Today in Supreme Court History: January 28, 1916

1/28/1916: President Wilson nominates Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court. He would be confirmed on June 1, 1916.

Justice Louis Brandeis

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Gold v. United States, 352 U.S. 985 (decided January 28, 1957): defendant on trial for filing false affidavit stating he was not Communist Party member (such affidavits had to be submitted by union officials under the Taft-Hartley Act); conviction vacated because FBI unintentionally intruded into jury (while investigating another false-affidavit case, called three jurors to see if they had received any “propaganda literature” -- I suppose that’s tampering in itself)

Briggs v. Elliott, 342 U.S. 350 (decided January 28, 1952): desegregation case was not ripe for review when trial court had not yet evaluated updated report ordered from school officials

Hillsborough Township v. Cromwell, 326 U.S. 620 (decided January 28, 1946): Suit brought by the heiress Doris Duke who felt she was being taxed more than others in her class. New Jersey case law held that her remedy was not to seek equalization but to sue other members of her class so that their taxes were brought up to her level. Not surprisingly, the Court holds this scheme to amount to a denial of Equal Protection.

Greer v. United States, 245 U.S. 559 (decided January 28, 1918): where evidence of character is not introduced in criminal trial, judge properly refused to instruct jury that defendant is presumed of good character (charge was whiskey running)

O’Connell v. Kirchner, 513 U.S. 1303 (decided January 28, 1995): Guardian ad litem and adoptive parents seek stay of Illinois Supreme Court’s order to hand “Baby Boy Richard” back to his biological father. Stevens denies, on the grounds that the Court can’t review the Illinois court’s disposition of the procedural defect claimed. Stevens mentions the “erroneous adoption decree” issued in 1992 by the Illinois court which “has had such unfortunate effects on innocent parties”. From the lower court opinions it appears that adoption had been ordered by the trial court on the basis of the father not showing interest in the baby for the first 30 days after birth, but the mother admitted that she had told him the baby had died.

[A Japanese Student]

I suppose a country under threat of nuclear war by "Communists" would see them very differently from Japan, perhaps the most pro-Communist country on the Western bloc. You can literally find Communist Party branch offices and assemblymembers in every city. (I believe France also has a big Communist party.)

Japanese Communist Party received 6% of votes in the last general election, netting 8 seats. For decades it has distanced itself from Communists in the Eastern bloc. That allowed them to focus on domestic issues.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Unfortunately the right wing in the United States (like it is now) is based on fear, ignorance and paranoia. Countries right next to the "Evil Empire" had less fear of Communism than we did, and not so coincidentally developed social democracy in a functionally democratic system of a kind that would be condemned as "pinko socialism" here in the U.S.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Countries right next to the "Evil Empire" had less fear of Communism than we did"

Because US troops and planes were in Europe defending them

[Dan Schiavetta]

For the most part they didn’t want us there.

[Swede425]

Good god.
They squeal like pigs now if you threaten to bring American troops home. Because then they'd have to spend their money on developing and maintaining their own forces and not the fig leaf they have now.

[apedad]

Wrong Swede, there was no squealing (I know . . . I lived / served in Germany / Europe for over two decades).

From the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989 . . . the U.S. Army presence in Europe steadily decreased, from 216,709 soldiers in 1989, to 115,459 in 1992, to 57,393 in 2005 and to
43,324 five years later.

By 2013 (with additional inactivations), the USAREUR military strength dipped to about 30,000 soldiers.

The Germans took advantage of these closed installations and made renovations, built housing, changed military airfields to civilian airports, etc.

[Swede425]

Trump just put out that he wants to withdraw a further 20,000 US troops from Europe. The goal being to reduce our (increasingly) unnecessary footprint there and to force the Europeans to pick up the slack for their own protection. Germany, France, Italy, GB, and Poland have all said that making up that difference (increased military budget and decreased US troops) would be difficult, their economies being what they are. They don't want us gone. It'd be real easy, particularly right now under this American administration, to say "yeah, go ahead and leave". But they aren't.

[Bob from Ohio]

"For the most part they didn’t want us there."

That is not remotely true. If they wanted us out, it would have happened.

[apedad]

Agree Bob.

Now, there plenty of demonstrations and terrorist attacks against US personnel and installations (especially in the 70s, 80s and 90s), but that was more because of anti-US policies (Reagan and Bush 1), and not because the locals "didn’t want us there."

[A Japanese Student]

Opposition to arming Japan has always been popular. The issue was that they didn't have enough seats in the Diet to stop most attempts at expanding its arsenal.

People also went to court, and US government had to pressure the Chief Justice so that he would reverse a district court ruling that found the Security Treaty unconstitutional.

[Swede425]

LOL!
You're a child who fails at understanding how "functionally democratic systems" developed under the umbrella of forward deployed American military might.
So typical.
Fucking theater kids are the worst.

[Frank Drackman]

The Right Wing that carried all 7 "Swing States"???
Sounds like they're the "Main Stream" Wing
Gonna be a long 4 (or 8? 12? 16?) years for you.

