Today in Supreme Court History: March 2, 2016

3/2/2016: Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt argued.

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The oral argument of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt was one of the last bright moments in abortion rights at the Court. The liberals were almost gleeful in attacking the law. There was still hope (in hindsight a forlorn one) of a 5-4 liberal leaning Court.

The opinion was a 5-3 win for abortion rights, but then Trump won. Roberts later (June Medical Services LLC v. Russo) went along on precedent grounds. Then, Trump got his sixth vote, and the travesty of overturning Planned Parenthood v. Casey occurred.

Of course, some were gleeful that a collection of constitutional rights [which they wrongly ignored] went to the wayside for a Stephen Douglas "I don't care" state-by-state approach, with some hoping for more. They caught their white whale though again some are not satisfied and seek it out still.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It’s a trial to wait until Josh wakes from his drunken Sunday stupor and orders his coffee with Indonesian sugar. But . . .

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (decided March 2, 1824): power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce also includes navigation (this holding became huge as technology advanced; it later was applied to trains, automobiles, radio, etc. -- to my mind the 19th century, more than the 20th or any other century, was the most transformative, as to technology and how it changed our lives)

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (decided March 2, 2011): odious acts of Westboro Baptist Church (holding signs at burials of servicemen killed in the line of duty saying they were killed by God as punishment for nation’s acceptance of gay rights) did not hinder burial and were protected by First Amendment; dismisses grieving father’s suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress

Clay v. Field, 138 U.S. 464 (decided March 2, 1891): another case holding that pre-Civil War plantation’s value is what it was worth with the use of slaves but not including value of the slaves themselves

Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (decided March 2, 2010): after conviction for possession of ammunition, prior state conviction for battery was not predicate for increased sentence under Armed Career Criminal Act; state statute as to battery did not necessarily involve “physical force” as required by ACCA, just “touching”

Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23 (decided March 2, 1999): harmless error when trial judge did not advise convicted felon of his right to appeal sentence because he knew about it already

Packwood v. Senate Select Committee on Ethics, 510 U.S. 1319 (decided March 2, 1994): Rehnquist rejects Senator Packwood’s argument that his Fourth Amendment right to privacy is violated by Senate Ethics Committee subpoena for his diaries; doubts four Justices would grant cert (though it never got that far; accused of sexual harassment, Packwood resigned)

Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146 (decided March 2, 1993): majority-minority districts did not necessarily violate Voting Rights Act prohibition on vote dilution (Virginia legislature aiming for 55% black representation in that part of the state)

New York v. O’Neill, 359 U.S. 1 (decided March 2, 1959): Dormant Commerce Clause not violated by statutes in 42 states permitting witnesses to be subpoenaed in criminal cases for testimony out-of-state

United States v. New York, 315 U.S. 510 (decided March 2, 1942): The United States and New York fight over distribution of bankrupt employer’s assets to pay taxes due. Byrnes talks about “arithmetic” versus “quadratic” formulas for determining setoff (but I don’t see any math in the opinion); holds that unpaid social security taxes (federal) are offset by unemployment fund taxes (state).

Whitfield v. Ohio, 297 U.S. 431 (decided March 2, 1936): Ohio statute prohibiting sale of prison-made goods did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause even though it included prison-made goods from out of state (sale was of “men’s work shirts”)

[A Japanese Student]

re Whitfield: seemingly absent from the opinion is any mentions of Ashurst–Sumners Act, passed by Congress in 1935, which banned interstate transportation of prison-made goods. I suppose the offense was committed prior to its passage.

Prison-made goods are popular in Japan; private companies do not have to pay minimum wage (convicts receive 4500 yen per month on average - that's $30), prisoners are supposed to learn job skills, and the public can purchase goods at reasonable prices while supporting crime victims. Japanese law even allows prisoners to be dispatched to private companies. In 2023 the government had to abandon plans to have prisoners process oysters, because it could not be exported to the US.

(Oysters could be "agricultural commodities" exempt from 18 USC 1761; however it appears that Tariff Act (19 USC 1307) contains a separate prohibition with no agriculture exception. There's also a question of whether Section 1761 actually bans prison labor, for which I could find only one decision: Preston Glove Co. v. Bentsen, 845 F. Supp. 401 (N.D. Miss. 1994). Preston argued that Section 1761 only covers dispatching prisoners to private factories, not in-prison manufacturing. It lost.)

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

A travesty of illogic and callous disregard for women, this case.

"Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. also dissented, arguing that the claims should have been barred because they had already been litigated. Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, and Thomas also filed a second dissent arguing that there was no direct link between the Texas law and the closure of abortion clinics. "

Lawyers wanting more money filing a dispute on 'their behalf"

Consider the evil lawyers who won't touch these facts
Man tricks pregnant girlfriend into taking abortion pill

Texas attorney who poisoned pregnant wife with abortion ...

A doctor laced his ex-girlfriend's tea with abortion pills and ...

LAWYERS MAKING MONEY HELPING THE BAD GUYS

[A Japanese Student]

Division of Estates Case (Grand Bench, decided March 2, 1964): Non-public proceeding for division of estates does not violate the Constitution; ruling there has no res judicata effect

Breach of Trust Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 2, 1972): Affirmed mayor's conviction for criminal breach of trust for failure to collect taxes