Today in Supreme Court History: November 19, 1969

11/19/1969: Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Goudy v. Meath, 203 U.S. 146 (decided November 19, 1906): Congress may exempt land held by Native Americans from taxation before they sell it but didn’t do so in this case; Congress had declared in 1887 that plaintiff’s tribe were now citizens so he had to pay taxes from that point forward

United States v. Cambridge Loan & Building Co., 278 U.S. 55 (decided November 19, 1928): government was estopped from collecting back taxes even though taxpayer “building and loan association” was making too much money on the outside to qualify for exemption designed for nonprofits

Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (decided November 19, 1974): habeas petitioner didn’t have to resubmit to state court his claim that the state statute he had been arrested under was unconstitutional; his state appeals had been exhausted but the state supreme court then issued a decision in another case agreeing that the statute was unconstitutional (this was Sharp v. Commonwealth, 1972, where the Virginia Supreme Court held that intent to distribute drugs cannot be inferred solely from the quantity possessed) (I think it can very well be inferred, unless the possessor was the all-consuming Hunter S. Thompson)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Name change? Are you promoting a book?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not particularly, though I’d be thrilled if someone finally bought it. It’s been on the market for a year.

Dan Schiavetta is my real name (actually it's Daniel Schiavetta, Jr., though my dad passed away in 2003).

I picked “captcrisis” in 1997 because it was an era of goofy email addresses and I used to be a crisis center director (1982 – 1987). It freed me up to say some immoderate things, but those days are over. Also some things I wrote might have gotten back to my clients (chiefly the Roman Catholic Church, which I inherited when I bought the law firm in 2012) but since my business went bust that’s no longer a concern. I don’t have too much to lose at this point. The sense of freedom is exhilarating.

I decided to make the change first here, at the Volokh blog I’ve been reading (and commenting on) for maybe 16, 17 years. I’m making the changes elsewhere too.

[apedad]

How do you make it so you can click on the name and it creates an email addressed to you?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

If you mean his handle, it's in your user settings, top right, just to the right of the search magnifying glass icon.

[apedad]

Got it!

[Syd Henderson]

It also appears at the bottom of the screen if I hover over his name.

[Dan Schiavetta]

My personal email address is still [e-mail]

[David Nieporent]

Can we make fun of you for still using an AOL address?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sure. The same address for 27 years. The original password was “babyzack”. Zack (our son) is now 28 years old.

(As John Oliver pointed out in this week’s show, the “You’ve Got Mail!” guy just passed away at age 75.)

[ducksalad]

Which came first, the postings here or the book?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I began the daily posts here on May 7, 2022. Around the middle of last year it occurred to me to collect them in one place. The book was first published on Nov. 21, 2023.

The posts were to remedy the (ahem) deficient quality of Josh’s “Today in Supreme Court History” series. I’ve learned a great deal from looking these cases up and formulating my brief summaries, esp. since I never have to look up Supreme Court cases in my work. In a perverse way, I owe it all to Josh. (And also to the commenters who point out the occasional errors.)

I intend to publish a new edition each summer, after the Court’s term ends.

[apedad]

In Goudy, ". . . Congress had declared in 1887 that plaintiff’s tribe were now citizens so he had to pay taxes from that point forward."

In 1893, Congress passed an act, 27 Stat. 612, 633, authorizing the appointment of a commission with power to superintend the sale of the allotted lands, with this proviso: "That the Indian allottees shall not have power of alienation of the allotted lands not selected for sale by said commission for a period of ten years from the date of the passage of this act."

Construing these several acts, the Secretary of the Interior, on February 14, 1903, wrote to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, summing up his conclusions in these words: "I am of the opinion that the requirements of the treaties with respect to these lands have been fully met, and that the provisions of the act of the legislature of the State of Washington of March 22, 1890, and the Indian appropriation Act of March 3, 1893, referred to above, together operate to remove all restrictions upon the alienation or sale thereof by the allottees. I have therefore to direct that the Puyallup commissioner be instructed to continue the selection and appraisement of such portions of the Puyallup allotted lands, but only with the consent of the Indians, as provided in the Act of March 3, 1893, until the expiration of the ten-year period mentioned, to-wit, March 3, 1903, after which date, in my judgment, the Puyallup Indian allottees will 'have power to lease, encumber, grant, and alien the same in like manner and like effect as any other person may do under the laws of the United States, and of' the State of Washington."

Congress postponed the operation of this statute for ten years. When the ten years expired (and they had expired before this tax was attempted to be levied), all restriction upon alienation ceased.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/203/146/

So it seems like they were exempt up to Mar 3, 1903.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks!

