Today in Supreme Court History: December 3, 1996

12/3/1996: Printz v. U.S. argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (decided December 3, 1945): this case was (as my law professor put it) the “fountainhead” of personal jurisdiction law, finally ending the “presence in the state” games begun in 1878 by Pennoyer v. Neff (which Civ Pro profs waste a lot of time on): jurisdiction over defendant consistent with Due Process if had enough “minimum contacts” in the forum state to “not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (at issue was payment of unemployment insurance by out-of-state shoe seller) (Black’s dissent notes nothing in the Constitution that supports this formulation) (but nothing prohibits it either) (largely in effect overruled by Daimler AG v. Bauman, 2014)

Hamilton v. Regents of University of California, 293 U.S. 245 (decided December 3, 1934): state university students with religious objection to war not exempt from required courses in military science; courses did not obligate them to military service (as an anti-war person myself I think we should all learn as much as we can about the “science” of war -- I’ve read Sun Tzu, and not only does he make us understand the military mindset, much of what he says applies to other adversarial situations)

Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (decided December 3, 1991): guilty verdict as to one objective of conspiracy (impeding IRS investigation into taxes) will stand even if no verdict as to another objective (impeding DEA investigation into forfeitable assets) (petitioner was not charged as to second objective)

[Frank Drackman]

You're "Anti-War"??
even the Wah of Naw-thun Aggression, that was the inspiration for Chrissie Hynde's "My City was Gone"
and the Band's "The Night they Drove Old Dixie Down" (written ironically by a Canadian Native Amurican). Took me years to realize the line "Virgil quick come see, there goes Robert E. Lee!" was talking about a train, not the actual General.
and yes, I didn't realize it was Little Sister who shot Andy even though she says it right there in the song.
Millions of young men killed, animosities that persist to the present (See Hobie, Stank), but some great tunes

Frank

[SMP0328]

International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (decided December 3, 1945): this case was (as my law professor put it) the “fountainhead” of personal jurisdiction law, finally ending the “presence in the state” games begun in 1878 by Pennoyer v. Neff (which Civ Pro profs waste a lot of time on): jurisdiction over defendant consistent with Due Process if had enough “minimum contacts” in the forum state to “not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (at issue was payment of unemployment insurance by out-of-state shoe seller) (Black’s dissent notes nothing in the Constitution that supports this formulation) (but nothing prohibits it either) (largely in effect overruled by Daimler AG v. Bauman, 2014)

The bolded portion is hyperbole. You may disagree with Daimler, but it overruled nothing, partially or completely, explicitly or implicitly. The Court repeatedly applied International Shoe in support of the Court's decision.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It used to be where the corporate defendant had "minimum contacts". Now it's where the incident occurred, or where the corporation is "at home". I'd call that quite a change, whether the Court admits it or not.

[SMP0328]

Daimler deals with general jurisdiction. International Shoe usually deals with specific jurisdiction. Regarding specific jurisdiction, International Shoe is still the standard.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, that is true, but as Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent, Daimler is a big gift to big business. Not to mention that the Court went beyond the arguments presented to it. (And the opinion written by Ginsburg!)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Interesting concurrence in Hamilton.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes -- Cardozo points out that conscientious objection has always been allowed, even in Revolutionary War times, but only in return for equivalent non-violent service or $. Petitioners, arguing that they can't be forced to do anything, not even take a course, can next argue that they don't have to do anything else the state requires, such as paying taxes.

[Mr. Bumble]

[Frank Drackman]

I'm just a simple Country Doctor (Simple anyway) but what is so hard to understand about
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” ??
and I don't like to opine about who might be in the nether regions, but if Sara Brady, who raked in millions pushing her brain damaged husband around (figuratively, she had numerous lackeys to do the actual pushing) pushing (get it?) Gun Control isn't there, nobody is
OK, I realize nobody is, because the concept of an Afterlife is made up superstition, but if there was, she'd be there
like I said, I'm "Simple"

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought the ugliest thing about that was the fact that her husband was actually opposed to gun control, and his wife ended up using him as a prop to fight against his own policy preferences.

[jdgalt1]

The 9th only applies to gun control if the 2nd Amendment wasn't "incorporated" by the 14th. I don't believe SCOTUS ever directly answered that question until Heller.

[Malika the Maiz]

Using him? He himself supported Gunn control after he was shot.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MS4pCjKajO4

[Frank Drackman]

"Gunn" Control?
is that like the "Mann" act?
that AIDS Dementia, keeps people from being able to spell simple 3 letter words.

[Malika the Maiz]

Person who can’t make standard English sentences, paragraphs, etc., opines.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're over-estimating how much competence he had remaining after having part of his brain blown away. He wasn't much more than a puppet for his wife after that.

[Malika the Maiz]

He seems plenty competent in the clips I sourced. You’ve no real evidence for your claim other than that he changed his view but the most natural explanation is that getting shot is what changed it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"A liberal is a conservative who has been shot at."

[Bob from Ohio]

"no real evidence"

"Kobrine, his neurosurgeon, described him as having difficulty controlling his emotions while speaking after the shooting, saying "he would kind of cry-talk for a while", and having deficits in memory and thinking, such as failing to recognize people." wikipedia

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I disagree with the majority opinion that the "commandeering" in Printz v. U.S. of local officials involved in the carrying out of federal law was unconstitutional.

I'm more inclined to think there was a Second Amendment interest. The amendment concerns state control over the militia and firearms. I still question if the law was unconstitutional but there might be something to that.

We are sometimes told on this blog that we should be happy about cases like this in the Trump Era since it will help us resist federal action we do not like. There are costs/benefits there, especially if in the long run positive federal legislation is burdened.

Also, there is a line-drawing question. Certain types of commandeering of state action can be forbidden without more minor restraints also being unconstitutional.

Finally, there is a question of how much long-term the limit will help.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Oyez.com has the oral argument audio and a long opinion announcement with both the majority and dissent summarizing their positions. Stevens presided, noting that Rehnquist was attending a judicial conference.

I will toss out my belief that SCOTUS itself should put opinion announcements on its website. If they think they are useful, why not put them with a transcript on the website? If the idea is that people will be misled by an unofficial summary, it's still public, and Oyez eventually posts it.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1478

[SMP0328]

I'm more inclined to think there was a Second Amendment interest.

So did Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion.