Today in Supreme Court History: January 29, 1923

1/29/1923: Justice Edward Sanford takes oath.

Justice Edward Sanford

 

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Wake-up call for Capt. Dan!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (decided January 29, 1968): I didn’t know until I read this case that something can be against the law and still be taxed. “Wagering” (handling bets) is (or was) an example. Not only did (do?) “wagerers” have to pay taxes, they were required to register and publicly post their licenses. Defendant here refused to do any of this, citing the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court agrees, noting that the information gathered by the statutory scheme is used by prosecutors, and holding that asserting the privilege is a complete defense. (In other words, I admit that I broke the law and therefore you can’t prosecute me.) The Court notes “different” circumstances where “a taxpayer is not confronted by substantial hazards of self-incrimination”, but I can’t imagine how that would ever be true if the taxed activity is illegal.

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (decided January 29, 1968): Decided the same day as Marchetti, with a similar situation. Small firearms, i.e., capable of being concealed, were presumed to be used “principally by persons engaged in unlawful activities” (true), and therefore were subject to special taxation and registration requirements. Also included were small firearms actually constructed by the owner. Ownership of an unregistered firearm is a criminal offense. (The statutes, 26 U.S.C. §§5841 and 5845, are still in force.) The Court here holds that one cannot register a small firearm without incriminating oneself, because the registration requirements include providing personal information and whether he has ever been convicted of a crime; therefore it reverses a conviction for ownership of an unregistered firearm as defined.

United States ex rel. Lowe v. Fisher, 223 U.S. 95 (decided January 29, 1912): Descendants of former slave of Cherokees had no claim because he did not return to reservation (and get his allotted land) within six-month deadline set by Court of Claims. The opinion has an interesting historical discussion of tribes’ reluctance to give up their slaves; whether freed black people should have the same rights as tribesmen; and how Congress dealt with the issue over the years.

Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 (decided January 29, 1968): Chicago “censor” process violated First Amendment because 1) gave the censor too much time to decide whether a film could be shown and 2) did not provide for prompt judicial review (the films, “Rent-a-Girl” and “Body of a Female”, can be found online; they’re what “Carnival of Souls” would look like if filmed by a sex-obsessed 14-year-old boy)

Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102 (decided January 29, 1968): Owner of car whose insurer was being sued in connection with accident didn’t have “absolute, substantive right” to be joined as defendant because joining him was “infeasible” due to destroying diversity and therefore he was not an “indispensable party” under FRCP 19. What?? (My Civ Pro professor complimented Harlan’s analysis, but my Complex Litigation prof called this case “incomprehensible”, which made me feel better, because this logic seems circular to me, even 35 years later.)

[A Japanese Student]

Maybe for things like income or general sales tax, where you don’t need to disclose how you gained the income or profit, only the taxed amount. Alternatively, they could allow tax payment by purchasing stamps.

[John F. Carr]

Many states tried the stamp method for taxing illegal drugs. The experiments did not go well.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Haynes was one of several cases where the rights of gun owners were protected by applying constitutional protections.

The Second Amendment as currently understood is not the only way that is done. Rights are protected in various ways.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It depends on the requirement of registration and the self-incrimination argument can be used only if the behavior is admittedly illegal. In the Timothy Leary case the argument successfully protected the “right” to bring marijuana into the country.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The Court notes “different” circumstances where “a taxpayer is not confronted by substantial hazards of self-incrimination”, but I can’t imagine how that would ever be true if the taxed activity is illegal

See Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) for a discussion, including an analysis of the holding of this case.

Illegally-derived income remains taxable to this day, although obviously I would imagine that very little of it actually makes it to tax returns.

[Malika the Maiz]

Sanford’s adopted brother Frederick eschewed study of the law opting to work instead in the field of salvage.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The word “salvage” pops up frequently in Supreme Court opinions. I wouldn’t call that much of a rebellion.

[Malika the Maiz]

Seems like many SCOTUS salvage cases were older ones. Is that correct? And if so is that a function of the law in that area being more settled in recent times?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I didn’t mean it in the literal sense.

