Today in Supreme Court History: January 15, 1908

1/15/1908: Muller v. Oregon argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Berry v. Davis, 242 U.S. 468 (decided January 15, 1917): An Iowa statute authorized vasectomies on “idiots, feeble-minded, drunkards, drug fiends, epileptics, syphilitics, moral and sexual perverts” and made it mandatory as to “criminals who have been twice convicted of a felony” (defendant here). Court dismisses the case because the statute had been repealed (decision by Holmes, who would author the hideous pro-sterilization Buck v. Bell).

Iowa v. Illinois, 151 U.S. 238 (decided January 15, 1894): Court vacates holding as to boundary dispute because of procedural error in referring to special master (at issue was where on the Keokuk-Hamilton bridge the border was; the opinion says the boundary is the midpoint of the Mississippi, though current maps show it very close to the Iowa side, but that could be due to accretion since)

New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. 105 (decided January 15, 2019): it is for court, not arbitrator, to decide whether Federal Arbitration Act exception for interstate commerce employment contracts applies (here, trucker brought suit alleging unfair wage practices; Court holds that the exception applies, and denies the employer’s motion under the FAA to order arbitration) (Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion, is a good writer)

Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (decided January 15, 1917): White Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (that phrase sounds so quaint now) (otherwise known as the “Mann Act”) affects interstate commerce even if no pecuniary gain intended because it involves transport across state lines (man had transported woman to make her his “mistress and concubine”)

Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (decided January 15, 2008): outside parties who colluded in sham transactions with corporation leading to illegal inflating of profits could not be joined as defendants in shareholders’ securities fraud suit against corporation under Securities and Exchange Act of 1934

[Krayt]

An Iowa statute authorized vasectomies on “idiots, feeble-minded, drunkards, drug fiends, epileptics, syphilitics, moral and sexual perverts” and made it mandatory as to “criminals who have been twice convicted of a felony” (defendant here). Court dismisses the case because the statute had been repealed (decision by Holmes, who would author the hideous pro-sterilization Buck v. Bell).

A physical manifestation of a type of cancel culture.

My work for the day is done. G'nite, everybody!

[Michael P]

Did anyone write a book "1.5 Vasectomies A Day"?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I'm reminded of a comic strip I saw in the 1980's (I think it was "Little Annie Fanny" in Playboy). Annie gets a job as a "card girl" at a wrestling match. Her manager says, "Wrestling fans are o.k., so long as they don't vote or breed." Unfortunately, both have come to pass.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I can't pull up the comic online but it seems to have been in the May 1986 issue.

[Malika the Maiz]

I wonder how they determined someone was a “drug fiend.”

[Mr. Bumble]

Early Hunter Bidens.

[Drewski]

Maybe worth noting that the Iowa sterilization law was never actually used on convicts. In Berry v. Davis, the prison's doctor and warden each refused to perform or order the surgery (and testified they would not), but the trial court laid down an injunction anyway. By the time it got to the Supreme Court, the law had been replaced with one that excluded prisoners.

Don't think I'm defending the program. These eugenics laws were used to sterilize the mentally disabled and epileptics. The original version of the law had a clause that mandated sterilization on the first conviction for white slavery - but not for other slave trafficking. It was a terrible idea implemented in just about the worst way, but I find it interesting that the law was primarily directed at convicts and exclusively used for non-convicts.

[Commenter_XY]

Would Caminetti be decided the same way, today?

Thought Experiment

Suppose I claim my sincerely held religious belief allows me to have a concubine (or 2 or 3), in addition to a legal wife (who does not object, citing the same sincerely held religious belief). And I can point to a code of law and/or conduct that guides my behavior to both spouse and concubine(s), and demonstrate no material harm to spouse or concubines (their own testimony).

Does Caminetti come out the same way?

Where have we traditionally drawn the line on the boundary of allowable expression of sincerely held religious beliefs? Ok, no human sacrifice (but chickens are A-Ok), no molestation of children, etc. - these things I understand. No sane society would permit or encourage such behavior.

What is the outermost bound of allowable expression of sincerely held religious beliefs?

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Mann Act did not require that the man be already married. All that is required is that he transport a woman across state lines for the purpose of having sex (and as we see, it could be just with him, with no payment involved).

In May of 1979 I drove with my girlfriend from her home in Port Jervis, N.Y. up to Fredonia, N.Y., where we had a summer apartment waiting. We were in college and hoping to get summer jobs (which we did). We drove on Route 17, which near Sayre dips a couple hundred feet into Pennsylvania. I violated the Mann Act when my car went into Pennsylvania, and violated it again when it sidled back into New York. We had pretty hot sex that summer, but it would have been even hotter if we'd known this at the time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Another exciting tale form Capt. Anecdote.

[John F. Carr]

By 1979 the original, vague "immoral purposes" had been changed to refer to criminal sexual conduct.

