Today in Supreme Court History: October 22, 1915

10/22/1915: Hadacheck v. Sebastian argued.

The White Court (1914-1916)

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Maney v. United States, 278 U.S. 17 (decided October 22, 1928): District Court award of citizenship was not res judicata; United States could still institute cancellation proceedings; award could be attacked on basis that necessary Certificate of Arrival from the Department of Labor had not been attached to petition

Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22 (decided October 22, 1923): Supreme Court can review facts on federal claim that had been rendered irrelevant in state court due to state rules on pleading

American Ry. Express Co. v. Levee, 263 U.S. 19 (decided October 22, 1923): common carrier limitation on liability, though invalid under state law, is valid under ICC rules which supersede on interstate commerce (here, damages for value of contents of trunk lost by railroad)

Benziger v. Robertson, 122 U.S. 211 (decided October 22, 1887): imported rosaries are not subject to tariff on “beads or bead ornaments”; though made of the same material, they are used in prayer and not as ornaments and put in pockets when prayers are finished (having grown up Catholic in the 1960’s I saw rosaries used ostentatiously, in effect as ornaments, and also the nuns wore them around their waists like belts)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22 (decided October 22, 1923): Supreme Court can review facts on federal claim that had been rendered irrelevant in state court due to state rules on pleading

I don't think this is quite right. The decision was about a federal law restricting where certain claims against a federal entity could be filed. The state court held that the federal defendant had waived the opportunity to rely on that law: that's the question that the Supreme Court was reviewing (and which it ultimately disagreed about).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks for your input as always.

“If the Constitution and laws of the United States are to be enforced, this Court cannot accept as final the decision of the state tribunal as to what are the facts alleged to give rise to the right or to bar the assertion of it even upon local grounds.”

I think my summary is correct as far as it goes, although the case can be looked at another way too, as you do. A complicating factor is the rule on venue, which wasn’t really a “federal law” but an order of the Director General of Railroads, a position created when Woodrow Wilson nationalized the railroads (temporarily) during World War I.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Fewer people know about Hadacheck v. Sebastian. It is an early regulatory takings case.

The ordinance in question made “it unlawful for any person to establish or operate a brick yard or brick kiln, or any establishment, factory or place for the manufacture or burning of brick within described limits in the city.”

The Supreme Court upheld the ordinance. The ordinace did not totally remove control of the land; the clay could moved.

There was some allegation the the law was passed as a self-dealing matter to benefit a local city councilman. It was upheld as a legitimate public regulation and no equal protection violation was found. The opinion was unanimous.

(“We must accord good faith to the city in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary and an honest exercise of judgment upon the circumstances which induced its action.”)

[Krayt]

There was some allegation the the law was passed as a self-dealing matter to benefit a local city councilman. It was upheld as a legitimate public regulation and no equal protection violation was found. The opinion was unanimous.

“We must accord good faith to the city in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary

Whell (Well, Hell) there’s their error! In science, it’s bad form to attack the arguer. One addresses the argument. In politics, not only is the opposite productive, in practice, one may safely presume some type of double dealing is behind the decision.

Oh, wait. Not just in practice. In theory.

Fundamental Theorem of Government: Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day 1.

[apedad]

Gee, if only there was a way us regular people could somehow control govt officials.

[Sarcastr0]

1. No, the burden on the one postulating the thing is the same in science as in law - you gotta bring some evidence i.e. make a clear showing.

2. Speaking of bad argumentation, appealing to an axiom you personally have made up doesn't prove shit, other than you're a crank.

[Bob from Ohio]

All axioms are "made up". Was he appealing to an axiom or asserting a new one?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, but you pushing one you personally made up is different than appealing a more generally accepted one.

And no, it's not a new one; he's been posting that Fundamental Theorem of Government shit for years.

[SRG2]

A theorem is not an axiom.

[ReaderY]

1. I’d be interested in seeing your proof of this “theorem.”

2. Let’s assume for purposes of argument that this theorem is true. Then please explain why having decisions made by unelected judges instead of elected officials leads to better results. Are judges not “government”? Does the theorem somehow not apply to them?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

10/22/21

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH, ET AL. V. JACKSON. The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is granted.