Often the Court is trying to “salvage” a statute from being unconstitutional. “The construction which salvages Constitutionality is to be favored.” Or, having held part of a statute unconstitutional, tries to salvage the rest of it.

[Malika the Maiz]

Ok, I thought you meant salvage law as in the subset of maritime law or things like this:

https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-maryland/article-transportation/title-11-vehicle-laws-definitions-general-provisions/subtitle-1-definitions/section-11-152-salvage#:~:text=Section%2011%2D152%20%2D%20Salvage%20(,to%20sustaining%20the%20damage%2C%20as

[A Japanese Student]

Indecency through Compulsion Case (First Petty Bench, decided January 29, 1970): 3-2 decision; vacates conviction on the ground that “indecency through compulsion” (i.e. abusive sexual conduct) requires intent to arouse the defendant’s sexual desire; overruled in 2017 and statute was amended to cover more conduct in 2023

Wako University Case (Third Petty Bench, decided January 29, 1996): Warrantless arrest made 100 minutes after offense was lawful because suspect was “found to have committed offense a short time beforehand” (violence at Wako University; one defendant, wearing armored gloves, was found without umbrellas while raining, while another defendant was captured with bruises in his face)

Tort Claims Case (Third Petty Bench, decided January 29, 2002): One of the five defamation cases by Miura Kazuyoshi, famously acquitted of murder in Los Angeles, decided that day; Court rules that newspapers can be held liable for not checking the veracity of crime-related stories provided by news agency, because Court found those stories not reliable enough

[Dan Schiavetta]

Indecency through Compulsion Case: reminds me of the subway scene in “Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects” (1985), where the girl has an unwanted orgasm. Did (does) that kind of thing really happen? The implication in the film was that it does.

[A Japanese Student]

Trains and subways are still one of the most common places for groping. They are packed like sardines (especially in Tokyo) and security cameras are ineffective. Many train operators introduced sex-segregated trains (though, as you expect, some men do grope people regardless of gender).

They are also one of the most common places where people get arrested for groping. People have been erroneously convicted based on unreliable testimony of alleged victims alone – in one case the Supreme Court had to step in to issue an acquittal.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If they’re packed like sardines, how does a girl get groped without the person next to her detecting it? Or is there a kind of Kitty Genovese mentality going on (where people stay mum even though they’re right next to a crime being committed)?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

There was a recent book about how kitty genovese’s neighbors tried to help but the cops ignored the calls.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I grew up in the NYC area in the 60’s and 70’s and the case was mentioned a lot.

IIRC the story about 37 people hearing her scream was debunked but psychological experiments have proven the existence of “bystander syndrome”.

I remember seeing a photo (taken from across the street) of a sanitation man going about his work while not 20 feet away a mugging was happening.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think the book was by Kevin Cook, Kitty Genovese: The Murder, the Bystanders, the Crime that Changed America.

At least one neighbor called 911 but was ignored. Another neighbor came to comfort Genovese in her final minutes of life.

The “nobody did anything” story was fake news spread by the New York Times. The NYPD inspired the story to distract from other news unfavorable to the cops. The *Times* carried water for the NYPD by uncritically parroting a story of indifferent citizens.

[Dan Schiavetta]

However it is certainly true that urban dwellers often don’t want to get involved. I’ve seen that mentality myself and I have been guilty of it myself.

[A Japanese Student]

Bystanders simply don’t notice, and not every victim has the courage to speak out when sexually abused.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The groper must be very discreet if the people pressing bodies against both him and the victim don’t notice. In the movie the girl has an orgasm — I hope we can avoid any jokes here but seriously how can that be hidden?

[F.D. Wolf]

Sanford was a brilliant man, a polymath seemingly beloved of all who knew him, but he was always viewed as something of an underling to his friend and mentor William Howard Taft, whom he first met when they were both serving in the Theodore Roosevelt Administration, Taft as Secretary of War and Sanford as Assistant Attorney General. Roosevelt would appoint Sanford to a district judgeship in 1908.

