Today in Supreme Court History: March 4, 1861

3/4/1861: President Abraham Lincoln's inauguration.

President Abraham Lincoln

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Saying this as a Southerner, greatest POTUS ever, even if he didn't really free any Slaves.

[Krayt]

Americans love presidents who defend freedom against tyranny.

[Swede425]

Especially when it's our freedom.

[Krayt]

Yes! But also our free friends in other countries. See last century.

[Swede425]

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but there appears to be a significant change in our willingness to expend our blood and treasure in adventures that show no direct benefit to ourselves.
Call it a caution born out of a cost/benefits analysis when weighing these past ventures against any benefit that may have been, but often wasn't, gained.
Perhaps this is the start of wisdom.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Lincoln was friendly with the Russians. Therefore, we must all be friendly to the Russians! /sarc

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Tsarnaev, 595 U.S. 302 (decided March 4, 2022): upholding conviction of 2013 Boston Marathon bomber; trial judge had discretion at jury selection to ask only general questions about media exposure, and to exclude at sentencing mention of brother’s triple homicide to show that defendant was not the ringleader of bombing (as of this writing, still appealing other issues, see 96 F.4th 441 (opportunities for agreement with Tsarnaev are limited, but he was right about trying to eat cherry tomatoes with a fork)

FBI v. Fazaga, 595 U.S. 344 (decided March 4, 2022): in suit by Muslims alleging discriminatory surveillance, Court holds that government (which opposed disclosure of surveillance materials) does not have to follow procedure in 50 U.S.C. §1806(f) for in camera inspection even though on its terms it applies when (as here) government asserts “state secrets” privilege (unanimous decision, in which the Court cites the leading case on the privilege, Reynolds v. United States, 1953, a case alleging death due to faulty government plane, where government claimed the state secrets privilege and wouldn’t even allow in camera inspection; the Court doesn’t tell us that years later the Reynolds documents were declassified and showed no state secret, just an engine fire, and it refused to hear that case again)

Lawson v. FMR, LLC, 571 U.S. 429 (decided March 4, 2014): protection of whistleblower statute, 18 U.S.C. §1514A(a), extends to employees of private contractors serving publicly traded companies (here, advising as to mutual funds) (the mutual fund itself, Fidelity, had no employees; Sotomayor in dissent points to the exact phrase in §1514A(a), “employees of publicly traded companies”)

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (decided March 4, 1998): same-sex harassment is actionable under Title VII

United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65 (decided March 4, 1998): officer can break in, damaging property (e.g., smashing in window) if knocking would reasonably result in evidence being destroyed, witnesses disappearing, or danger (i.e., “no-knock warrant”)

Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (decided March 4, 1996): Wife owned car jointly with husband. Husband convicted of sex with prostitute in car. Wife didn’t know about it. Car is still forfeited and she doesn’t get compensated for her share. Does this sound fair? The car was 11 years old and she had another car available, but still . . . 5 - 4 decision.

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (decided March 4, 1986): prisoner shot without warning during prison riot did not suffer “cruel and unusual punishment”; no showing that shooting was unnecessary or wanton

Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (decided March 4, 1985): prohibiting out-of-state lawyers from bar admission violated Privileges and Immunities Clause (though the state can still make it pretty damned inconvenient; try being a New York lawyer applying for admission in Connecticut or Vermont)

Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (decided March 4, 1981): employer accused of sex discrimination must only give clear non-pretextual rationale for not hiring plaintiff; doesn’t have to be by preponderance of evidence

Johnson v. Robinson, 415 U.S. 361 (decided March 4, 1974): not a Free Exercise violation to exclude conscientious objectors (who had completed required non-military service) from educational benefits available to veterans

Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (decided March 4, 2024): only Congress can invoke §3 of Fourteenth Amendment (prohibiting candidates for federal office who engaged in “insurrection”); strikes down Colorado’s attempt to remove Trump from ballot based on his Jan. 6 actions

[SRG2]

he was right about trying to eat cherry tomatoes with a fork

Many years ago I was at a dinner where an etiquette expert was giving a talk to Morgan Stanley new associates, and his advice was, when dining with clients, do not attempt to eat cherry tomatoes. Just leave them.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The only practical way is with a spoon but that makes you look toothless.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, Bennis v. Michigan does sound unfair and unconstitutional. Interestingly, Ginsburg was the fifth vote.

Thomas: Yes, it's unfair, but it's constitutional.

Ginsburg: "Michigan has decided to deter johns from using cars they own (or co-own) to contribute to neighborhood blight, and that abatement endeavor hardly warrants this Court's disapprobation."

And what was the husband's name? QED.

[apedad]

I read somewhere that driverless cars will increase prostitution!

[SRG2]

Thomas has little problem dissenting from precedent when he doesn't like it. I think he has often expressed his disapproval of CAF, but yet seems curiously unwilling to find against it/

[A Japanese Student]

Oncale was the key precedent that led to Bostock.

[ReaderY]

Why is Professor Blackman recognizing a RINO traitor who would be very quickly drummed out of the Republican Party in disgrace if he lived today?

[apedad]

In Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, I disagree with Justice Rehnquist's dissent.

One of his issues is physical presence, "A State reasonably can decide that a trial court should not have added to its present scheduling difficulties the uncertainties and added delays fostered by counsel who might reside 1,000 miles from New Hampshire."

1. The lawyer in this case lived 400 YARDS from the NH border.
2. How about lawyers in large states that are many hundreds of miles wide or long (TX, CA, AK, etc.)? Would a lawyer in Crescent City, CA, be allowed to practice in San Diego, CA, (approx. 848 miles), based on Rehnquist's logic?

