Today in Supreme Court History: March 5, 1934

3/5/1934: Nebbia v. New York decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (decided March 5, 1934): a pre-“switch” case where Roberts, writing the opinion, sides against the “Four Horsemen”, upholding the New York Milk Board’s setting of maximum and minimum prices, being that milk prices were important to public welfare, no violation of Due Process (maybe OT, but look up the bio of Bronx native Jimmy Savo, a mime popular with Italian Americans of my grandparents’ generation; his family was too poor to afford Grade B milk, used powdered instead, and as a result he didn’t die in typhus epidemic, and that was just the first example of how “hard luck made him a star”)

Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (decided March 5, 2003): upholding California’s 1993 “three strikes” law (two previous “serious” felonies results in indeterminate life sentence) against Eighth Amendment attack (this was one of several such laws nationwide at the time; Mark Alan Stamaty did a cartoon “debate” where the candidates try to outdo each other -- “TWO strikes and you’re out” -- “ONE strike and you’re out” -- “NO strikes” -- the other candidate is nonplussed and says, “NO strikes?” and she loses the election) (in another debate, the two candidates keep jumping up and down saying “Death Penalty! Death Penalty! Death Penalty!” -- and the one who pauses momentarily to take a breath, loses the election)

The Merino, 22 U.S. 391 (decided March 5, 1824): deals with forfeiture of several ships holding slaves; interesting because as to two of the ships the Court seems to be saying that the 1800 Act prohibiting U.S. ships from carrying slaves from one country to another doesn’t apply to slaves who were already sold, they being at that point merely passengers being transported to their owners

Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (decided March 5, 2007):
individual citizens have no standing to contest state supreme court’s revision of redistricting plan

Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (decided March 5, 2003): statute requiring registration of convicted sex offenders was not punitive (technically) and therefore was not ex post facto

Anders v. Floyd, 440 U.S. 445 (decided March 5, 1979): District Court should not have stayed state court prosecution for murder after abortion of 25-week-old fetus; remanded to see how state court proceeding turned out and what kind of instructions are given as to “viability”

Ohio v. Kentucky, 410 U.S. 641 (decided March 5, 1973): Ohio precluded, by its long acquiescence, from contesting Kentucky’s claim that its border extended to the far side of the Ohio river; Court notes that its original jurisdiction is basically equitable, not legal (i.e., it can fashion whatever remedy or use any common law theory it wants to)

Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 (decided March 5, 1968): no warrant needed for search of robbery defendant’s impounded vehicle (while closing windows, found registration card showing car belonged to victim)

McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (decided March 5, 1990): Eighth Amendment violated by requirement that jurors find mitigating factors precluding death penalty only beyond a reasonable doubt (Marshall writes opinion for a 6 - 3 Court)

Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (decided March 5, 1984): Pawtucket, R.I. nativity scene did not violate Establishment Clause; was part of city display with secular elements such as Santa and his sleigh (this case was the birth of the “reindeer rule”)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I asked about what happened to Ewing on the other thread because his lawyer suggested he was likely only to live a few years, given his condition. He died in prison in 2012. (h/t Noscitur a sociis)

https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/lockyer-v-andrade-20th-anniversary/

Leandro Andrade, thanks to a new law that was passed shortly after Ewing's death, was released.

A new law also helped the defendant given life imprisonment for a one-time drug offense (Harmelin) the chance to get out of prison to cite an earlier 8A case.

To follow a theme, Rummel (the original 8A case in the earlier trilogy) also did not remain in prison too long after his "life sentence, " while Ewing's sentence did turn out to be a life sentence. See here for the details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rummel_v._Estelle

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Nebbia showed that the Supreme Court had somewhat moved on from the height of Lochner Era economics, which has been somewhat exaggerated anyhow. There were regularly allowances for economic regulation, especially outside certain particularly conservative moments.

The Supreme Court also handed down (other than "Told You So") Bufkin v. Collins "today," a 7-2 opinion by Thomas.

"Held: VA’s determination that the evidence regarding a service-related disability claim is in “approximate balance” is a predominantly factual determination reviewed only for clear error."

Jackson, this time with Gorsuch, had a dissenting opinion which was longer than the majority. She again strongly defended her view of the meaning of what Congress actually passed.

[A Japanese Student]

Narcotics Regulation Order Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 5, 1949): Defendant stealing contraband can be charged with both theft and possession of contraband (as opposed to possession of stolen property, which cannot be charged separately)

Accessory to Robbery Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 5, 1949): "Cruel punishments" (which are "absolutely" forbidden) mean torturous ones, and does not include ordinary punishments within statutory range even if harsh (here, 6 years for accessory to robbery and possession of firearms)

Fraud Case (Grand Bench, decided March 5, 1952): Indictment cannot list prior convictions as it would prejudice the judge (Article 256(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure); inclusion is a structural error requiring dismissal without prejudice (two exceptions: prior convictions that are elements of the present offense (e.g. habitual theft), and facts establishing the offense (such as when part of threatening message) - importantly, not when seeking general recidivism enhancement)

Narcotics Control Act Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 5, 1953): Defendant cannot invoke sting operation as defense

Tort Claims Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 5, 1965): Professional Engineer Act was amended to limit use of the word "professional engineer" to those licensed (while not prohibiting unlicensed engineering). Practicing unlicensed engineers sue; the Court rules that the lack of grandfather clause does not violate the freedom to choose occupation

Indemnity Case (Third Petty Bench, decided March 5, 1996): Plaintiff was hit by a drunk driver, but the owner of the car remained unknown (thus, no insurance payment). Under 1955 law, the Government must compensate victims in this case - but when does the statute of limitations start accruing? Court holds that it is when the plaintiff knew they were unable to seek insurance payment, not the time of the accident.

Murder, Firearms and Swords Control Act Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 5, 2008): Protection order against disclosing identity of victim in open court is constitutional (see also July 3 entry - what if the order prohibited the defense attorney from knowing the identity of the victim?)