Today in Supreme Court History: September 14, 1901

9/14/1901: President Theodore Roosevelt is inaugurated. He appointed three members to the Supreme Court: Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Rufus Day, and William Henry Moody.

President Roosevelt's Appointees to the Supreme Court

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Mustache Petes?

[Dan Schiavetta]

McCarthy v. Briscoe, 429 U.S. 1316 (decided September 14, 1976): under 28 U.S.C. §1253, one can appeal directly to the Supreme Court from a three-judge District Court decision, but only if the decision was on Constitutional grounds; Powell denies motion to stay order because it was based on equitable doctrine of laches (this was Eugene McCarthy’s attempt to get on the ballot in Texas as a third party candidate; the Court later allowed him on, 429 U.S. 1317) (I voted for him that year, though I shouldn’t have)

Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm’n, 542 U.S. 1305 (decided September 14, 2004): Rehnquist refuses to stay operation of the McCain-Feingold Act, which barred corporations from using general funds for “electioneering”, allegedly in violation of First Amendment Freedom of Speech; the Court had already held McCain-Feingold “facially Constitutional”, the three-judge District Court had already denied the injunction, and “All Writs Act” allowing the Court to issue any order in aid of its appellate jurisdiction is only to be used in “exigent” circumstances (the Court later changed its mind about McCain-Feingold and ruled it unconstitutional in Citizens United, 2010)

Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance, 143 S.Ct. 1 (decided September 14, 2022): Court denies stay sought by Jewish university of New York state court order requiring it to give equal treatment to LGBTQ student club because stay can first be sought in state court; vigorous dissent by Alito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch and Barrett: “Does the First Amendment permit a State to force a Jewish school to instruct its students in accordance with an interpretation of Torah that the school, after careful study, has concluded is incorrect? The answer to that question is surely ‘no’.” (The lower court had also denied the university’s motion for summary judgment; this was affirmed on appeal, 211 A.D.3d 562, Dec. 15, 2022; as of this writing discovery is continuing in the trial court.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Today's Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's 54th birthday.

I read her autobiography. It is well-written and an intimate look at her life. For instance, she discusses the family's struggles dealing with a neurodivergent daughter.

The book is geared to the general reader. Blackman suggested it did not have any value on a legal level. Knowing the background of justices is helpful to understand their judgments.

Also, the book does -- if in limited ways -- cover legal topics. For instance, she discusses the conflict around the Ex parte Crow Dog to address "what is justice?" including who decides and how we determine what is fair.

She discusses each of her clerkships, experience in various law firms (including one that Amy Coney Barrett also worked at), at experience at the Sentencing Commission. She also gives insight into the selection process of judges,particularly how she was chosen to be a federal district judge.

The book is more of an intimate look at her life well lived as well as her family (including a chapter regarding her uncle, who was sentenced to life for a relatively minor drug crime). And, it's fine on that level too. It should get broad release.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It sounds interesting. How can it *not* give valuable information to the reader?

[Dan Schiavetta]

A judge's life story unavoidably affects her jurisprudence.

[Longtobefree]

Does she explain how she got all those jobs while being so stupid she never learned what a woman is?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A year ago, Alito granted an administrative stay in Murthy v. Missouri. He later dissented when, in an opinion by Justice Barrett [also working on a book], the Supreme Court said that Missouri did not have standing. Oyez.com notes the question presented was:

"Did the federal government’s request that private social media companies take steps to prevent the dissemination of purported misinformation transform those companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and thus violate users’ First Amendment rights?"

[Mr. Bumble]

Don’t agree with you on most issues but appreciate your contributions to these SC posts..

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Thank you.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Here’s an article about that law firm both worked at:

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2022/03/04/the-marble-palace-blog-the-bygone-boutique-law-firm-that-enticed-ketanji-brown-jackson-and-amy-coney-barrett/

Nathan Lewin argued in multiple SCOTUS cases involving Jewish issues. He comes off in the oral arguments as a character.