Today in Supreme Court History: December 4, 1933

12/4/1933: Nebbia v. New York argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

New Jersey v. City of New York, 290 U.S. 237 (decided December 4, 1933): imposes penalties against NYC for not complying with earlier order prohibiting dumping garbage into ocean next to New Jersey

Arkansas Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (decided December 4, 2012): flooding by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (water released from dam) which destroyed state’s downstream timber crop is a “taking” even if only temporary

Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23 (decided December 4, 2007): exemption to sentence aggravation under Armed Career Criminal Act for those who have “had civil rights restored” did not apply to defendant who had otherwise applicable prior convictions but who had never had civil rights taken away

[apedad]

In Arkansas, I wondered if the US could have argued eminent domain but Justice Ginsburg addressed that in the unanimous decision.

The Court first ruled that government-induced flooding can constitute a taking in Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166 (1872). The Wisconsin Legislature had authorized the defendant to build a dam which led to the creation of a lake, permanently submerging the plaintiff’s land. The defendant argued that the land had not been taken because the government did not exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire title to the affected property. Moreover, the defendant urged, the damage was merely “a consequential result” of the dam’s construction near the plaintiff’s property. Id., at 177. Rejecting that crabbed reading of the Takings Clause, the Court held that “where real estate is actually invaded by superinduced additions of water, earth, sand, or other material . . . so as to effectually destroy or impair its usefulness, it is a taking, within the meaning of the Constitution.” Id., at 181.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks.

[Commenter_XY]

I have to laugh at the NJ/NYC case. What changed? 🙂

[Drewski]

What changed is you stopped taking your meds. No sane person is so petty and spiteful that they take joy learning of a minor fine a century ago.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you remember the hypodermic needles washing onshore in many NJ communities? I do. It devastated NJ shore tourism. Still happens (much more rare now). It is as I said: Some things have not changed.

Drewski, NYC and NJ are currently duking it out in court over congestion pricing and any number of other cross-state issues. That aspect of the rship hasn't changed either.

[Dan Schiavetta]

New Jersey used to have (maybe still does have) a "garbage and pollution state" reputation which is undeserved. From the beginning its problem was geographical -- it has no good harbors and is dependent on Philadelphia on the south and New York City on the north -- in the words of Benjamin Franklin, it's "a keg tapped at both ends". On the other hand it has a sweet deal in Port Authority matters. Compare PATH fares with the LIRR or Metro North.

[Commenter_XY]

Our garbage and pollution reputation is well-deserved. You clearly don't live in the People's Republic of NJ. Do you remember Congressman Jim Florio (who later became governor Florio and whose signature achievement was passage of the 'Runny Egg' law; and was subsequently trounced in his re-election bid)?

He sponsored the Superfund legislation. With good reason. NJ leads the nation in toxic superfund sites.

The PA is a travesty, a cesspool of political corruption.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Nebbia v. New York regards milk price regulation, arising from the Great Depression. A 5-4 opinion upheld the regulation, supporting an open-ended regulation of the economy.

The ruling was an early sign of what was to come. The "Lochner Era" was always somewhat exaggerated. The regulatory state was often let be, especially aside from certain narrow periods with a stricter conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

The 1930s did bring a more liberal understanding of the breadth of state and federal power to regulate the economy within narrow limits. In recent years, there was some support for returning to a more strict rule in some ways.

"We should not be too nebbish" is the judicial critics' watchword.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The New York legislature forced the poor to pay more for milk, for the benefit of the dairy industry.

If the Constitution is flexible enough to allow men to marry each other, or to stop being men altogether, then why isn't the Constitution flexible enough to protect the poor from artificially jacked-up prices for their milk in the middle of a Depression?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The use of the term "artificially jack-ed up" suggests some "natural" price when prices are generally "artificially" the result of regulated economies.

The opinion notes: "During 1932, the prices received by farmers for milk were much below the cost of production. The decline in prices during 1931 and 1932 was much greater than that of prices generally. The situation of the families of dairy producers had become desperate, and called for state aid similar to that afforded the unemployed, if conditions should not improve."

So, the government regulated it to protect the overall supply of an important consumer good. Governments have broad power to regulate the economy. The majority found there was no due process violation involved, including contrary to the "artificial" classifications used by the dissent of what is "public interest" enough for the government to regulate.

Marriage rights are fundamental personal rights and discrimination by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. were correctly protected in various cases.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So...a fundamental personal right to marry within the same sex, but no fundamental personal right to buy cheap milk from someone willing to sell it to you. What a topsy-turvy world.