Today in Supreme Court History: February 7, 1870

2/7/1870: Hepburn v. Griswold decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (decided February 7, 1955): Alaskan tribe could not recover from United States value of trees taken from their land because they were “nomadic” and Congress had not recognized their ownership of that land

Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. 603 (decided February 7, 1870): defendant could not pay off promissory note with new paper money created by Congress in Civil War emergency (previously all money was in coin); Due Process violation by Congress in declaring new money good for payment of existing debts (quickly overruled by Legal Tender Cases, 1871)

Ott v. Mississippi Valley Barge Lins Co., 336 U.S. 169 (decided February 7, 1949): not a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause for Louisiana to tax barges by miles in Louisiana waters in proportion to miles of entire lines (some of which extended as far as the Ohio River)

Fisher v. Pace, 336 U.S. 155 (decided February 7, 1949): attorney (in trial on extent of injury for worker’s compensation) wouldn’t shut up after judge kept ruling his argument (as to weekly dollar amounts) irrelevant; Court lets Texas court contempt order stand, pointing out that attorney’s remedy was putting in exceptions for appeal (the opinion contains parts of the trial transcript which sound like Hollywood’s idea of a lawyer, but real life’s idea of a judge)

The L.P. Dayton, 120 U.S. 337 (decided February 7, 1887): If a tugboat collides with another tugged vessel, does the damaged tug sue the other vessel, the other tugboat, or its own vessel? It depends on the facts, and the Court here denies a motion to dismiss the pleadings. We also learn that if two ships heading the same direction are in danger of collision, the ship on the left has the duty to turn aside. (You’d think both would.)

[Drewski]

Kind of interesting (to me, probably alone) that the trial judge in Fischer referred to three days in jail as a "fine."

[Noscitur a sociis]

I assume that was rhetorical, since it started with (apparently ineffective) monetary fines.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Douglas with the Chief Justice and Frankfurter dissented in the first case. No, he did not speak for the trees -- that was a later case.

The majority had some blunt talk:

Every American schoolboy knows that the savage tribes of this continent were deprived of their ancestral ranges by force and that, even when the Indians ceded millions of acres by treaty in return for blankets, food and trinkets, it was not a sale but the conquerors' will that deprived them of their land.

The Legal Tender Cases showed the ability of change of personnel to change results. The first case was 5-3 & the second case was with the addition of two new justices 5-4.

Ironically, Chief Justice Chase voted against the use of paper money after its usage while he was Treasury Secretary. Wikipedia has a photo of treasury note with his photo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_P._Chase#/media/File:US-$1-LT-1862-Fr-16c.jpg

[SMP0328]

The Legal Tender Cases showed the ability of change of personnel to change results. The first case was 5-3 & the second case was with the addition of two new justices 5-4.

A more modern example is regarding victim-impact statements before a jury considering whether to sentence the defendant to death. Booth v. Maryland (1987) and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) had disallowed such statements, but Payne v. Tennessee (1991) overruled those decisions and allowed such statements. In four years, the Court did a complete 180.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Payne v. Tennesse was cited in the recent habeas case, Andrew v. White regarding prejudicial evidence.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Perhaps in the spirit of the founding-era maxim Abundans cautela non nocet, one additional example—this one from outside the Constitution’s text—wouldn’t hurt: From founding-era descriptions of Indian tribes as “nations,” some scholars have concluded that European-Americans recognized tribes as sovereigns, and therefore did not apply state law to them. In fact, this particular use of “nation” was a Latinate usage deriving from natio—meaning an ethnic group Robert Natelson

[Michael P]

Today in history, February 7, 1870 happened twice.

[Syd Henderson]

We'll have to have the Legal Tender Cases twice to make sure Hepburn is safely overturned.

[Mr. Bumble]

Second day that there has been a double post. Josh must be working too hard.

[A Japanese Student]

One of today's case was decided 15 hours ago.

Special Kokoku-Appeal (First Petty Bench, decided February 7, 1952): Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (facts too complex); as dicta, notes that courts cannot revoke suspension of prison sentence by reason of prior conviction if the court knew before sentencing that the defendant had a prior conviction (yet suspended sentence anyway, in violation of Penal Code)

Massage Practitioner School Licensing Case (Second Petty Bench, decided February 7, 2022): Right to choose occupation not violated by refusal of license for massage practitioner school; law allows refusal as part of affirmative action (as massage is one of the vocational education programs offered to blind people)

Nagano Hit-and-Run Case (Second Petty Bench, decided February 7, 2025): Driver must provide aid to victims immediately after car accident; defendant guilty as he spent minutes buying mouthwash (to hide DUI) before providing aid (Accident occurred in 2015, but he was prosecuted for "negligent driving causing death" (and not DUI) due to low breath alcohol level, resulting in suspended sentence of 3 years (without supervision). Victim's families asked the prosecutor to prosecute the defendant again for uncharged offenses. In 2019 the speeding charge was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative proceeding (speeding tickets); 2 months before the statute of limitations ran, the prosecutor charged the defendant with hit-and-run. District court found him guilty and sentenced him to 6 months; high court reversed and acquitted finding that the defendant still provided aid after a couple of minute spent buying mouthwash; the prosecutors appealed) (In case you're curious: destroying evidence of your own crime is not criminalized in Japan; although evidence-destroying relatives can be charged, the judge can relieve them from punishment)