This involved the SB8 abortion case out of Texas. Five justices in December held that a limited pre-enforcement challenge could be made. The others (including Roberts) were more open to a challenge. The whole thing was (basically) moot with Dobbs.

The handling of this law foreshadowed the result.

The election in two weeks will also be of some relevance regarding such matters.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Basically" moot, but not by any means entirely. If a legislature can put a bounty on the exercise of one recognized Constitutional right (which abortion was, at the time), it can put a bounty on another. This was pointed out in a post here (I forget by whom).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes. It was noted that the whole concept of the legislation put forth ala Kagan by "some genius" was open to abuse. Not just for constitutional rights. It was just plain bad as a legal vehicle.

[Commenter_XY]

I believe 'some genius' was Jonathan Mitchell.

[Krayt]

"Can" be? I thought it was already being abused further by Republicans, and, cynically, in response (against guns?) by Democrats.

I really should note these things down, and rely on external memory storage.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

When people say "can" and so forth, they often mean it "is" being used. They are just a bit subtle about it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, the whole exercise doesn’t actually work, which is why you haven’t seen it being rolled out to suppress, e.g., gun rights or religious accommodations. SB8 only caused the freak out it did because 1. It did slightly change the unusually favorable rules that courts used for challenges to abortion regulations and 2. People weren’t sure whether and to what extent the Supreme Court was going to continue recognizing a right to abortion in the first place.

[SMP0328]

The decision is relevant as to Ex Parte Young (1908), which (as modified by later decisions) allows a federal suit against a State official to circumvent State sovereign immunity if based on a claim that the official is violating or will violate a federal statute or the Constitution and the relief sought is prospective and does not involve a challenge to the State’s title to land.

Texas circumvented Ex Parte Young by allowing only private citizens to enforce SB 8 via lawsuits; no government officials could enforce SB 8. The majority in Jackson ruled this meant Ex Parte Young was inapplicable and so the suit was dismissed on sovereign-immunity/Eleventh-Amendment grounds.

While Roe and Casey are no more, Jackson is still good law and can be used by a State to prevent federal court enjoining a law's enforcement if no State official has the authority to enforce it. Instead, the federal government would have to sue the State if pre-enforcement injunctive relief is sought.

[ReaderY]

As I saw it and still see it, there’s nothing inherently unconstitutional about private rights of action. Tort law is full of them. The problem with SB8 was not its private right of action. It was the provisions that stacked the deck in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants, including its lack of standing requirements, permitting prevailing plaintiffs but not prevailing defendants to collect legal fees and costs, etc.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"The Princess and the Justice

Princess Gloria von Thurn und Taxis bonded with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. over Catholicism and ending abortion. She introduced him to her sumptuous world when he visited her Bavarian palace."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/us/politics/samuel-alito-princess-gloria.html

[Paladin_44]

Just read this article a short while ago. Perhaps the Alitos would have been more comfortable in mid-'1930s Germany?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Does Mike Godwin get a dime every time someone invokes National Socialists on the Internet? If so, he's richer than Musk and Zuckerface put together.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What do you think of Trump saying that "man is a mammal"?

[Paladin_44]

One of the (very few) correct comments he's made lately, I'd say...

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Well, to be fair, I made that quote up just to see who would deny it or criticize it simply because they thought Trump said it.

Something like this:

"While the statement is literally true, and human beings are mammals, the use of the term "man" to describe men, women, and other sexes is sexist and transphobic. Also, Trump fails to mention the scourge of breast cancer which affects too many women.

"RATING: Mostly False."

[Dan Schiavetta]

Now do the 19 false claims Trump indisputably made just during the recent town hall where he cut off questioning early and spent the rest of the time silently dancing.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/16/politics/fact-check-trump-false-claims-fox-townhall/index.html

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Trump is a consummate bullshit artist – good thing I didn’t vote for him.

My opposing him had nothing to do with his not knowing the nuances of some immigrants’ *temporary* protected status (when should we expect the “temporary” period to end?), but on his support for a yuge national debt and his sailing to the winds of pro-abortion public opinion. Obviously, I didn’t vote for the Democratic “alternative” (which is even worse than Trump) but for the Constitution Party.

Now, I’ve been assured that my choices were Harris or fascism, and that voting third party was unfairly taking votes away from Harris. But I fled both their plantations.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Silly rabbit. The Margrave's Trix are for Kids!