Today in Supreme Court History: February 4, 1824

2/4/1824: Gibbons v. Ogden argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.R. Co., 342 U.S. 359 (decided February 4, 1952): release of personal injury defendant sued under Federal Employers’ Liability Act is determined by federal, not state, law and issue of whether release was obtained by fraud is to be tried by a jury

Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co., 327 U.S. 173 (decided February 4, 1946): can sue for inadequate overtime under Fair Labor Standards Act even though union contract allowed it (superseded by statute, see 186 Wash. 2d 357)

Canizio v. New York, 327 U.S. 82 (decided February 4, 1946): 19-year-old denied right to counsel after arrest could not show prejudice because represented by counsel at pleading stage and at trial (presumably overruled by later Court decisions)

Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114 (decided February 4, 1946): defendants prosecuted for refusing induction into armed services; Congress can provide that findings of local draft boards are final and cannot be judicially reviewed but court can review argument that board acted outside its scope of authority

Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (decided February 4, 1935): Congress can punish for contempt even though subpoenaed records had been destroyed, making subpoena moot (witness was suspected of corruption in awarding air mail contracts and Congress had him imprisoned for ten days)

[SRG2]

Re: Canizio - it struck me just now that when a HS teaches civics, part of the class should include a "know your rights" piece for police encounters.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes.

I still have somewhere one of those little “what to do if you’re arrested” cards passed out during anti (Vietnam) war demonstrations.

[David Nieporent]

I still have somewhere one of those little “what to do if you’re arrested” cards passed out during anti (Vietnam) war demonstrations.

It would be out of date by now. For example, the Court ruled in 2013 that you must not remain silent in order to invoke your right to remain silent.

But I do instruct my kids on their rights and the best way to handle a police encounter:
1. Remain calm.
2. Do identify yourself if asked.
3. Do not consent to anything.
4. Do not try to explain or talk your way out of anything.
5. Politely refuse to answer any questions beyond your identity, and expressly say that you want to speak to a lawyer before responding.
6. Ask if you are free to go, and if they say yes, then go.
7. Record the encounter if you can.
8. Never ever offer physical resistance — including passive resistance.

That covers about 95% of it.

[Commenter_XY]

This is a great primer....have it tattooed on their forehead forearm. 🙂

[apedad]

Agree and yet the current set of Republicans are complaining that people are being taught their rights.

[F.D. Wolf]

Jurney v. MacCracken occurred in the aftermath of the Air Mail Scandal (aka the Air Mail Fiasco) of 1934. The Air Mail Act was passed in 1930 during the Hoover administration. Postmaster General Henry Folger Brown convened a meeting, chaired by Assistant Commerce Secretary of Aeronautics William P. MacCracken, of the major private air carriers who essentially divvied up the routes and contracts among themselves. This cane to be known as the "Spoils Conference". When President Roosevelt got wind of this in 1934, he cancelled all the contracts and announced that Army Air Corps would be handling the air mail business. The Air Corps, however, was woefully unprepared for this task, especially at night. Coupled with severe winter storms, this resulted in 64 serious accidents, 10 of them resulting in the deaths of 13 airmen, causing much criticism of the Roosevelt administration. New temporary contracts with private carriers were rushed into place, and new Postmaster General James Farley essentially reconvened the Spoils Conference with the private air carriers again divvying up routes and contracts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Mail_scandal

The trial before the Senate was a colorful and partly comic offshoot of the Black committee’s inquiry.

Late last month, the committee ordered Mr. MacCracken to come before it with his papers and documents relating to air mail. He appeared, but without his papers, offering a legal argument against producing them. Later he admitted he had allowed Messrs. Brittin and Givvin to remove some of them from his law office, after the committee had asked to see them.

Outraged, the Senate ordered his arrest, and Sergeant-at-arms Jurney, resplendent in cutaway and striped trousers, amiably apprehended him. The Senate thereupon released him but ordered him to appear before it with Messrs. Brittin, Givvin, and Hanshue. The three others were there on the dot, but Mr. MacCracken simply sent a letter. It denied the Senate’s constitutional power to compel attendance. The Senate then ordered his second arrest, and Mr. Jurney, still sartorially perfect, set out to look for him, only to return a little later saying he could not find him.

