Today in Supreme Court History: July 30, 1956

7/30/1956: Congress enacted a resolution, declaring that the motto of the United States is "In God we Trust." The Supreme Court declined to grant review in Newdow v.Congress, which considered the constitutionality of that motto.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Perez v. United States, 1970 WL 105758 (decided July 30, 1970): Harlan affirms the Second Circuit’s denial of bail; defendant had been convicted under a statute which had just been struck down by the Court on due process grounds in another case (Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6); Harlan says the issue of retroactivity should be examined by the full Court and it will come up next term (as it turned out it held against retroactivity in several cases, most relevant to this situation Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646); he also says it is hard for a Circuit Justice to rule on bail requests when the lower court (as here) gives no reason why bail was denied

Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (decided July 30, 2012): Roberts grants stay of Maryland appellate judgment striking down on Fourth Amendment grounds statute allowing the police to draw DNA samples from arrestees; notes the split of authority below and believes the Court would grant cert and uphold the statute (which it did, 569 U.S. 435, 2013)

[Syd Henderson]

I was expecting Maryland v. King to be a simple liberal/conservative split but Breyer was in the majority (as was Kennedy) and Scalia among the dissenters.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sometimes they surprise you.

[apedad]

The case can be a little deceptive because one could think it was a case (taking DNA swabs from people arrested), about the protection of criminals (which would be a liberal slant), but Justice Scalia looked at it more as protection of innocent Americans being subject to invasive govt searches (conservative slant).

[apedad]

Scalia's dissent: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-207#writing-12-207_DISSENT_4

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Breyer was middle of the road in some criminal justice cases. He also went along with warrantless drug testing for students, including involvement in all student clubs.

[Dilan Esper]

Breyer was very much a supporter of carceralism. He served on the sentencing commission and had a hand in drafting all those massively excessive sentencing formulae (and of course wanted to uphold them as mandatory when he was on SCOTUS).

Scalia, for all his many faults, correctly thought the Sentencing Commission was BS (see his dissent in Mistretta) and did everything he could to undo Breyer’s schemes.

I like Breyer generally and don’t like Scalia generally, but on some criminal law issues, Breyer was really an evil bastard who just wanted to throw tons of poor kids in prison for long sentences, while Scalia at least tried to protect constitutional rights.

[Dilan Esper]

One of Scalia's better dissents, actually.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Currently, the "in chambers" tab on SCOTUS has one opinion from Roberts from March. There are various tabs on the website few check out. The website is not reader-friendly in some ways.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/in-chambers.aspx

Before that, the last one was a Roberts opinion from around ten years ago (it eventually disappeared). In chambers opinions used to be more of a thing.

Engel v. Vitale [state crafted prayer used in schools] has a footnote that references various things deemed not the same including:

"many manifestations in our public life of belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State of New York has sponsored in this instance"

"In God We Trust" is defended as an example of acceptable "ceremonial deism." OTOH, official theistic mottos established as a basic "motto" or statement of belief for the nation to me is a dubious enterprise. It sounds like a law respecting an establishment of religion, especially along with other things.

It shows that the 1A is not applied in an absolute sense, for good or ill.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is taking some time to wring the old-timey superstitious nonsense from American government, and in some ways the modern American mainstream is ahead of the courts in this context (organized religion is fading fast, especially among younger, educated, modern Americans), but the established trajectory of our national progress on this and other issues makes the long term relatively easy to predict.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court did grant review in Newdow v. Congress, ruling he lacked standing. He had sued on behalf of his daughter, but his wife had sole legal custody and supported the Pledge. The Supreme Court did not grant review in the followup case Newdow v. Carey.

According to Wikipedia Newdow is 71 years old, unless he died and nobody noticed like William Calley. Probably somebody would have noticed.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The dispute involving his daughter was Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow involving the Pledge of Allegiance.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1624

The 9th Cir. supported his challenge, in part noting a bare motto was different than active participation of children in a daily ritual.

Newdow had several challenges, including against the motto specifically.

[Frank Drackman]

Used to be a sign in "Shakey's" Pizza Parlors (used to be one in every middle sized village and farm)
"In God We Trust, all others must pay Cash"
along with "We made a deal with the Bank, we don't cash Checks, the Bank doesn't make Pizza"
"Ye Olde Restroom"
Used to be one in Auburn, AL, but went Tits up a few years back, I'd stop by and enjoy the Mo-Jo -Risin Potatoes, and a Slice
Over a 100 locations remain, but all in the Phillippines (and 1 in Escondido CA for some reason)

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, I think I do recall seeing one of those when I was on my dive vacation there, earlier this year. Probably should have stopped in and tried their pizza.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“Breyer was very much a supporter of carceralism.”

Except regarding the death penalty, three-strike laws, life sentences for teens, and all the other cases where he did not.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also supported the sentencing commission & criticized the Apprendi line of cases. See her dissenting opinion in Erlinger v. U.S. I respect her expertise even if she’s wrong (which I will leave others in the field to debate).

I think labeling her a big supporter of carceralism is questionable.

Breyer supported the sentencing commission as a sensible way to control arbitrary sentencing. Granting the constitutional issues, the result is still a lot of black (and non-black) people in prison with long prison terms. Breyer overall did as much or more than Scalia to address that issue in his years on the bench as a whole.