Today in Supreme Court History: November 27, 1964

11/27/1964: WGCB carried a 15-minute broadcast by the Reverend Billy James Hargis as part of the "Christian Crusade" series. This broadcast gave rise to Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969).

The Warren Court (1969)

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Reduction Works of San Francisco, 199 U.S. 306 (decided November 27, 1905): San Francisco validly under the California Constitution gave corporation exclusive right to dispose of the city’s garbage; dismisses Fourteenth Amendment argument made by citizens and competing corporation (the opinion has long lists of types of garbage, offal, excrement, animal remains; don’t read it while eating)

Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (decided November 27, 2001): right to sue public officers for Constitutional violations (Bivens) does not extend to right to sue private corporations providing federal governmental functions (here, privately run prison that did not provide disability accommodations for federal prisoner) (this case greatly curtailed “state actor” liability and was a huge boon to the “private prison” industry; 5 - 4 decision)

Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (decided November 27, 1979): federal statute prohibiting use of interstate commerce to commit “bribery” included bribery of private individuals (here, paying for stolen geological information useful for oil drilling)

[SRG2]

CSC went 5-4, You can guess who voted which way.

[Frank Drackman]

Surpreme Billy Douglas was right, 1st Amendment either means what it says or it doesn’t. My Pocket Constitution (OK, Wikipedia) says… (Douglas didn't participate in the case, How Come?)
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
and yes, that last one covers January 6

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The ruling partially upheld the "Fairness Doctrine" on a scarcity rationale that is somewhat obsolete today.

Justice Black joined the opinion by finding another aspect of regulation that did not meet his absolutism (along with armbands and wearing F-the Draft jackets). Douglas did not take part but later said he would have dissented if he did.

The Supreme Court did not apply the rule to print media. See, e.g., Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo.

[Krayt]

The same “fm channel” on modern radio has at least 3 clones, so there’s a 91.7 #1, #2, and #3. I don’t know the details of implementation, but most of the extras are not even used. It isn’t even limited anymore, in practice, if most of it is unused. And the idea of a radio station beating up on some poor soul seems quaint today with the Internet, available wirelessly.

TV is the same now. And even before the digital switch, there were already garbage weak stations in big markets who rushed to put...important informercials on 24/7.

[John F. Carr]

I used to wonder if all infomercials, all the time was the natural state of free market TV. Probably not. Few people will buy TVs if that is all they can get.

[jdgalt1]

Now that podcasting has eliminated the scarcity of channels, few people are buying TV sets, and those who want to keep using theirs are buying gadgets that let them download and display podcasts. Thus I don't expect TV to matter anymore. Sooner or later FCC will notice the non-use of TV and reallocate its spectrum to cell phones or some future use.

But some Internet facility providers are starting to assert the right to regulate the content that may be moved over their facilities. I hope some federal agency will step in to require that at least some of them remain available as common carriers.

[John F. Carr]

According to Wikipedia "Satellite radio is distinguished by its freedom from FCC censorship" even though it uses potentially scarce bandwidth. I wonder if this is an accident of history.

[jdgalt1]

FCC regulation does cover radio frequencies used to communicate to and from satellites. Wikipedia seems to have got it wrong. Of course, most satellites operate in international space and their owners can choose what country to register them in, just as ship owners can.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

We now had traditional* presidential pardoning of turkeys.

As President Barlett once said, presidents do not generally have the power to pardon fowl. I suppose they might if the turkeys were a member of the military or something.

Thanksgiving Proclamations come up in various Supreme Court opinions. Multiple justices argue that since presidents, including by congressional authorization, have handed out religious Thanksgiving Proclamations, various other government-endorsed religious events are acceptable.

I agree with Justice Souter in Lee v. Weisman that Thanksgiving Proclamations “inhabit a pallid zone worlds apart from official prayers delivered to a captive audience of public school students and their families” and various other types of religious matters.

Likewise, as Justice Blackmun noted in one case involving a creche and menorah, some Thanksgiving proclamations have been blatantly sectarian, including promoting Christianity.

I think Jefferson and Madison were correct in arguing that Congress should not instruct presidents to tell us to pray and give thanks to God. It’s a violation of the First Amendment, if not as serious as many others.

If presidents want to do that on their own, it’s their prerogative, though they should do so in an open-minded way.

==

* The tradition might have firmly begun with Bush41. There has been a long practice of turkeys being presented to presidents.

https://www.history.com/news/a-brief-history-of-the-presidential-turkey-pardon

[ducksalad]

Yup. As I see it there are two options:

1. If they want to argue that Thanksgiving Proclamations are a de minimus action and not in the same category than school-organized prayers, then fine….as long as it stays de minimus.

2. If they want to argue that if you allow Thanksgiving Proclamations then for consistency you have to allow school prayer, then fine….no more proclamations.

No tolerance for trying to get a constitutional foot in the door. No giving a constitutional inch if they’ll try to take a constitutional yard.

[ducksalad]

.

[taqmcg]

Short and to the point!