Today in Supreme Court History: March 12, 1889

3/12/1889: Justice John Campbell dies.

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (decided March 12, 1906): rejecting witness’s claim of Fifth Amendment privilege in federal grand jury proceeding because enjoyed federal immunity even though state prosecution possible (overruled by Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of New York Harbor, 1964, which held that grant of immunity in state grand jury proceedings also extended to possible federal prosecution)

Davis v. Wood, 14 U.S. 6 (decided March 12, 1816): another case, like Queen v. Hepburn, holding that free birth cannot be proved via hearsay (slaves tried to show that their grandmother was known to have been white and born in England)

Claiborne v. United States, 465 U.S. 1305 (decided March 12, 1984): Rehnquist refuses to stay bribery and tax evasion prosecution against federal judge; rejects judge’s argument that he can’t be criminally prosecuted until impeached and removed (Claiborne was convicted later in 1984 and went to jail; wasn’t impeached and removed until 1986)

United States v. Contract Steel Carriers, 350 U.S. 409 (decided March 12, 1956): business licensed to transport highway construction materials did not qualify as “common carrier” (and subject to all those regulations) simply because it aggressively solicited business within the scope of its license

Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 324 U.S. 335 (decided March 12, 1945): citing Johnson v. M’Intosh (grrr. . . see summary of that case, February 28), Court holds that Indians have only what the white man gives them, and if no specific reservation created by Act of Congress, then they have no rights in ancestral land (the Shoshone seem to concede this, basing their claim to 15 million acres on an 1863 treaty, but Court holds the treaty gave them only occupancy rights; opinion’s historical account is sympathetic to them)

Massey v. United States, 291 U.S. 608 (decided March 12, 1934): dismisses rum-running case because no final judgment before Prohibition repealed

Ohio ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park District, 281 U.S. 74 (decided March 12, 1930): only Congress can determine whether each state has a “republican form of government” (art. IV, §4); Court can’t rule on whether a state can create park districts which can acquire land and levy taxes

Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles, 261 U.S. 326 (decided March 12, 1923): upholding executor’s statutory right to renew copyright even though testator had lost the right to (because he had missed the one-year deadline at the time of death) (the copyright was for a play based on this poem, https://internetpoem.com/will-carleton/over-the-hill-from-the-poor-house-poem/; not a subject for Eugene O’Neill)

United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316 (decided March 12, 1917): flooding of private person’s milldam, ford and other land on Cumberland River due to government construction of dam was a “taking” requiring compensation

Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 350 U.S. 413 (decided March 12, 1956): admission of black student to state law school could not await determination of desegregation issues in elementary and secondary schools

[apedad]

Re: United States v. Cress

It's good to see the Court being consistent, even 100+ years later with its recent - unanimous - decision DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. ___ (2024), where the Court overturned a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion.

"Held: DeVillier and the other property owners should be permitted to pursue their claims under the Takings Clause through the cause of action available under Texas law. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Court has explained that “a property owner acquires an irrevocable right to just compensation immediately upon a taking” “[b]ecause of ‘the self-executing character’ of the Takings Clause ‘with respect to compensation.’ ” Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. 180, 192 (quoting First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 315). The question here concerns the procedural vehicle by which a property owner may seek to vindicate that right."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/601/22-913/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One issue involved in Hale v. Henkel is the application of certain rights in the Bill of Rights to corporations. This is a question with international implications, and perhaps our resident Japanese law expert has some more input on the question.

https://geopolitique.eu/en/articles/what-fundamental-rights-if-any-should-companies-enjoy-a-comparative-perspective/

[A Japanese Student]

Yawata Steel Case (Grand Bench, decided June 24, 1970) - which I previously called "Japan's Citizens United" - held that constitutional rights, to the extent practicable, apply to domestic corporations. The case specifically found that corporations have the constitutional right to donate to political parties (subject to public-welfare exception applicable to all constitutional rights). (https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=1912) In practice however, Japan heavily regulates political contribution, and none of those statutes have ever been invalidated.

