out the exam results solely because too many whites / not enough blacks (depending on your perspective) passed it, without any basis for thinking the exam was biased.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That's another way of putting it.

[Frank Drackman]

In 92 who’d a thunk it would take a NYC Real Estate Mogul to do what Milhouse, Ford, Ronaldus Maximus, and 12 years of Bushes couldn’t (or was it “wouldn’t?) HT to the Bushes though for Thomas, Sammy the Knife, and Roberts “Rules” for 1/2 of the votes

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Seila Law is symbolic of the current Roberts Court's artificial appeal to the separation of powers & checks and balances.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey provided a weaker test for regulations but did so with a stronger constitutional analysis of what was at stake. It was a matter of equality, liberty, and conscience.

Furman v. Georgia was in hindsight destined not to end the death penalty, even if some of the justices thought so. Justice White was no death penalty opponent. He was bothered by how rarely it was applied. The decision brought a national message: we support the death penalty if one with more procedural standards.

How "tinkering with death" (to reference Justice Blackmun) led to a system that was either truly just or constitutional continues to be a major debate. Two more executions took place this week.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Your comments are all correct, and insightful.

I'm embarrassed by the fact that my country still has the death penalty.

[Frank Drackman]

Iran? I’d be more embarrassed by their (lack of) basic hygiene

Frank

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If we could have a top-of-the line, ultra-competent and hard-working capital defense bar, whose members took on a capital defendant’s case from the very beginning, that would be one thing.

But if capital defendants get the dregs of lawyerdom to conduct their trials, and then only get the good lawyers after they’re on Death Row, for a bunch of post-conviction appeals which keep them alive for decades, then the system is screwed up and endangers the innocent, and I say get rid of it.

[Mr. Bumble]

"If we could have a top-of-the line, ultra-competent and hard-working capital defense bar, whose members took on a capital defendant’s case from the very beginning, that would be one thing. "
All of those things on the government/prosecution side might help.

[NvEric]

A death penalty, properly applied for an obviously guilty person, can end torment within the murderer. Locking up someone for decades seems wasteful and more cruel. Allowing murderers to vegetate decades long incarceration is cruel. Offering them creative outlets may not be seen as punishment, for it is punishment for which there is a legal system.

Some may learn their errors for which their incarceration was applied. Having a legal system is for the purpose of applying sentences for crimes. A penalty for which ending a life is required must not be considered abhorrent nor cause embarrassment.

Certainty of guilt is an absolute requirement which has not been followed in most cases where the penalty is death.

[Frank Drackman]

After further review.....
I'm also embarrassed by the fact that my country still has the death penalty for the Unborn.
2,000-3,000 Executions on a typical weekday (funny how the Vital "Women's Health" Clinics are closed on weekends) how many got last minute appeals to the Surpreme Court? Pleads for mercy from his Hole-leyness the Pope? Rap songs written about them?

Frank "I'm Pro-Choice, if the choice is Life"