The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: November 14, 1922
11/14/1922: Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon argued.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30 (decided November 14, 1994): Eleventh Amendment did not bar injured railroad workers’ suit in federal court against Port Authority, an entity wholly owned by New York and New Jersey and created under the Interstate Compact Clause (art. I, §10, clause 3); judgment against Port Authority would not be collectible against either state
Key v. Doyle, 434 U.S. 59 (decided November 14, 1977): District of Columbia statute restricting religious bequests was not a “statute of the United States” and therefore no direct appeal to the Court from decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals striking down the statute on First Amendment grounds (this is the highest local D.C. court, created in 1970, not the federal-system D.C. Circuit Court with which D.C. appeals had been entangled); appeal can only be heard via certiorari, which is denied (the Court was parsing the language of the former version of 28 U.S.C. §1257, which required the Court to hear highest-court decisions striking down “statutes of the United States”; in 1988 the statute was changed to permit appeals only by cert, all but eliminating the Court’s mandatory appellate jurisdiction)
Ward v. Village of Monroeville, Ohio, 409 U.S. 57 (decided November 14, 1972): Due Process violated when trial as to a traffic offense was held before mayor who was also responsible for village finances and therefore had an interest in imposing fines
The Supreme Court has a lot more work to do before municipal courts become fair. Hiring a lawyer to run traffic court instead of using the mayor may not improve the situation. Even county courts can have financial incentives. How much can a judge assess in surcharges directed to his courts before the incentive becomes unconstitutional?
True, fines end up financing the court, at least in part, no matter what the system, but the connection has to be attenuated.
Ward v. Village of Monroeville, Ohio, 409 U.S. 57 (decided November 14, 1972): Due Process violated when trial as to a traffic offense was held before mayor who was also responsible for village finances and therefore had an interest in imposing fines
30 years ago, but long after that, stuck in traffic on a surface street, light turns red. It’s a subdivision cross street. “Blocking”. No one there but the highway robber. "But...!" But shut up and read on.
Pay a lawyer $200 to stand there with me so I could take it under advisement, which happens. I still have to pay the fine.
He says, “Did you know one third goes to the police, one third to the state, and one third to the judges’ retirement fund?”
Yeahhhhhhhh.
When I searched for this date and “Supreme Court,” a live stream of the Iowa Supreme Court came up.
I appreciate that SCOTUS now has live audio. My first entry to SCOTUS oral arguments was the imperfect (ask Edward Lazarus, who strongly said so) excerpts by Peter Irons.
Oyez.com then provided more complete audio. It also — months after the term is finished — now provides mostly complete opinion announcements. Which SCOTUS should also provide.
Some people were very concerned that we should have live audio. I was okay with waiting until the end of the week but understand the desire for live streaming. My bigger concern is for SCOTUS to have video.
The arguments against do not convince especially now that they have audio. Audio (with photos of justices and advocates — C-SPAN does this) can be selectively excerpted. Playing to the justices? That can happen now. And, justices are much more celebrities now, with books and many public appearances.
One of these days, SCOTUS will follow in the footsteps of many lower courts and foreign supreme courts and have video. They made a few small steps by providing a few videos of special events.
Our law school almost had Justice Blackmun as our graduation speaker. Our idiot dean insisted on it being on video and Blackmun bowed out. He didn't want himself misrepresented by misleading sound bites. Understandable.
C-SPAN has some Blackmun video.