[Commenter_XY]

Dan, it is very nice to meet you. How do you prefer to be addressed?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks that’s very complimentary.

“Dan”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Hi, Dan!

Good Supreme Court summaries at this site, I presume the book is at least just as good, and when I can afford a copy I may get myself one.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. On Kindle it's $9.99 (and nine-tenths of a cent).

The "deluxe" hardcover is $35.00. Amazon did a good job with it. On the other hand . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcsIJqhGkB4

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Oh, I'm sure you didn't commit the anachronism of having Lincoln driving to his inauguration in a Ford. He would have driven a Lincoln, of course.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Walz upheld a tax exemption granting property tax exemptions to religious organizations for properties used solely for religious worship. Only Douglas dissented. Blackmun was not yet on the bench. Black joined the majority without a separate opinion.

The exemption was for a broad range of institutions, which helps the case that it does not single out religion. For instance, the situation might be different if a tax exemption favors church housing alone.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2019/06/20/freedom-from-religion-foundation-wont-take-clergy-housing-case-to-supreme-court/

Conversely, some argue that one purpose of a general religious tax exemption is to further the separation of church and state. If so, there might be a reason specific to religious institutions.

Brennan notes in his separate opinion that Madison eventually opposed such exemptions. Brennan also eventually took a stricter line than he once did regarding legislative chaplains. See his dissent in Marsh v. Chambers.

I think the Walz opinion is satisfactory though some problems can arise regarding crafting an evenhanded exemption. We also run into some problems when the money is for a charitable purpose and religious organizations wish to discriminate.

[Dan Schiavetta]

P.S. To find my book, just search my name on Amazon. There’s a hardcover version, paperback, a “compact edition” (smaller print), and a Kindle version.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

aka The Supreme Court for Short Attention Spans: 2000 tiny case summaries too short to bore you, with occasional jokes and uncalled-for comments

[F.D. Wolf]

Apropos of nothing that happened "on this day", someone on the news had mentioned that incumbent Vice Presidents had not done well in presidential elections, the only one to win in the 20th or 21st centuries being George H.W. Bush in 1988. However, historically, incumbent VPs are 4-4 overall.

Winners: John Adams (1796), Thomas Jefferson (1800), Martin Van Buren (1836), George H. W. Bush (1988)

Losers: Richard Nixon (1960), Hubert Humphrey (1968), Al Gore (2000), Kamala Harris (2024)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The only reason Jefferson was the incumbent Vice President in 1800 was because of a now-defunct electoral system which elected him VP in 1796 instead of just making him the loser.

The Twelfth Amendment (passed under Jefferson) created the modern electoral system, forming the proper basis for comparing the fates of Vice-Presidential incumbents.

[F.D. Wolf]

That same "defunct electoral system" was, of course, also the reason John Adams was the incumbent vice president, yet it seems "proper" to analogize his election to that of Martin Van Buren and George H.W. Bush, all three vice presidents who rode in on the coattails of highly popular two-term presidents, and all three of whom failed to win re-election in their own rights.

All times have their own peculiarities, and historical analogues are always of uncertain utility in predicting the future.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If it were not for counting 3/5 of slaves, Adams would have been re-elected.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How? The reapportionment from the 1800 census didn’t take effect until 1803.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It must have been based on the 1790 census.

P.S. That first census was a rough-and-ready, improvised affair. Somebody wrote a book on it years ago (which I read).

[F.D. Wolf]

The relevant reapportionment was that of 1792. The non-slave population of Massachusetts (where there were no slaves) was actually higher than the non-slave population of Virginia, yet Massachusetts had 14 congressional districts to Virginia's 19 because Virginia had more than 200,000 slaves. In other words, counting three-fifths of its slaves gave Virginia five more electoral votes than it otherwise would have had. Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina's slaves were worth two additional votes to those states as well. The final electoral count in the 1800 election was 73 for Jefferson and 65 for Adams.

Of course, we're talking about hypothetical districts in hypothetical timelines that never occurred which would have entailed other events that never occurred, so it is probably more accurate to say that without the Three-Fifths Compromise, Adams probably would have won.

[Brett Bellmore]

When I took American history in HS, back in the 70's, it was always referred to as "the 3/5ths compromise". Because that's what it was: A compromise. The free states wanted zero, the slave states one, (Or, rather, no clause at all, so that slaves would be treated like every other class lacking the franchise.) they split the difference to get an agreement.