Today in Supreme Court History: September 20, 1968

9/20/1968: The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission denied a certificate of no exterior effect to the Penn Central Transportation Co. The Supreme Court found that the City of New York did not violate the Takings Clause in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York (1978).

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The United States Congress abolished the slave trade in the District of Columbia on September 20, 1850, as part of the legislative package called the Compromise of 1850.

I have found that multiple orders going back to 2010 around this time involve stays of execution. One special case was a grant for Cleve Foster on 9/20/11.

To quote an article about a year later:

“Cleve Foster was pronounced dead at 6:43 p.m. CDT, 25 minutes after his lethal injection began and two hours after the high court refused to postpone his punishment. Three times last year the justices stopped his scheduled punishment, once when he was moments from being led to the death chamber.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor would have stayed the execution.

Foster was executed “for participating in the shooting death of a woman he and a buddy met 10 years ago at a bar.”

Foster claimed innocence and inefficiency of counsel.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cleve-foster-executed-by-texas-after-failing-to-win-4th-reprieve-from-us-supreme-court/

OTD in 2021, an application “to recall and stay mandate pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari” was granted in a capital case (August Cassano).

This was not surprising since Ohio did not challenge it. An unofficial moratorium on the death penalty, which is still in place, began late 2020. Ohio has a Republican governor.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Barthuli v. Board of Trustees of Jefferson Elementary School District, 434 U.S. 1337 (decided September 20, 1977): Rehnquist says he cannot “stay” pending cert a state court judgment which dismissed case brought by school official who claimed that he was entitled to hearing before being fired; a stay would be “a mere declaration in the air” (cert was denied, 434 U.S. 1040, 1978) (he had a point -- how can you “stay” an order of dismissal?)

Mecom v. United States, 434 U.S. 1340 (September 20, 1977): Powell denies reduction of $750,000 bail pending appeal of conviction for marijuana dealing; though District Court gave no reason for why bail was set so high, the Government’s opposition on the motion before Powell pointed out that defendant had been part of a large scale operation, his wife, a participant, had fled to Mexico to avoid prosecution, and defendant had paid $100,000 to murder a suspected informant

Hutchinson v. People, 86 S.Ct. 5 (decided September 20, 1965): Harlan refuses to stay remand of criminal case after removal pending appeal to the Circuit Court of the remand order; defendant did not convincingly show that he could not receive fair trial in state court as to federal allegations (defendants were accused of trespassing while protesting discriminatory practices of power authority; civil rights cases are removable under 28 U.S.C. §1443 and, in exception to general rule, remand orders in such cases are appealable)

[apedad]

"Harlan refuses to stay remand of criminal case after removal pending appeal to the Circuit Court of the remand order . . . . "

Ugh....

This is one of those cases you have to manually deconstruct.

1. There's a remand order
2. There's an appeal to the remand order
3. ??? (getting murky now [IANAL])
?. The case is remanded
?+1. There's a request to stay the remand
?+2. Harlan refuses the stay request

[Dan Schiavetta]

1. Criminal case in state court got “removed” by defendant to federal court. (This is self-executing -- all defendant has to do is to serve a "Notice of Removal" and file it in federal court, which by itself transfers the case there.)
2. The prosecution moved to "remand" it to state court; motion granted by the federal judge.
3. Defendant appealed to the (federal) Circuit Court as to the remand order.
4. Defendant wanted the case to remain in federal court while appeal was heard (i.e., wanted a “stay” of the remand order).
5. Harlan refuses to stay the order — sends the case to state court for trial.