It was Chief Justice Taft who, in 1923, would successfully lobby President Harding to elevate Sanford to the Supreme Court. On February 3, 1930, Taft stepped down from the Court. Finally, Sanford was out from under his shadow and would get his chance to shine. But it was not to be.

On Saturday, March 8, 1930, the members of the Supreme Court were gathering at noon to celebrate the 89th birthday of Justice Holmes. Sanford planned to attend, but stopped by the dentist first to have a tooth extracted. After the procedure, he rose from his chair, complained of dizziness, and immediately collapsed. A cart rushed him home, as Sanford muttered, “Twelve o’clock, twelve o’clock…” apparently having in mind the scheduled noon meeting with his colleagues. Edward Terry Sanford would die at home at 12:20 PM, but the media and public would take little notice, because Death had one last cruel trick to play on Sanford, by also claiming, a few hours later that same day, former President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft.

[Dan Schiavetta]

very unfair

[SMP0328]

After the procedure, he rose from his chair, complained of dizziness, and immediately collapsed. A cart rushed him home, as Sanford muttered, “Twelve o’clock, twelve o’clock…” apparently having in mind the scheduled noon meeting with his colleagues.

Why not take him to a doctor or hospital? Someone who feels dizzy and collapses needs medical attention, not simply to brought home.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Edward Sanford, as Assistant Attorney General, was the lead prosecutor in United States v. Shipp. Attorney General William Moody would become a justice as the case was pending.

Edward Johnson, a black man (or in the language of the day “a colored man”), was convicted of raping a white woman and sentenced to death (were any blacks sentenced to death for raping black women in Jim Crow Tennessee?). There was serious doubt if he was rightly identified. The conviction was overruled in 2000 by a state judge.

That was February 1906. In March, he presented a petition for habeas corpus in federal circuit court, in part citing the exclusion of blacks on the jury and the lack of an impartial trial, citing the threat of mob violence. Appeal denied. In mid-March, an appeal was made to the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed and all proceedings were ordered to be stayed pending appeal.

The sheriff (Shipp) was notified and there was full media coverage. The sheriff was warned that there was a plot to lynch the prisoner. Nonetheless, he removed the guard and took part in the successful plan to seize Edward Johnson and lynch him.

This led to a federal prosecution of various people involved including Sheriff Shipp. Some, including Shipp, were found guilty. Shipp ultimately received ninety days in prison.

https://famous-trials.com/sheriffshipp/1118-home

The case was the only time there was a criminal trial for contempt at the Supreme Court. The contempt being openly ignoring the holding of the Court to keep him in custody pending appeal.

Soon after the case, Justice John Harlan recommended Sanford for an open federal district court judgeship. Sanford would eventually serve with the author of U.S. v. Shipp, Justice Holmes.

Justice Sanford wrote Gitlow v. N.Y. which assumed that the freedom of speech and press protections of the First Amendment were “incorporated” into the Fourteenth Amendment. This was an important precedent on the road to the application of most of the Bill of Rights to the states.

[Dan Schiavetta]

(or in the language of the day “a colored man”)

In the time and place I grew up, there were only two choices, and “colored” was the more benign one.

[not guilty]

I have long been puzzled that “person of color” is acceptable, while “colored person” is anachronism.

Does anyone refer to dungarees as jeans of blue?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I can’t find it now, but there was a “Bloom County” cartoon, circa 1988, where Steve Dallas (in his brief “politically correct” phase) argues with his mother about this. She says, “Colored girl.” “No, Mom!” “Girl of color.” “That’s better!”

Yes, we liberals can see both sides and laugh.

[jdgalt1]

There’s a question I’ve often wanted to ask — under what circumstances is a trial required before punishment for contempt of court? I have the impression that it is much more common for the judge to simply order the punishment.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Another bit of SCOTUS related history:

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/01/this-day-in-labor-history-january-29-2009