Saturday evening Mr. MacCracken popped up at Mr. Jurney’s apartment and asked to be arrested. He hoped to win freedom immediately through a habeas corpus writ secured by his counsel, Frank J. Hogan, who was anxious to get the case out of the Senate and into the courts. Mr. Jurney, however, evaded the writ’s snares by refusing to arrest Mr. MacCracken, and though the would-be prisoner spent the night on his living-room couch, the sergeant-at-arms evaded him next day.

Monday, the court which had issued the writ fined Mr. MacCracken $100 for obtaining it when he was not under arrest at all. Mr. Jurney thereupon did arrest him, and Mr. MacCracken appeared at the Senate a little after noon.

Another habeas corpus writ returned him to the court a few hours later, but the court remanded him to the Senate and he spent Monday night in a room of the Willard Hotel, with Mr. Jurney occupying a room next door.

“What a day!” said Mr. Jurney “I got so mixed up I didn’t know what jurisdiction I was in half the time.”

“I have had better days, too,” said Mr. MacCracken.

AIR MAIL: A Senate Defied, a Growing Industry Bespattered, Army Flyers Prepare, and Broad Farce Is Mixed with Melodrama, Newsweek 8-9 (Feb. 17, 1934)

MacCracken's ten-day sentence for contempt was the only punishment levied against any government official in the Air Mail Fiasco.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks!

[SRG2]

That would make an entertaining film!

[A Japanese Student]

Extraordinary Appeal Case (Third Petty Bench, decided February 4, 1964): Prosecutor General can appeal a conviction that is already final if there is a legal error, known as "extraordinary appeal". The error here was very simple - the defendant was prosecuted for driving without a license 2 weeks after he was fined for the same offense. (Even under the Japanese definition of "double jeopardy", this is obviously unconstitutional.)

Tort Claims Case (Third Petty Bench, decided February 4, 1964): Employer vicariously liable for traffic accident caused by company-owned car, even if driven by employee without authorization for private use (going home after missing a train); Court notes that appearance of scope of employment is sufficient

Extortion Case (Second Petty Bench, decided February 4, 1970): Appeal dismissed because the attorney arguing violation of precedents did not provide a case citation

Chiba, Kochi Robbery-Murder Case (Second Petty Bench, decided February 4, 2000): Affirms death sentence of defendant (executed 5 years later) for robbery, rape, and murder while on parole for rape (not only that, this defendant also murdered a girl before being caught for that rape. Although a defendant committing multiple offenses usually receives one sentence, up to 150% of the statutory maximum of the harshest offense, the defendant is sentenced consecutively when a conviction intervenes. Here, the defendant's sentence was life for the first murder, and death for the second murder)

[John F. Carr]

Typical American law makes the owner of a car at least presumptively responsible for any driver's acts. New York extended this to leased cars as well. Banks that owned the leased cars bought a federal law prohibiting holding them liable.

The details of the case remind me of a recent decision of my state's courts. An off-duty employee injured in the parking lot by a company-owned car had to file for worker's compensation instead of suing the employer. Meehan v. Lazer Spot, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 690 (2024).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Gibbons v. Ogden used a steamboat dispute to provide a broad understanding of the Commerce Clause.

It rejected a strict construction for a "narrow construction, which would cripple the government, and render it unequal to the objects for which it is declared to be instituted."

The Commerce Clause addresses "the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse."

If a regulation covers this, including if it affects objects internal to a state, it is covered by the clause.

The "wisdom and the discretion of Congress" is the safeguard unless there is another constitutional limit in place. For instance, the First Amendment would bar commercial regulations that wrongly interfere with religious liberty.

The understanding of the reach of the constitutional terms, as suggested by McCulloch v. Maryland, has significantly developed in ways many Framers would only dimly understand.

Nonetheless, even in 1824, there was an understanding that the commerce power went far. Now, there were deep disputes. The Democrats of the day had a much narrower view than the Federalists and (later) the Whigs. There was at the time a general understanding that slavery was a local matter.

OTOH, the text and spirit of the Constitution did not compel the lengths that sentiment was taken. There would be more and more pushback on the question in the upcoming decades.

==

Helpfully, we have a video of the Marshall Court's deliberations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGTkRP4v8tM

[Dan Schiavetta]

Unaware of this series until now. Thanks!