Today in Supreme Court History: October 7, 1982

10/7/1982: I.N.S. v. Chadha was argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Doe v. Gonzalez, 546 U.S. 1301 (decided October 7, 2005): Ginsburg denies emergency stay because appeal in Second Circuit is being expedited, but grants motion to file briefs under seal; discusses the case at length; librarian contested FBI order to disclose browsing history associated with a certain IP address which also ordered him not to reveal order or reveal his identity; issue was whether this prior restraint (authorized by statute) violated First Amendment; identity had already been inadvertently revealed by District Court web site and PACER (case was dismissed as moot, 449 F.3d 415)

[larryseltzer]

Postulate: INS v. Chadha is an early example of "textualism, come hell or high water."

[Dan Schiavetta]

Agree.

In a naturally developing system, changing based on what works, the legislative veto would be useful in certain circumstances. After all, if the President doesn't like it, he could veto the very statute allowing such a veto, and they would be hard pressed to get 2/3 to override. But we are stuck with, not what works, but with a group of white men in 1787 thought might work.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Justice White would argue that the legislative veto was allowed. Justice Breyer also had a lot to say about it given his former job.

Given my druthers, which I regularly am not, I would amend the Constitution to clarify the square peg in round holes practices that were used as workarounds. For instance, an amendment can deal with modern agency law. Another can ala Richard Hasen’s book firmly protect voting rights.

It is not some grand thing that we are trying to operate with a document based on the needs of the 18th Century.

BTW, to be clear, "workaround" doesn't mean I think the Constitution is currently being violated. I will leave that argument to others.

[SMP0328]

Justice White would argue that the legislative veto was allowed.

His dissent in Chadha was based on American history and tradition, the standard being used by the current Court in multiple areas of law. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of the current Justices would vote to overrule Chadha in an appropriate case.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But we are stuck with, not what works, but with a group of white men in 1787 thought might work."

But we are stuck with the law that actually got adopted, until somebody bothers actually changing the law.

Just suborning some judges into saying it always meant something different may seem more efficient, but things start getting awkward as more and more people start to notice that the law in courts doesn't seem to have anything to do with what the actual text of the law says. And, hey, you can't deliberately pick easy to suborn judges, and expect to have an otherwise honest judiciary.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Steve Vladeck explains the origins of the First Monday in October:

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/47-the-first-monday-in-october

Many might favor that over the original “First Monday in August,” though back then, the capital was in New York City, not D.C.

SCOTUS dropped a long housekeeping order today with the conservatives continuing to refuse — unlike the liberals — to explain why they did not take part in certain cases.

[John F. Carr]

Today in Supreme Court history, the court denied petition 24-55, Montana v. Gibbons. A defendant convicted of fifth offense DUI faced a statutory minimum $5,000 fine. (It was his tenth, but the crime tops out at fifth offense.) He successfully argued that the statute was facially unconstitutional. The judge must be allowed to consider whether he can afford $5,000. The state petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, mainly arguing that the state Supreme Court made a mess of state law. This is not ordinarily a winning argument. There is a federal question mixed in with the state law question: Is a fine constitutionally excessive if the defendant can't pay it?

Squeezing money out of repeat DUI offenders is a popular pastime for politicians. In reality there is not much blood in those stones. Congratulations, you have claimed through forfeiture a fifteen year old beat up pickup truck.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

On October 7, 1975, a Federal Appeals Court judge reverses a deportation order for John Lennon, allowing him to remain legally in his adoptive home of New York City.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/a-new-york-judge-reverses-john-lennons-deportation-order

[Dan Schiavetta]

One must ignore the heavy irony that Lennon was soon to be murdered. But in his Playboy interview he was surely right to condemn the destroy-yourself-for-your-art mythology that was going around, and which I’ve seen personally, in some not-as-gifted musicians. “I’d rather be among the living and the healthy.” He spent his years in NYC making mediocre music, but it was a tradeoff well worth making.

[John F. Carr]

Also today in Supreme Court history, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in case 24-127, Center For Reproductive Medicine v. Aysenne. Defendant-respondents, an IVF facility, allegedly negligently allowed an embryo to be destroyed. The case was all over the news because the lawsuit was for wrongful death rather than destruction of property. I don't see the Supreme Court ruling that the facility is immune from suit under federal constitutional law. At least the embryos are personal property worth what it cost to make them. If the jury goes wild the Court can look at the case again in a few years.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“At least the embryos are personal property worth what it cost to make them.”

Yes, start making a few minor tweaks to the Thirteenth Amendment, I don’t see any possible negative side effects.