Today in Supreme Court History: February 3, 1812

2/3/1812: Justice Joseph Story takes oath.

Justice Joseph Story

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Germany v. Philipp, 592 U.S. 518 (decided February 3, 2021): Foreign Sovereignty Immunities Act barred suit in U.S. courts by Holocaust survivors to recover value of property they were forced to sell at below market value to agents of Goering; exception for “property taken in violation of international law” applied to property taken by one country from another, not from individuals

Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 429 U.S. 1347 (decided February 3, 1977): OSHA needs a warrant to inspect a workplace (this was a random search of an electrical/plumbing business and the owner did not consent)

United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86 (decided February 3, 1941): “Hot Oil” Act, which criminalized falsifying records so as to transfer amounts of petroleum in excess of regulations, applied to transfers between private parties, not just to and from Government

Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124 (decided February 3, 1936): Federal Kidnapping Act applied to abductions to prevent arrest (defendants overwhelmed police officers in Texas and dumped them in Oklahoma); monetary incentive not required

United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175 (decided February 3, 1936): state-owned railroad was indirectly involved in interstate commerce and therefore subject to federal regulations and fines

[David Nieporent]

Germany v. Philipp, 592 U.S. 518 (decided February 3, 2021): Foreign Sovereignty Immunities Act barred suit in U.S. courts by Holocaust survivors to recover value of property they were forced to sell at below market value to agents of Goering; exception for “property taken in violation of international law” applied to property taken by one country from another, not from individuals

No, that's not right. The exception does apply to property taken from individuals. The issue in that case was that it was property taken from German individuals. (I mean, Jews, obviously, but they were German citizens.) And Germany confiscating property from Germans does not implicate international law. Germany taking property from citizens of other countries does, and the exception applies.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. Will make the correction. (This is the third annual go-round and nobody caught this until now.)

Checking this out, I also got the citation wrong; it's p. 169, not 518.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

What about Natural Law. "because
the domestic law of virtually every nation embraces the right to property, it should be recognized as a general principle of law which has universal application. Finally, because almost all nations recognize the right to property under domestic law and have expressed their belief that the right also exists under international law, it should be viewed as customary law which all nations must follow."

[John F. Carr]

Connally Hot Oil Act of 1935. Wikipedia describes it as price support for the oil industry.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The regulations could, of course, have that effect, I suppose intentionally.

[A Japanese Student]

Warrant requirement for inspections is one of many fields Japanese constitutional law evolved differently from the US. The general rule here is that warrantless inspections are allowed so long as it is not for criminal investigation. For example, Article 91 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act authorizes searches and inspections of workplaces, but "the right to conduct on-site inspections ... must not be interpreted as authorization for the purpose of a criminal investigation".

Once they enter the premises, however, they are free to arrest people or use collected evidence at trial. The provision, as I understand, exists to prohibit pretextual inspections that are conducted solely to investigate crimes.

[Dan Schiavetta]

In my father's butcher shop the Board of Health inspector came by regularly. It was even required that he be provided with a desk (it was downstairs, never used). It was a friendly relationship; as with other professions, there was a revolving door between being an inspector and being a business operator. When he came by he and my dad would chat about this and that. However, regulations (which were not onerous) were always adhered to.

[F.D. Wolf]

After Justice William Cushing died in September 1810, President James Madison nominated former Attorney General and Massachusetts governor Levi Lincoln, Sr., to succeed him. Lincoln was confirmed by the Senate but was forced to decline the position due to his failing eyesight which would soon result in complete blindness. Madison would next nominate Alexander Wolcott, who was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 9-24. Madison's next nominee was his Ambassador to Russia, John Quincy Adams, who, like Lincoln, was confirmed by the Senate but declined the position, preferring to continue his career in politics and diplomacy. Finally, Madison's fourth nominee, Joseph Story, was appointed to fill the vacancy which had, by then, persisted for 17 months.

