Today in Supreme Court History: January 31, 2006

1/31/2006: Justice Samuel Alito takes oath.

Justice Samuel Alito

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R.R. Co., 382 U.S. 423 (decided January 31, 1966): Arkansas statute regulating size of train crews survives Dormant Commerce Clause attack (it in effect applied only to intrastate lines)

United States v. Shubert, 348 U.S. 222 (decided January 31, 1955): theatrical productions are “interstate commerce” subject to Sherman Act (defendant produced the shows + booked them + operated the theaters, which even defendant admitted could amount to violation)

West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 47 U.S. 507 (decided January 31, 1848): power of eminent domain supersedes prohibition on impairing contracts (art. I, §10) (state allowed company to build bridge over river and collect tolls for 100 years; 44 years later paid it off with a lump sum and turned it into a free bridge; company didn’t like that)

Railway Express Agency v. People of the State of New York, 336 U.S. 106 (decided January 31, 1949): upholding against Equal Protection attack New York City regulation forbidding vehicles used only for advertising display (in the 1990’s you’d see trucks going around midtown advertising “gentleman’s clubs”; they looked like mobile billboards but they did have a minimum amount of cargo space inside (for the dancers?))

Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (decided January 31, 1949): on the same day, upholding for the same reason (public safety) Trenton, N.J. regulation prohibiting “loud and raucous” sound trucks

Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 126 (decided January 31, 1944): tax deductions must be construed narrowly (here, a deduction on excise taxes on tires for tax already paid on raw materials did not also apply to taxes paid on “partly processed” materials; Black parses the code sections and reviews legislative history) (I didn’t know until I read this case that cotton used to be an ingredient in tires)

[SMP0328]

West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 47 U.S. 507 (decided January 31, 1848): power of eminent domain supersedes prohibition on impairing contracts (art. I, §10) (state allowed company to build bridge over river and collect tolls for 100 years; 44 years later paid it off with a lump sum and turned it into a free bridge; company didn’t like that)

Why did the company object to getting the money faster?

[Dan Schiavetta]

They probably had planned (perhaps for the benefit of their investors, or for accounting/tax purposes) on a steady income stream, from a steady creditor.

[David Nieporent]

Right; same reason there’s a prepayment penalty on (some) mortgages.

[John F. Carr]

Was the lump sum adequate? We just had a case in Massachusetts where the city of Somerville took a lot by eminent domain and paid $8 million. The owner sued over the valuation. The jury ruled that the lot was worth $35 million. The city is going to rezone the lot and sell it to pay the extra $27 million. The original plan was for a public safety complex.

Before modern constitutional law the owner might not have such a good remedy.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Interesting. The original owner, of course, did not have the authority to rezone.

[Dan Schiavetta]

P.S. Cotton in tires:
I do have a vague memory of a cut tire with white cotton-looking stuff peeking out of the crack.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, involved children selling religious publications. It is an often-cited case on the limits of the free exercise of religion and the state’s power to regulate minors. It was decided on that date.

B. F. Goodrich Co. v. United States, 321 U.S. 126 (1944) was also decided on that date & is the tire case.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/321/126/

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[A Japanese Student]

Arranging Sale of Stolen Property Case (Grand Bench, decided January 31, 1951): Confessions may be used as sole evidence proving mens rea; the vote was 8-6

Election Dispute Case (Second Petty Bench, decided January 31, 1994): Ballot which included the name of the endorsing political party’s name in addition to the candidate’s name must be counted (Japan, as far as I am aware, is the only country where you are given a blank ballot; as reference there’s a paper with the names of candidates at the booth)

Google Search Result Deletion Case (Third Petty Bench, decided January 31, 2017): Plaintiff, convicted of child prostitution and sentenced to fine, sought removal of search results related to his arrest; Court denies relief, finding that because Google Search is an expressive activity and an important social infrastructure, removal requires clear and convincing evidence of injury (compare the Twitter case on June 24)

Obstructing Performance of Public Duty Case (Third Petty Bench, decided January 31, 2020): Oral argument need not be held at Supreme Court for vacatur on technical grounds (here, a judge who hasn’t presided over appellate proceeding signed the judgment)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Election Dispute Case: this reminds me of the 2000 Presidential election, where in the critical state of Florida thousands of voters marked their vote for Bush/Gore and wrote the same man’s name in on the write-in line. Such “overvotes” were discarded, which seems stupid.

[John F. Carr]

In close elections it’s best to decide the election based on the rules established ahead of time even if some of those rules ought to be changed for the next election.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It was a stupid rule. AFAIK it hasn’t been changed!

[John F. Carr]

I understand parts of America used to require candidates’ names to be written on the ballot. Now you get the choices the major parties want you to see. In Burdick v. Takushi the Supreme Court ruled that excluding write-in votes was permissible if ballot access was easy.

In Massachusetts unlisted candidates have sometimes distributed stickers to place on a ballot. The sticker would look like “John Doe / 123 Pemigewasset Street.”

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Walter F. Murphy’s The Vicar of Christ is a well-written (though the last section is probably too long) if unlikely account of someone who was a soldier, Chief Justice, and pope.

Murphy was well qualified to write about the law, being a constitutional scholar. It was in the area of comparative constitutional law that Murphy advised Samuel Alito on his thesis in 1972, “An Introduction to the Italian Constitutional Court.”

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2010/04/22/leading-constitutional-scholar-walter-murphy-dies-age-80

Alito wrote an introduction to a later edition of The Vicar of Christ. I suppose Alito in his dreams might wish to follow in the footsteps of Chief Justice Declan Walsh.

[windycityattorney]

I am really not a fan of Alito. I know he professes to have a judicial philosophy that guides his analysis… but it also appears to be results orientated at times. Anybody can pick and choose which historical periods to focus on or which prior precedents to highlight to get to a pre-determined result. Some are better at hiding that practice than others.

[Dan Schiavetta]

One can also cite his confirmation hearing testimony (delivered under oath) as to Roe v. Wade.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I know he professes to have a judicial philosophy that guides his analysis…

Does he? He seems as open as anyone else that he cares about the bottom line, not how to get there.

And seems like a good rebuttal to people who say that originalism or textualism aren’t constraining.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

And seems like a good rebuttal to people who say that originalism or textualism aren’t constraining.

He repeatedly cites both. So, granting he does so in a phony way, it seems quite the opposite. Anyway, the fact someone has a problem doesn’t by itself show a supposed “solution” is actually working.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think you’re missing the point. Alito will sue originality methodology when it leads to the results he likes, and he’ll jettison it and dunk in it when it doesn’t. Because he’s not an originalist and doesn’t pretend to be: he’s a conservative who will get conservative results if he can. Unlike actual originalists, who follow the methodology wherever it leads, even if they don’t like it.

The point is, the alternative to Scalia isn’t another Souter; it’s another Alito. And you should be glad (some) conservatives don’t want that.