Today in Supreme Court History: February 27, 1901

2/27/1901: Champion v. Ames argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (decided February 27, 1990): mentally ill prisoner could be treated with psychotropic drugs against his will; finding that he was danger to himself and others by panel of correctional officials and medical professionals comported with due process

Madison v. Alabama, 586 U.S. 265 (decided February 27, 2019): Eighth Amendment prohibits executing prisoner who no longer knows why he is being executed; here, Court remands for finding as to whether post-conviction mental condition (caused by series of strokes) consisted of specific delusions or just overall dementia (hearing was never conducted due to Madison’s ill health; he died on Death Row a year later, age 69)

Patchak v. Zinke, 583 U.S. 244 (decided February 27, 2018): Congress did not violate separation of powers by stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear claims as to specific land given by Interior Department to Michigan tribe for casino use (the fact that Native Americans survive by fostering gambling always depresses me, even if they think they’re putting one over on the White Man)

Raygor v. Regents of University of Minnesota, 534 U.S. 533 (decided February 27, 2002): pendency of federal suit (dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds) does not toll statute of limitations for state suit (this was an age discrimination suit against a state university)

Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (decided February 27, 2001): dismissal of diversity suit in California based on California statute of limitations did not bar subsequent suit brought in Maryland state court subject to Maryland’s longer statute (suit was for “inducement of breach of contract and various business torts”)

[John F. Carr]

In Semtek the Supreme Court ruled that California law dictated the preclusive effect of a prior federal court judgment based on California's statute of limitations. It did not rule one way or the other on the substance of California law. It only said that the lower court's interpretation of federal common law was wrong. I think the Court of Special Appeals misunderstood the ruling. The case went to trial and defendant Lockheed won. https://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=24C97183023&loc=69&detailLoc=ODYCIVIL

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thank you! (Post-Erie, it's still strange to know that "federal common law" still exists.)

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Natrual Law even more so.
“Something new is happening in American constitutional theory,” he said. “Never before have so many legal scholars sought to ground constitutional theory in the natural law tradition.”

[SRG2]

Unsurprisingly, Thomalito (joined by Gorsuch) dissent in Madison.

[Dan Schiavetta]

They probably assumed that, as Madison is strapped in, he'll suddenly remember why he's being fried.

[Krayt]

It didn't even get that far. From Wikipedia:

In a 5-3 opinion, authored by Justice Kagan, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment may permit executing a prisoner even if he or she cannot remember committing his or her crime, but it may prohibit executing a prisoner who suffers from dementia or another disorder, rather than psychotic delusions. The Court held that if a prisoner is unable to rationally understand the reasons for his sentence, the Eighth Amendment forbids his execution.

Justice Alito in dissent, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch, would not have reached this question, stating that Madison presented only the first question (whether a state can execute a prisoner who cannot remember committing his crime) in his petition

There's a lot of gabbery that flows through opinions about soandso didn't bring up the magic words in their petition, sucks to be you, but death penalty cases should not be part of that. I seem to remember a case from a few decades back ruling that actual innocence was not sufficient as long as all the procedures for conviction had been followed. While that might have been technically correct, come on.

[A Woman of No Importance]

There was a woman in New York back in the 1930s who fell into a coma the day before her scheduled execution and did not come out of it. They wheeled her into the death chamber in a wheelchair, lifted her out of it and into the electric chair, and executed her. She was unconscious for the whole thing. Which, I suppose, if you have to be executed is the least unpleasant way of doing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Frances_Creighton

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. I think the person has to be aware of what's going on during the trial itself in order to assist with the defense, but once there's been a fair trial I don't see a constitutional violation in then carrying out the sentence, sentient or not.

[Dan Schiavetta]

There's no good way to kill a person.

[A Woman of No Importance]

I am opposed to the death penalty. However, given that we have the death penalty, it is probably slightly more humane to carry it out if the condemned isn't awake for it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Agree

[Frank Drackman]

Especially the unborn ones

[not guilty]

Would the proponents of originalism propose to return to public hanging as the method of execution?

Come to think of it, that would be consistent with the historical roots of capital punishment -- lynching, that is.

[apedad]

DISAGREE!

Everyone has rights - even death penalty prisoners right up to the second of execution.

And you cannot exercise your rights if you are not conscious and aware.

[A Woman of No Importance]

And what rights exactly would a death row inmate be exercising in the last few moments of life?

[apedad]

Ramirez v. Collier
Requesting clemency, pardon, or reprieve
8th Amendment (cruel and unusual)

[A Woman of No Importance]

At some point, res judicata kicks in for litigation and those in a position to grant pardon, clemency or reprieve have already made up their minds. Plus why is this being done last minute anyway?

I am opposed to the death penalty and would vote to abolish it if I were a legislator. But it's the law, a majority of the Supreme Court firmly believes it is constitutional, and I do not favor what in most cases is frivolous last-minute litigation attempts to stall. All of these issues should normally have already been resolved months or years ago. And most of the time the inmate isn't even necessary to the process; it's attorneys pushing paper. And most of the time there's zero question as to guilt or innocence.

So sorry but I disagree. The defendant needs to be awake, alert, and able to participate in the fact finding part of the process -- the trial. Once the facts have been found, his role in the process is largely over. And just because you don't remember what you did doesn't mean you didn't do it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. 411 (decided March 24, 2022): execution stayed because defendant had valid argument that prohibiting his pastor from laying hands on him in the execution chamber violated First Amendment (state allowed pastor to lay on hands, and Ramirez was executed on Oct. 5, 2022)

[A Woman of No Importance]

And that's a rare example of a situation in which the issue actually did come up at the last minute.

