Today in Supreme Court History: December 19, 1940

12/19/1940: U.S. v. Darby argued.

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (decided December 19, 1932): defendant accused of liquor sale (during Prohibition) can assert entrapment defense (agent who served in same division during World War I visited with some mutual friends and drew him into a long chat about their wartime experiences, casually asked for liquor, and after third request defendant left and returned twenty minutes later with a bottle and agent paid him $5 -- aha!! you’re under arrest!)

Hunt v. Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 196 U.S. 47 (decided December 19, 1904): claim on insurance policy (for loss of household furniture) properly denied because furniture subject to “deed of trust” which is the same as a “chattel mortgage” and therefore excluded under policy language (this is an example of the “federal common law” the Court used to render before Erie R.R. v. Tompkins; state supreme courts were only too happy to go along as the Court decided issues of state law for them)

Reina v. United States, 364 U.S. 507 (decided December 19, 1960): affirming contempt order; witness had refused to testify after having been granted immunity under federal narcotics law statute but claimed Fifth Amendment privilege citing danger of state prosecution; Court holds that immunity also extends to state proceedings and does not encroach on state police powers in violation of Tenth Amendment (Court notes that statute, 18 U.S.C. §1406, had language similar to other federal immunity statutes, so I suppose this holding is broadly applicable)

[SRG2]

It is not too hard to imagine Reina being overturned in the current climate

[apedad]

I thought that too and it highlights the tension between Art 6 and 10A.

A6
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

10A
“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.”

Art. 6 clearly states, " . . . the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . . "

[Noscitur a sociis]

What tension are you perceiving there?

[apedad]

The "supreme Law of the Land" which was quoted in Reina.

I could see how some folks might find some tension there, especially states rights and dual sovereignty folks.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It says federal laws “made in pursuance” to the constitution are the supreme law. In which case, they’re an exercise of the power “delegated to the United States not the constitution” p, and outside the tenth amendment’s reservation. I don’t think even Brett Bellmore would find that controversial.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Reina is a case about statutory intepretation, and the current version of the statute clearly contemplates that result, so I don’t think thats right. And more substantively, the key constitutional precedent is Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52 (1964), and I don’t see any indication that there’s much interest from anyone n revisiting it.

[F.D. Wolf]

[W]e hold the constitutional rule to be that a state witness may not be compelled to give testimony which may be incriminating under federal law unless the compelled testimony and its fruits cannot be used in any manner by federal officials in connection with a criminal prosecution against him. We conclude, moreover, that, in order to implement this constitutional rule and accommodate the interests of the State and Federal Governments in investigating and prosecuting crime, the Federal Government must be prohibited from making any such use of compelled testimony and its fruits. This exclusionary rule, while permitting the States to secure information necessary for effective law enforcement, leaves the witness and the Federal Government in substantially the same position as if the witness had claimed his privilege in the absence of a state grant of immunity.

It follows that petitioners here may now be compelled to answer the questions propounded to them.

Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52, 79 (1964), overruling Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487 (1944).

If you testify under a grant of federal immunity, your testimony cannot be used against you in a state prosecution, and vice versa. So commands the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court. Given the inherent complications of dual sovereignty, this is really the only rule that makes sense.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"agent who served in same division during World War I visited with some mutual friends and drew him into a long chat about their wartime experiences, casually asked for liquor, and after third request defendant left and returned twenty minutes later with a bottle and agent paid him $5 -- aha!! you’re under arrest!"

Hopefully this got his picture into the dictionary next to the definition of "douche."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

U.S. v. Darby was a unanimous opinion by Justice Harlan Stone (he would become Chief Justice a few months later). As one summary notes what was at stake was:

In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to regulate many aspects of employment, including minimum wages, maximum weekly hours, and child labor.

Past opinions would have made that suspect but the development of the law and national events led to an 8-0 opinion that upheld it as a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce.

The opinion was handed down in February 1941. Justice McReynolds, the last of the old conservative guard, retired in January. Roberts would soon be the only justice not appointed in some role by FDR left on the Court.

If you want to see Clark Gable, Jean Arthur, Rosalind Russell, and various other 1930s actors in a silly but fun time killer, check out China Seas.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Erik Loomis, a labor historian, uses his "day in labor history" feature to discuss this case:

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/12/this-day-in-labor-history-december-19-1940

[apedad]

A Warren Zevon reference! Love it.....

[Syd Henderson]

"If you want to see Clark Gable, Jean Arthur, Rosalind Russell, and various other 1930s actors in a silly but fun time killer, check out China Seas."

Not Jean Arthur but Jean Harlow. She and Gable were always good together.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

If what someone is doing is ongoing and it must be if they set these folks on the liquor producer, then you should not have to entrap.
To me, the way that was done shows an extra-legal motivation.