Today in Supreme Court History: July 28, 1880

---

7/28/1880: San Francisco prohibits operation of laundires in wood buildings, "without having first obtained the consent of the board of supervisors." The Supreme Court found this ordinance unconstitutional in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886).

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Fare v. Michael C., 439 U.S. 1310 (decided July 28, 1978): Rehnquist grants stay of California Supreme Court’s order as to minor being questioned as to a murder who asked for his probation officer (the California court held that any questioning past that point was a violation of Miranda); federal issue was involved and the criminal case could not continue unless it was resolved (the Court ended up reversing the California holding, 442 U.S. 707, 1979)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Stanley Matthews, whose birthday was 7/21/1824, wrote the opinion. It reminds the 14A does not only protect citizens. It protects persons from "a naked and arbitrary power."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Fare v. Michael F. involves weighing the voluntariness of a “16- and 1/2-year-old” teen’s statements. The justices split 5-4.

His youth was a concern for the dissenters though they divided on how. The majority noted, given his record and other factors, his youth alone did not disqualify the statement. Rehnquist in effect predicted the result in his stay decision.

Years later, in J.D.B. v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court held that a child’s age properly informs Miranda’s custody analysis.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks as always

[SRG2]

Hard to credit that 130 years later he was still playing football (soccer) for Blackpool.

[not guilty]

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), recognized for the first time that selective enforcement of a facially neutral law can violate constitutional equal protection guaranties if based on race or another arbitrary classification. It remains the only case in which SCOTUS has granted relief from a prosecution or conviction on that theory.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The "laundires" mistake has been identified more than once, but Barnett and Blackman -- who claim to be scholars offering a scholarly work -- don't care.

Scholarship, Volokh Conspiracy-style -- either not correcting mistakes others have identified for you, or revising your work without identifying your error or the correction.

Carry on, clingers. Probably not at mainstream law schools much longer, though.