[Dan Schiavetta]

In that case we'd have to look up what the definition of "sodomy" was at that point.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is incorrect. The law still prohibited transportation “for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose” (and was in a chapter called “White Slave Traffic”) until 1986.

[Swede425]

That's actually a good story/example of the fact that there's some law(s) out there that would make criminals of us all in the normal conduct of our lives.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But… this law isn’t still out there!

[Drewski]

Those were basically the facts in Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946). I think the current Court would decide it the same way, but of course under the current version of the Act they wouldn't use quite the same reasoning. I think a challenge to the underlying state crime of polygamy would also fail.

[jdgalt1]

Indeed, I would like to see how 19th century politicians and police justified their persecution of Mormons until their church stopped accepting polygamy. And made it a condition of Utah statehood that the state can never legalize it without Congress' approval. An RFRA then would have forced them to overturn it.

[not guilty]

No mid-week open thread today?

[Mr. Bumble]

When EV put the idea out there last week it was announced as mid-day Wednesday open thread.

[Commenter_XY]

Time zone matters, Mr. Bumble. In Guam (American possession), for instance, it is almost 11:30 at night. 😉

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't think EV has or plans to relocate to Guam.

[A Japanese Student]

Special Kokoku-Appeal to Order Denying Kokoku-Appeal to Order Denying Bail (First Petty Bench, decided January 15, 2001): Vacated denial of bail and remanded; defendants were prosecuted for receiving poached crabs, but in denying bail, the judge incorrectly noted that they were prosecuted for poaching crabs ("kokoku-appeal" is an appeal against nonfinal orders, sort of like mandamus)
Illegal Immigrant National Health Insurance Case (First Petty Bench, decided January 15, 2004): "Illegal immigrant" in this case was domiciled in Japan and was covered by national health insurance (he was not the typical "illegal immigrant" - born in South Korea to Chinese parents, lost South Korean permanent residence, Taiwanese officials could not confirm nationality, overstayed in Japan for decades, married to Taiwanese woman and had a son and a daughter, immigration officials did not respond to him, and his son was diagnosed with brain tumor)
Certified Kokoku-Appeal to Discovery Order (First Petty Bench, decided January 15, 2009): Ex parte, in camera review of documents to rule on the merits (rather than to determine admissibility) violates party-presentation rule (FOIA case; the plaintiff sought discovery of the non-disclosed document ex parte and in camera) (certified question - usually required for appealing these orders to Supreme Court)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Just the mention of "national health insurance" shows us what a backward country the U.S. is.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Yes, Obamacare certainly eviscerated it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Your facts are uncoordinated."

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Guess I'm not muted after all.

[A Japanese Student]

One thing that blew my mind when I learned it, was that American health insurances don't cover anything until you hit the deductible. Here, the coverage is very simple; 30% co-pay, and you can visit any clinic without checking if it's in-network. Private health insurance still exists, usually for cancer, stroke, and heart failure, but their main purpose is to compensate for lost wages and breakthrough treatments.

Are there downsides? Of course. All insured procedures or drugs are subject to governmental price control, and drug shortage is a big concern here. Doctors are also severely underpaid.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like some serious downsides.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How do you think the Japanese health care system works?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There were two Judy Holliday films on TCM recently.

Born Yesterday and Solid Gold Cadillac. Both are quite worthwhile. The remake of the first with Melanie Griffith is ok. In the second film, she plays a troublesome small stockholder which the company hires to get her off their back.

There was a bit about the Mann Act. Her firm sends Judy Holliday to D.C. lobby the previous head of the company. They like each other. He later tried to charge the firm with illegal lobbying, noting that sending an unregistered lobbyist in that fashion broke the law.

She says, "I know ... the Mann Act."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Two unanimous opinions dropped today regarding fairly technical matters & now we are talking about porn. Settle down, Dan.

[Dan Schiavetta]

? I did mention Playboy, but that wasn't "porn".

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Interesting tidbit in Muller v. Oregon:

We have not referred in this discussion to the denial of the elective franchise in the State of Oregon, for while it may disclose a lack of political equality in all things with her brother, that is not of itself decisive. The reason runs deeper, and rests in the inherent difference between the two sexes, and in the different functions in life which they perform.

In Adkins v. Children's Hospital, it was argued a lot changed in 15 years:

In view of the great — not to say revolutionary — changes which have taken place since that utterance, in the contractual, political and civil status of women, culminating in the Nineteenth Amendment, it is not unreasonable to say that these differences have now come almost, if not quite, to the vanishing point.

Women advocates clashed over strategy, some opposing the ERA in the early years because they feared it would block protectionist legislation. After the Supreme Court shifted and generally upheld such legislation, that was less of a concern.

For instance, Eleanor Roosevelt first opposed the Equal Rights Amendment but by the time of her death changed her position.