Yawata Steel is now known as Nippon Steel - yes, that company that unsuccessfully tried to purchase USS.

[CJColucci]

Was the picture taken before or after he died?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ha.

This guy wins a Triple Crown for weird late-19th-century male hair statements. Neck beard, brushed eyebrows, and a proto-mullet from a rapidly disappearing resource.

[John F. Carr]

Cameras were very slow in the 19th century. You had to wait for somebody to die before you could take his picture without motion blur.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ha

[SRG2]

Incidentally, LEwis Carroll wrote an hysterical parody of Hiawatha about a photographer.

http://holyjoe.org/poetry/carroll1.htm

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Taney's heart might have been with the Confederacy, but Campbell resigned and directly supported it. He was arrested in May 1865, detained for a few months, but was released with the help of two of his former colleagues. He then started a new legal career.

He cynically used the Fourteenth Amendment, the principles of which he despised, to defend butchers in the Slaughterhouse Cases. Campbell's concurrence in Dred Scott had a long discussion on the importance of equal sovereignty of the states. Shades of Shelby County v. Holder.

He refused to acknowledge that the American Revolution had a social aspect. That would call into question slavery:

The American Revolution was not a social revolution. It did not alter the domestic condition or capacity of persons within the colonies, nor was it designed to disturb the domestic relations existing among them.

History belies such a limited reach and Campbell's "counterrevolutionary" efforts during the Civil War failed though only so much as the limits of Reconstruction would show.

[F.D. Wolf]

Whatever one thinks of Cambell's principles, he took the more honorable course by resigning from the Court, allowing President Lincoln to replace him with David Davis, rather than keeping his seat, where he could have done more damage to the Union than as Confederate Assistant Secretary of War.

I'm thinking particularly of the Prize Cases (1863), where a 5-4 Court upheld the legality of the Union blockade of Confederate ports. Had the Court ruled otherwise, as it presumably would have with Cambell, Lincoln may have been in the uncomfortable position of having to ignore the Court.

[A Japanese Student]

Death Penalty Constitutionality Case (Grand Bench, decided March 12, 1948): Capital punishment is not a cruel punishment; because the Constitution prohibits deprivation of life without due process of law, with due process death penalty is authorized

Tort Claims Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 12, 1982): Government is not liable for erroneous judicial rulings unless in extraordinary circumstances

Cannabis Control Act Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 12, 1986): Police obtains a search warrant for a condo room, but the occupant says the suspect (for marijuana possession) no longer lives with the occupant. After presenting a warrant, the police asks if the occupant owns marijuana. The occupant turns it in and gets charged. Court rules the search (and subsequent "consensual" submission of marijuana) lawful.

Forcible Obstruction of Business Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 12, 1987): Voting at prefectural assembly is a "business" under Penal Code §234, not "performance of public duty" under §95, because the officer is not authorized to use force (§234 applies to both public and private businesses)

Habitual Theft Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 12, 1998): Defendant, who is congenitally deaf, nonverbal, and illiterate, has been imprisoned for almost 25 years for theft (and shoplifts again). Attorney claims (and the lower court agrees) that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial (also see Feb. 28 entry); the Court finds that, because the defendant can sign (albeit not the standard one), have worked as construction worker, is familiar with criminal procedure, and has explicitly refused testimony at times, the defendant was competent

Fraud Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 12, 2003): Although the defendant does own money accidentally transferred to bank account (Apr. 26 entry), withdrawing it constitutes criminal fraud; the defendant had duty to disclose improper payment to the bank (pending Supreme Court appeal asks whether this applies to computer fraud as well)

Declaratory Judgment Confirming the Common Obligations Case (Third Petty Bench, decided March 12, 2024): Class action should not be denied on the ground that not all plaintiffs were equally comparatively negligent (crypto scam scheme)