When Madison's successor, James Monroe, was looking for a Secretary of State, Story, perhaps partly to return the "favor", suggested Adams, who was still serving as the ambassador to Russia. In those days, the position of Secretary of State was viewed as a stepping-stone to the Presidency, and, indeed, the last three presidents - Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe - had all previously served as Secretary of State. Henry Clay (who coveted the position himself) and others expressed their reservations to Monroe. Adams, a former Federalist, was not, they suspected, fully committed to the Democratic-Republican party and its platform. Again, it would be Story who would assure Monroe that Adams was a committed Republican. Monroe would appoint Adams his Secretary of State, and, continuing the trend, Adams would succeed him as President.

So, it would seem, if not for John Quincy Adams, Joseph Story would probably never have been a Supreme Court Justice, and, if not for Joseph Story, John Quincy Adams would probably never have been President.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Adams may have been more effective as a Justice than as President, when almost everything he tried to do was blocked by Jackson supporters. But we also wouldn't have had his impressive post-presidency career in the House of Representatives.

[jdgalt1]

The blind judge made me think of Alice's Restaurant.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

James Madison in his old age was talking about his presidential days and the Supreme Court came up. An admirer complimented him on selecting Joseph Story. He said that these days too many people were chosen for partisan reasons. Madison, the young admirer noted, was different. He chose the most qualified.

James Madison replied, somewhat ironically, "Ah... yes, that is quite a story."

Joseph Story was portrayed by retired Justice Harry Blackmun, a much older man, in the film Amistad. Rep. John Quincy Adams argued in front of Justice Story in that case. In the film, he was portrayed by Anthony Hopkins.

[A Japanese Student]

Magic Phone Case (First Petty Bench, decided February 3, 1986): Criminal case for evading phone toll becomes a technical dispute about whether an ACK signal (sent by callee) is a "code" (whose disruption is a crime) or a "signal" (not crime). Majority affirms without providing reasons; one justice, concurring in the judgment, says that "code" allows a person to interpret its meaning, unlike "signal"; the ACK signal is a "signal" but the defendant also disrupted separate "code" (pulses of distance-dependent frequency sent by caller to increment meter)

Minami-Aoyama Robbery-Murder Case (Second Petty Bench, decided February 3, 2015): Affirms lower court's reversal of death sentence in favor of life imprisonment (the first case to do so after lay judge system was introduced); although the defendant did serve 20 years for murdering 2 people before, death is not warranted given lack of premeditation (and perhaps a very strict standard for the Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction over sentencing errors)

Matsuo Arson-Murder Case (Second Petty Bench, decided February 3, 2015): Another decision affirming reversal of death sentence; the defendant (convicted sex offender) entered an apartment unit rented by a female student, robbed her, stabbed her to death, withdrew money from her account, and set the room on fire; he was also charged with numerous separate offenses - the decision mentions three counts of burglary, multiple robberies, one count of robbery-rape, false imprisonment, and one count of attempted robbery-rape; Court finds that noncapital offenses should not be a deciding factor in sentencing defendant to death, and given lack of premeditation life imprisonment was proper

[Noscitur a sociis]

although the defendant did serve 20 years for murdering 2 people before

noncapital offenses should not be a deciding factor in sentencing defendant to death

Is this that “evolving standard of decency” Americans should be looking to?

[A Japanese Student]

In both of these cases, the capital charge is that the defendant killed one person. (It's very rare in Japan for someone to get hanged for killing only one person.) Supreme Court could have upheld a death sentence if that was the one imposed by lower court. Both of the defendants luckily drew a judge (facing mandatory retirement) in the Tokyo High Court, who overturned the death sentence imposed by lay judge panel (i.e. the jury).

Supreme Court, unlike the High Court, normally lacks jurisdiction for most legal or factual errors. The only jurisdictions it must exercise are constitutional cases and clear violation of precedents. The Court, however, can exercise its discretion to nevertheless hear a case "when it deems that not doing so would clearly be contrary to justice". One of the reversible errors is "seriously unfair" punishment. Given the strict requirements, affirming the lower court was the expected outcome, regardless of the way the lower court ruled.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I have no reason to doubt that the court applied Japanese law corr3ctly (though I’ll note that your summary of the holdings makes them sound a little different from what you say above). But if so, this is some real “law is a ass” stuff.