[Commenter_XY]

Nothing surprises me about the People's Republic of NJ = Hillsborough Township v. Cromwell

They haven't stopped coming up with schemes to tax you more. 😉

[Krayt]

New Jersey case law held that her remedy was not to seek equalization but to sue other members of her class so that their taxes were brought up to her level.

Yeahhhhhh. Your remedy to stop us kicking you in the nuts is to sue us to kick other people harder in the nuts. "How about lowering my taxes to theirs?" "Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain."

[John F. Carr]

In the recent lawsuit over discriminatory truck tolls in Rhode Island, the remedy ordered by the First Circuit was to increase tolls on truckers who were not a party to the lawsuit. American Trucking Association v. Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority, cases 22-1795 and 22-1796.

[A Japanese Student]

I was looking at briefs in John Q. Hammons, because I was pretty sure that case was brought up. Apparently I was wrong.

DOJ sought either no retrospective remedy (as the unconstitutional provision was only effective for 4 years) or collecting additional fees from bankrupt people (!?). John Q. Hammons sought recovery. Court said prospective remedy (by Congress) was enough.

[A Japanese Student]

Atomic Energy Generation Device Case (Third Petty Bench, decided January 28, 1969): Nuclear reactor was not an "industrial invention" (that can be patented) because the invention did not include safety measures to control fission (in effect, establishing the enablement requirement); some commenters noted that declaring patent invalid was necessary to prevent monopoly on technology long after patents in Allied countries have expired

Abuse of Authority Case (Second Petty Bench, decided January 28, 1982): Conviction for "abuse of authority by public official" does not require that the authority was legally coercive; upheld conviction of judge who demanded without proper cause that the prison warden disclose lists of inmates

Tort Claims Case (Third Petty Bench, decided January 28, 1997): In calculating consequential loss for a foreign worker disabled in a workplace accident, courts must use the expected income in Japan for the planned duration of the stay and the expected income in the country of citizenship after that period

[ducksalad]

That second case - is there more to it? Was the judge up to something actively corrupt?

I can understand the warden declining to do something not required, but is there some important objection to disclosing the list of inmates? Over here the jail posts the list of adult detainees online - we're not supposed to have secret imprisonment. 

[A Japanese Student]

Glad someone asked! This shows the big difference between Japan and US - privacy of suspects, defendants, and convicts.

Convicted people have a legal interest in keeping their criminal histories secret (per April 14, 1981 ruling). "Because [convicted] people are expected to return to society as a fellow citizen once convicted [and sentenced to probation] or released from prison, it should be said that they have an interest in not having their new lives disturbed and their rehabilitation hindered through the release of criminal history-related facts." (Nonfiction "Gyakuten" Case, February 8, 1994). Supreme Court has once ordered Twitter to remove tweets about an arrest for the same reason.

The opinion literally notes that secret imprisonment is the general rule to "preserve the reputation of inmates". (see https://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/196/051196_hanrei.pdf)

[ducksalad]

Interesting, and yes a very different approach.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"First Supreme Court Nominee Appears before the Judiciary Committee" on 1/28/1925.

This was a special situation arising from Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stone's involvement in the prosecution of a sitting senator. The current practice of SCOTUS nominees regularly appearing in front of the committee began in the 1950s.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/nominations/first-supreme-court-nominee-appears-judiciary-committee.htm

===

On 1/28/15, this order dropped:

14-7955 GLOSSIP, RICHARD E., ET AL. V. GROSS, KEVIN J., ET AL.

"Respondents’ application for stays of execution of
sentences of death presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her
referred to the Court is granted and it is hereby ordered that
petitioners’ executions using midazolam are stayed pending final
disposition of this case."

Richard Glossip lost his case 5-4 but continued to challenge his execution. He has a case pending this term.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He has a case pending this term."

This is a complete failure of our system. Its been 9+ years since 2015 and the murder occurred in 1997.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

The case is a sorry example of what happens when outrage overrules "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is a ton of shoddy evidence in this case, far beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Even if that were true (it’s not), it would still be a problem that it took us 25 years to get there!

[A Japanese Student]

Glossip was almost executed, but the cert grant and the order kept him alive until September. Almost executed again, this time receiving stay from OCCA. The third time, it was a simple mistake in ordering chemicals that led to execution being cancelled. State investigation into execution protocols - and COVID - kept him alive for years.

Then, Oklahoman GOP voters chose AG Drummond in a close primary. Meanwhile, a district attorney in Travis County, Texas confessed error in another capital case, leading to GVR. Four months later, Glossip's execution was stayed again. Both parties cited Escobar in their briefs.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I agree that Glossip is a failure of our criminal justice system though perhaps not for the same reason some people think.

Overall, over twenty-five years in prison was a suitable penalty for the crime regardless of guilt. Putting aside that I think the process, including involving the execution drugs, was undue.

He should be released, time served.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Overall, over twenty-five years in prison was a suitable penalty for the crime regardless of guilt.

I don’t know, seems a little steep to me if he wasn’t guilty!