[SRG2]

And guess who was the sole dissenter in Ramirez?

[Frank Drackman]

The best Surpreme of the last 50 years?

[apedad]

Well TBH, the dissent was because they felt the majority didn't properly address 'the question.'

Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit the execution of a murderer who cannot recall committing the murder for which the death sentence was imposed? The petition strenuously argued that executing such a person is unconstitutional.

After persuading the Court to grant review of this question, counsel abruptly changed course. Perhaps because he concluded (correctly) that petitioner was unlikely to prevail on the question raised in the petition, he conceded that the argument advanced in his petition was wrong, and he switched to an entirely different argument, namely, that the state court had rejected petitioner’s claim that he is incompetent to be executed because the court erroneously thought that dementia, as opposed to other mental conditions, cannot provide a basis for such a claim. See Brief for Petitioner 16.

This was not a question that the Court agreed to hear; indeed, there is no mention whatsoever of this argument in the petition—not even a hint. Nor is this question fairly included within those on which the Court granted review. On the contrary, it is an entirely discrete and independent question.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/586/17-7505/

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[SRG2]

he dissent was because they felt the majority didn't properly address 'the question.'

I think we can distinguish their dissenting from the argument present in the dissent. They dissent because Thomalito favour carrying out a death sentence in pretty much all cases including retardation, innocence, etc. The argument is what they devise to support this.

[Krayt]

One wonders, would they put a pause on execution to allow a new suit?

[AmosArch]

How does having a disorder discharge your responsibility for a crime? All you have is the subjective cruelty argument and you could argue a guy who is fully aware he's going to die is being subjected to more cruelty than one who's tripping balls and thinks he's going to dinner with space aliens.

[Commenter_XY]

Re Raygor....is there an explanation of tolling that a second grader could follow along and understand? How does tolling start? Stop?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sometimes if there's a related suit, the statute of limitations is tolled from the time that suit is brought until the time that suit is disposed of. For example, a class action alleging the same injury as to the same person (along with others) -- once it gets "decertified" as a class action, the tolling ends as to any suit brought on behalf of one of the individuals. (American Pipe v. Utah, 1974.) Raygor dealt with the rule as to federal actions being the source of the toll; states have their own rules as to state actions.

[Commenter_XY]

I def need to learn more about tolling.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Washington v. Harper acknowledges the liberty interest:

We have no doubt that, in addition to the liberty interest created by the State's Policy, respondent possesses a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Stevens's dissent quoted Brandeis' famous dissent to emphasize what was at stake:

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

The majority found that a proper procedure was followed to treat a mentally ill prisoner with antipsychotic drugs against his will. Nonetheless, the case still provides a precedent of the importance of the right, especially outside of the prison context.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

I'm glad the cases I posted today stimulated discussion.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Champion v. Ames was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that trafficking lottery tickets constituted interstate commerce that could be regulated by the U.S. Congress under the Commerce Clause. Justice Harlan wrote the 5-4 opinion.

The dissent argued lottery tickets were not objects of interstate commerce. States had to power to regulate them. The federal government could regulate them in other ways such as by regulating the mail. But, not this way.

The opinion was an early case providing a wider view of federal power over commerce.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

I can't help but think that for most involved this was a distratction from doing real work and they were glad to be distracted. Does anyone do there job anymore?

[Krayt]

Out eating breakfast. Old couple at next table yapping.

Man, calmly and matter of factly, keep in mind: Donald Trump has an IQ of 78.

[David Nieporent]

If the man was a Trumpkin he was probably extremely impressed by that.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't think Trump is actually low-IQ. It's just that he has never had to use his brain, except as a means of avoiding work or responsibility.

[Frank Drackman]

You don’t seem like a real Einstein yourself

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Einstein was one of the stupidest men of his times, politicallly
His support of Wallace, who won 2% of the vote is typical. Einstein rightly turned down the offer to be PM of Israel. Physics is easy and Politics is not.

[Estragon]

Counterpoint:

“Everyone says he is crazy – which maybe he is – but the scarier thing about him is that he is stupid. You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”

-Lifelong New Yorker Fran Lebowitz

[SRG2]

I disagree, I think Krasnov has not a shred of intellectual curiosity, he knows almost nothing except his existing business and isn't really interested in knowing any more, though he's quite happy inventing what he wishes were true, and he is something of an idiot savant when it comes to demagoguery. But you don't get to have the run he's had by being stupid.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://gregolear.substack.com/p/putins-razor-yet-more-evidence-that?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2

(Krasnov)

[A Japanese Student]

Hino Kimigayo Piano Performance Case (Third Petty Bench, decided February 27, 2007): In 4-1 vote, upheld the censure of teacher at Hino City's public school, who ignored the school principal's order and refused to play the national anthem (which some associate with the Emperor and his war crimes); freedom of belief not violated because playing the national anthem is not seen by the public as expressing any belief

Special Local Allocation Tax Determination Case (First Petty Bench, decided February 27, 2025): Suit by local government challenging the amount of "special local allocation tax" (which is not a tax, but instead is a payment that can be used for any purpose) is justiciable; lower court wrongly held that it was one government suing another as parens patriae