Today in Supreme Court History: March 10, 1919

3/10/1919: Debs v. United States decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Gregory v. City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (decided March 10, 1969): police cannot order a demonstration dispersed if it’s the onlookers who are getting violent, not the demonstrators (this was comedian and activist Dick Gregory, fondly remembered at least by me, leading a police-escorted antisegregation demonstration from City Hall to the mayor’s residence, the not-so-fondly remembered Richard J. Daley)

Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (decided March 10, 1919): upholding conviction for conspiracy to obstruct military recruiting even though no specific acts were planned (another questionable World War I - era opinion by Holmes, though unanimous)

Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (decided March 10, 1919): Another Holmes affirmance of an Espionage Act conviction based on allegation of obstructing recruiting. Eugene V. Debs gave a speech saying nice things about socialist comrades who had been convicted for aiding others in evading the draft. Debs was sentenced to ten years for this; due to ill health his sentence was commuted by Harding, who received him at the White House with grace and affection, possibly because Wilson had been so mean in denying commutation.

Shelby v. Guy, 24 U.S. 361 (decided March 10, 1826): If you seize land, publicly possess it, and work it, after a certain period of time (here, five years), you win title by adverse possession. Ha -- fooled you! This case holds that if you seize slaves, publicly own them and work them for five years, they become yours. At least if you’re white. (This opinion illustrates the convention that slaves’ children were not called their children; the term used was “their increase”.)

The Alerta, 13 U.S. 359 (decided March 10, 1815): A dispute over a ship and its 170 slaves journeying from Africa and taken as a prize of war in New Orleans. The details are not important, except to note that all 170 slaves survived the journey. Slaves were in fact, at least by then, tolerably well cared for, about as much as animals are, because they were valuable. The notorious 18-inch lower decks were just for the beginning of the journey; once Africa was out of sight and they couldn’t jump overboard and swim back, they were let up on deck for sun and air. The attractive females were treated best, in exchange for their “goods”. This and many other illuminating facts are in “The Slave Trade” by Hugh Thomas.

Marvin M. Brand Revocable Trust v. United States, 572 U.S. 93 (decided March 10, 2014): federal land grants to railroads in 1875 were for use as railways and created only an easement; once line was abandoned the right-of-way became public property again for sale to private parties; Roberts’s opinion is a well-written history of the rise and fall of federal grants to railroads

Cook County, Ill. v. United States ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119 (decided March 10, 2003): qui tam (“private attorney general”) actions can be brought against municipalities because they are “persons” under the False Claims Act (here, scientist sued county hospital for receiving federal grants with false applications) (though States can’t be sued qui tam, see Vermont Agency for Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 2000)

Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (decided March 10, 1986): Miranda waiver effective even though police didn’t tell defendant his sister had gotten him an attorney who was trying to reach him

Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131 (decided March 10, 1969): competing newspapers which combined, pooled profits and ended competition in the local market violated Sherman Act; “failing business” defense not applicable because the lesser-profitable paper was not in danger of going under (the opinion reveals that jointly their profits exploded; this to me means a lot more people were reading newspapers post-Sherman Act violation than before)

Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U.S. 540 (decided March 10, 1902): Illinois statute exempting agricultural and livestock businesses from antitrust was unconstitutional (overruled by Tigner v. Texas, 1940)

[Syd Henderson]

One act I truly admire Harding for. And Debs got a killer campaign button out of it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Harding was corrupt and not up to the job, but he was basically a nice guy. Wilson was pretty much the opposite, in all three respects.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Lack of niceness is something of a euphemism in Wilson's case.

Harding knew to put some high-powered competent people in key posts, while of course reserving some for corrupt cronies.

[David Nieporent]

I am not aware that Harding was personally corrupt. Many of his people were, so it's certainly fair to say his administration was, but he wasn't personally in on the grift, AFAIK. (That's not a snide "I am not aware"; I'm actually not aware. Open to being told differently.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

He was certainly acting strangely the last couple of weeks of his life, escaping D.C. for a gratuitous Western whistle stop tour, compulsively making speeches, playing cards on the train at all hours.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Harding also made a few anti-discrimination moves.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He wanted Congress to pass a law against lynching, but in the Senate that bill got filibustered to death.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Not to be confused with the film D.E.B.S. or debs (from "debutante"). I'm sure many do find it hard to keep track.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Among various things, today's order list is a grant in this case:

Chiles v. Salazar, 24-539

Issue: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/restitution-medical-malpractice-and-a-capital-appeal/

[John F. Carr]

The issue got me thinking of the states that require marriage counseling before a court can grant a divorce. Professionals in Colorado have a legal obligation to encourage gender transition. In Louisiana, their obligation is to discourage divorce.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Professionals in Colorado have a legal obligation to encourage gender transition."

That's a new one. Where did you get it from?

[A Japanese Student]

City Assembly Election Dispute Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 10, 1955): Illegal to recount votes at a time and location previously unannounced, after initial counting is finished, the envelopes containing ballots are sealed, and some observers went home; affirmative finding of election fraud not required for ordering re-election in this case

Reimbursement for Unlawful Expenditure Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 10, 1988): Local assembly may dispatch its members overseas using public funds for "research" (surely not for pleasure, right?)

Okara Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 10, 1999): Okara (soybean pulp, side product of tofu production) is an "unnecessary object" under Waste Management Act; defendant, who was fined for unlicensed handling of industrial waste, argued that because okara is edible it is not "waste"; Court rejects on the ground that it is produced in bulk and only a small percentage is traded as food (at that time, another company tried to dodge the law by claiming that scrapped cars are not "waste" and can be dumped in remote islands)

Kokoku-Appeal to Order Denying Discovery Order (First Petty Bench, decided March 10, 2000): Party opposing discovery cannot claim trade secret without explaining how disclosure hurts its business

Prefectural Assembly Members' Baseball Championship Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 10, 2005): Unlawful to dispatch prefectural employees to a baseball match using public funds (though no clawback ordered)

Tort Claims Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 10, 2016): Plaintiff (Japanese company and CEO) sued a Nevada gaming corporation for defamation, after the defendant posted on its website a page in English accusing the plaintiff of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violation and sued the plaintiff in Nevada state court for damages (in 2012; plaintiff countersued). Although Japanese courts normally have jurisdiction over this defamation claim (!!), the Court holds abstention is proper because hearing this case in Japan would be burdensome. (Can anyone identify the Nevada case?)

Indecency through Compulsion Case (Third Petty Bench, decided March 10, 2020): Not ex post facto law to apply new law allowing prosecution without complaint; defendant committed "indecency through compulsion" (abusive sexual contact) before 2017, when prosecution required the victim's complaint