Today in Supreme Court History: June 30, 2014

6/30/2014: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 U.S. 682 (decided June 30, 2014): for-profit corporation is a “person” and if closely held can refuse under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to follow federal regulation (Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives)

New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (decided June 30, 1971): First Amendment allowed printing of “The Pentagon Papers” (McNamara’s secret history of the Vietnam War) despite Espionage Act banning disclosure of national defense material “to the injury of the United States” (it came out in paperback shortly afterwards and I read it -- an eye opener!)

Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. --- (decided June 30, 2023): Secretary of Education did not have power to cancel (instead of suspend) student debts due to Covid; Missouri had standing to sue because it created an independent loan program which would lose payments

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (decided June 30, 1958): Due Process violated by Alabama’s order for NAACP to produce membership list

Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947 (decided June 30, 2004): one-person, one-vote rule can be violated even when differential between districts is less than 10% (here, Georgia’s plan as a whole favored urban, Democratic districts at the expense of rural, Republican)

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (decided June 30, 1986): upheld Georgia law criminalizing sodomy (defined as putting genitals of one into mouth or anus of another) (of course, it was a gay man who was prosecuted, as if women never gave blow jobs) (overruled by Lawrence v. Kansas, 2003)

Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785 (decided June 30, 2022): In 2019 the lame-duck Republican Congress authorized the Trump administration to return to Mexico non-Mexicans who had tried illegally to enter through that country. Biden suspended this policy his first day in office. Here the Court holds that Biden had the authority to do that, given the discretionary language in the statute and the claimed foreign affairs implications.

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (decided June 30, 2022): In 2015 Obama’s EPA started requiring coal-fired plants to in essence phase out; the Court stayed the rule almost immediately and Trump repealed it. Biden tried to re-implement it. The Court holds that the rule exceeds the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act.

United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (decided June 30, 1975): can’t search cars at fixed border checkpoints unless “probable cause” (Ortiz’s car here turned out to have three illegal aliens in the trunk; evidence suppressed and conviction for transporting illegals vacated)

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (decided June 30, 1975): roving border patrol can’t stop car just because occupants “look Mexican” (this was in southern California, which at that point had been part of Mexico longer than it was part of the United States)

Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (decided June 30, 1994): First Amendment not violated by noise restriction and 30-foot buffer zone between abortion protesters and clinic, but 36-foot buffer on private property side and forbidding “images visible” from the clinic was overbroad

[JasonT20]

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 U.S. 682 (decided June 30, 2014): for-profit corporation is a “person” and if closely held can refuse under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to follow federal regulation (Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives)

My take has always been that a corporation or business can have the same rights as a person when the people or person that owns it also own all of the liabilities of that corporation. For example, a for-profit corporation receives a judgement against it for defamation. If the judgement exceeds the ability of the corporation to pay, then it would file bankruptcy, correct? But the debts and judgement would not extend to the personal assets of the owner(s), also correct?

If these are true, then owners of a business could hypothetically be insulated from liability for their speech, but the business would still have full speech protections outside of the few narrow exceptions that exist. A corporation then affords owners equal First Amendment protections to non-owners but without the same responsibility for their actions taken through the corporation.

Perhaps I’m missing important details in the statutes and case law that make my hypothetical unrealistic. I’m no lawyer, after all. Even if I am wrong in one more aspects of my scenario here, I still see equating corporations with people in terms of legal and constitutional protections as giving an advantage to owners over people that aren’t owners. Hmm…Is it surprising that conservative legal views would lead to that as a result?

[SMP0328]

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (decided June 30, 1986): upheld Georgia law criminalizing sodomy (defined as putting genitals of one into mouth or anus of another) (of course, it was a gay man who was prosecuted, as if women never gave blow jobs) (overruled by Lawrence v. Kansas, 2003)

The case is Lawrence v. Texas.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Whoops -- thanks!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The conservative bigots -- in particular the gay-bashing write-offs -- are still the bottoms of the modern American culture war (which is not quite over but has been settled; the good guys have won).

[zvwmzvwmzvwm]

Less is more, Josh

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Like less comments? You guys are such nuts, wasting your time to tell Josh he wasted his time writing too much so you had to waste your time reading too much and then wasting more time telling him how much time has been wasted.

[ducksalad (5/30 bad, really!)]

United States v. Ortiz can’t search cars at fixed border checkpoints unless “probable cause”

“Probable cause” is a bark from a dog that will bark on a signal from its handler. All but the smallest checkpoints now have probable cause dogs on duty 24/7. I do think the officers generally wait for a genuine alert. However, one can't seriously doubt that the officer could elicit a bark if s/he really wanted to get one.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You needs to read up Clever Hans the counting horse. The cops wouldn't know a genuine alert if the dog bit them on the ass. There is no such thing, when the one thing the dog wants more than anything is to please the cop by alerting.

[Trinian]

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (decided June 30, 1975): roving border patrol can’t stop car just because occupants “look Mexican” (this was in southern California, which at that point had been part of Mexico longer than it was part of the United States)

I am not sure how you are counting the years. California was ceded to the US in 1848. By the time of the Border Patrol stop in 1973, California had been part of the US for 125 years. Mexico didn't obtain its independence from the Spanish Empire until 1821. California was only a part of Mexico for 27 years. The Spanish Empire didn't even begin to colonize California until the founding of the Presidio and Mission at San Diego in 1769. Thus, The Spanish Empire ruled California for only 52 years at the most.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You’re sort of on the right track, but the pertinent years are 1769-1848, 79 years. You can’t include the Spanish years and ignore the Mexican years. You could be a pedant and ignore the Spanish years, since he did say “look Mexican”, but that’s not what you did, and “look” doesn’t care who the ruler is.

[Bob from Ohio]

Original comment was "part of Mexico" so its 27 years.

Part of Spain or Part of Spanish Empire is not "part of Mexico".

[Dan Schiavetta]

By "looks Mexican" what the police officer really meant was "looks pre-Columbian". I could have rephrased it, but I think you get my point.

[Bob from Ohio]

“looks pre-Columbian”

You mean Mestizo. The stereotype of Mexicans, mixed race.

Of course the ruling class mainly looks like they got off the boat from Spain yesterday. Look at President elect or current president for instance.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Green family of Hobby Lobby is a bunch of low-character bigots who make plenty of money selling yarn, fabric, and Styrofoam cubes to your backwater evangelical aunt who sends a Bible diorama for your birthday every year and includes a note telling you it's not too late to transfer from Princeton to Liberty or Hillsdale.