Today in Supreme Court History: February 25, 1841

2/25/1841: Justice Phillip Barbour dies.

Justice Phillip Barbour

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Slide this in there, huh?

The Supreme Court handed down two opinions today, most importantly finding for Richard Glossip. The other case did interest Justice Jackson, whose dissent (along with Sotomayor) was longer than the majority opinion. As was Thomas' in Glossip.

Barbour was a staunch state rightist & Jackson supporter. His most notable opinion was New York v. Miln, which upheld a state law regulating incoming immigrants. The broad reach of the opinion over a state's ability to discourage or even block "undesirables" had clear slavery/race implications.

Edwards v. California, which struck down an "anti-Okie" law held that it went too far regarding limiting travel:

Whatever may have been the notion then prevailing, we do not think that it will now be seriously contended that, because a person is without employment and without funds, he constitutes a "moral pestilence." Poverty and immorality are not synonymous. .

Likewise, the idea that the Commerce Clause regulated goods, not persons, would lose force. Miln argued:

Persons are not the subjects of commerce, and not being imported goods, they do not fall within the reasoning founded upon the construction of a power given to Congress to regulate commerce and the prohibition of the states from imposing a duty on imported goods.

A curious thing to say in the antebellum U.S. Anyway, it is a false dichotomy since persons are involved in the commerce of goods.

[Dan Schiavetta]

North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, 574 U.S. 494 (decided February 25, 2015): upholding FTC ruling that North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners committed antitrust violation by prohibiting non-dentists from providing teeth whitening services (State action is immune from antitrust liability, Parker v. Brown, 1943, but Board was not a governmental entity nor was under State supervision)

Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528 (decided February 25, 2015): Yates, caught with undersized fish in violation of conservation laws, threw them overboard despite being told by wildlife official to preserve them. Court holds that this did not violate 18 U.S.C. §1519, which criminalizes “altering, destroying, mutilating, concealing, covering up, falsifying, or making a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object” with the intent to impede a federal investigation. (So if in addition to ditching the fish Yates had written down that he had preserved them, he would have been convicted. Lesson: it’s fine to actually destroy evidence, and even admit it, as long as they can’t tell such from the records.) 5 - 4 decision. Kagan, in dissent, points out that a fish is a tangible object, and cites Dr. Seuss’s “One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish”. (Yates was also convicted under 18 U.S.C. §2232(a), “Destruction or Removal of Property to Prevent Seizure”; he didn't appeal that conviction.)

Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322 (decided February 25, 1957): expanding federal bank robbery statute by including “entry of bank with intent to rob it” did not increase maximum punishment (20 years for robbery became 20 years for entry + robbery)

Hernandez v. Mesa, 589 U.S. 93 (decided February 25, 2020): parents of unarmed 15-year-old Mexican child shot and killed while crossing border into Mexico (agent claimed he wasn’t playing jump-over game with friends but trying to cross the border illegally but WTF??) cannot sue; one can sue federal agents for violation of Constitutional rights such as Due Process and unreasonable seizure (Bivens, see June 21) but not for cross-border incidents which are a political question between countries

Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292 (decided February 25, 2014): post-arrest consent to search apartment can be given by robbery suspect’s live-in girlfriend (she was apparent victim of domestic assault by suspect and police reasonably wanted to question her outside his intimidating presence)

[A Japanese Student]

Request for Recusal of Justice (First Petty Bench, decided February 25, 1991): Justices who participated in the amendment process need not recuse themselves in cases challenging provisions of Supreme Court Rules

Osaki Case (Third Petty Bench, decided February 25, 2025): This is the fourth postconviction relief petition filed in Osaki Case, a murder case where the defendants (one of them released in 1990 after serving 10 years for murder) maintain that the death was accidental; Court affirms denial; one of the "evidence" claimed to prove innocence was a text-data mining result of testimonies, but the Court did not find this useful (yes, you can petition for postconviction relief even after release or defendant's death)