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/470/274/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

March 4, 1789, was scheduled by Congress under the Articles of Confederation to be the beginning of the new government:

"the first Wednesday in March next be the time and the present seat of Congress the place for commencing proceedings under the said constitution."

That would be 3/4. Weather delayed Washington's inauguration. President Washington was inaugurated on April 30, 1789.

Congress then set 3/4 for next time, with noon becoming the time by presidential choice. The Twelfth Amendment then constitutionalized the date. The 20th Amendment made noon the official time.

https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-origins-of-the-march-4-inauguration

Tonight is the State of the Union. Well, not quite. The first speech before lawmakers is not technically a State of the Union, but rather an Address to a Joint Session of Congress.

Today is also a historical event in that a constitutionally unfit person is giving the speech. It too has Supreme Court history implications. A date to remember in the future.

[SMP0328]

3/4/1861: President Abraham Lincoln's inauguration.

It's the anniversary of the inauguration of every elected President from George Washington to FDR (i.e., every pre-20th Amendment start of a Presidential term).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

When it fell on a Sunday, not every president took the oath on 3/4.

Washington was sworn in later the first time.

[apedad]

With Tsarnaev, I always get a chuckle that the older brother (who was shot by police and then was run over by his younger brother), was buried in hallowed Virginia grounds - without the locals knowing about it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/body-of-boston-marathon-bombings-suspect-buried-in-virginia-cemetery/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY was handed down today. Alito for the 5-4 majority (unanimous on one ground).

Barrett, for the women justices, in partial dissent:

The Environmental Protection Agency issued San Francisco a permit allowing it to discharge pollutants from its combined sewer system into the Pacific Ocean. The permit, of course, does not give the city free rein, and among its conditions are prohibitions on discharges that contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards. San Francisco challenges these conditions on the ground that EPA lacks statutory authority to impose them. The city is wrong.

The justices unanimously agreed the city was wrong as to one argument while a majority agreed with it on another.

[SMP0328]

In footnote 12 of the majority opinion, the Court responded to the dissent:

The dissent suggests that the 1972 Congress was displeased with the prior enforcement regime because it was too burdensome for the Government, not because it was unfair for entities against which enforcement actions were brought. See post, at 8–9 (BARRETT, J., dissenting in part). But whether or not this assessment of Congress’s intent is correct, what matters for present purposes is that Congress deliberately deleted a longstanding provision that expressly authorized what the dissent wishes to perpetuate. The idea that Congress sought to preserve the old enforcement mechanism by squirreling it away in §1311(b)(1)(B)’s inapt language defies belief.

In short, Congress removed an enforcement provision from what is now the Clean Water Act and the majority takes that to mean that the type of enforcement that provision had authorized cannot be inferred to be authorized by another provision of the Act.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

And the dissent disagreed with that framing.

[SMP0328]

That's why they were the dissent.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes.

BTW, to correct myself, Gorsuch didn't go along with the other eight on the first argument. He doesn't join that section. He didn't say why.

[A Japanese Student]

Road Traffic Act Case (Third Petty Bench, decided March 4, 1980): Not an error to convict defendant of DUI (whose predicate is breath alcohol content) when charged with impaired driving (requiring actual proof of inability to properly operate the vehicle, having higher statutory maximum) despite technically not being lesser-included offense

Stimulants Control Act Case (Third Petty Bench, decided March 4, 2008): Defendant tried to smuggle meth from North Korea by dumping it into the ocean and having another boat pick it up - but poor weather prevented the boat from grabbing the meth package. Is this attempted importation? Court says no, due to unlikelihood of success.

Child Pornography Act Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 4, 2008): Mailing child porn DVDs from Thailand to highest bidder in online auctions constitutes importation "to many or unspecified persons" carrying enhanced sentence even though the mail is addressed to a named recipient (statutory maximum is 5 years, vs 3 years for simple importation; that's probably not even the minimum in the US)

[not guilty]

The American Civil War began because seven states, who had freely participated in the presidential election of 1960, were unwilling to abide by the election result. Four other states (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee) did not secede until after the bombardment of Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861.

The net consequences of the Civil War on balance were more good than bad -- putting to rest the question of secession and adoption of three constitutional amendments -- but they came at a horiffic cost.

The behaviors of the losing political parties in the elections of 2020 and 2024 stand in marked contrast to one another.

[Frank Drackman]

"1960"?? if you were a Brain Surgeon your patient is now a "Vegetable" (in Residency we called the Neuro ICU the "Vegetable Garden" you'd ask someone what rotation they were on, "Oh, I'm plowing the Vegetable Garden this month")
Of course you meant 1860, hey, you were only a century off!

Frank

[Dan Schiavetta]

One can say that the tradition of peaceful transfer of power has been destroyed only when Republicans lose, but in fact it is a more general statement. By doing what they did in 2020 -- and refusing to disown it later -- the Republican Party has damaged the reputation of the entire nation.

[SMP0328]

Hyperbole much? Did the Democrats damage the reputation of the entire nation when they advocated for bailing out those arrested during the George Floyd riots? Did leftist advocates damage the reputation of the entire nation when they have charged into state capitol buildings?

[David Nieporent]

Did the Democrats damage the reputation of the entire nation when they advocated for bailing out those arrested during the George Floyd riots?

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

(The concepts of the presumption of innocence and bail are reasons to respect the reputation of the entire nation.)

[SRG2]

Proportionality