Today in Supreme Court History: March 14, 1932

3/14/1932: Justice Benjamin Cardozo takes oath.

Justice Benjamin Cardozo

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Sicurella v. United States, 348 U.S. 385 (decided March 14, 1955): Jehovah’s Witness can be awarded conscientious objector status even though willing to fight if Jesus commands him in “theological war” which does not involve “weapons of warfare”; refusal to participate in “shooting wars” suffices

Handly’s Lessee v. Anthony, 18 U.S. 374 (decided March 14, 1820): island in Ohio River is part of Kentucky; Indiana, recently a state, only owned land up to low-water mark on its side (island had been granted to plaintiff by Kentucky, to defendant by Indiana, and the effect of Virginia’s -- which then included Kentucky -- 1781 yielding to the United States all land north of the Ohio)

The Josefa Segunda, 18 U.S. 338 (decided March 14, 1820): Venezuelan privateer who had taken over slave ship which was forced to make port in United States due to running out of food does not forfeit vessel even though in violation of 1807 statute forbidding overseas slave trade; was acting on orders of his government (Venezuela was in rebellion against Spain)

Lewis v. United States, 348 U.S. 419 (decided March 14, 1955): upholding against Fifth Amendment self-incrimination attack conviction for not paying “wagering” (operating numbers racket) tax even though wagering was illegal (overruled by Marchetti v. United States, 1968, see January 29)

Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (decided March 14, 1904): Sherman Antitrust Act does not interfere with operation of contracts (note that the Constitution prohibits only States and not the federal government from interfering with contracts, art. I, §10) (here, Act violated by formation of new corporation for purpose of buying up two competing railways to create monopoly)

Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. Temple, 285 U.S. 143 (decided March 14, 1932): trial court should have directed verdict for defendant railroad where car overturned, killing the decedent engineer, allegedly due to improperly secured rails which spread; there was evidence of men working on that stretch, of “pulling” tools found nearby, of possible sabotage, but nothing to suggest proximate cause negligence

Stevens v. The White City, 285 U.S. 195 (decided March 14, 1932): water damage to new yacht being towed from Morris Heights, N.Y. to Newark, N.J. not necessarily due to negligence of tug operator; could have been caused overnight by driftwood hitting deck; reverses verdict for plaintiff

Comm’r of Internal Revenue v. Phipps, 336 U.S. 410 (decided March 14, 1949): still have to pay taxes on assets even though went through tax-free reorganization (surplus canceled out by deficits in other predecessor corporations) with no continuity of character of the corporation

Eaton v. Brown, 193 U.S. 411 (decided March 14, 1904): Holographic (handwritten by testator) Will effective even though it began: “I am going on a Journey and may not ever return. And if I do not, this is my last request . . . ” (She did return.)

De la Croix v. Chamberlain, 25 U.S. 599 (decided March 14, 1827): plaintiff not entitled to land because not surveyed; the grant, by the Spanish when they ruled that part of Alabama, merely ordered a survey, and not registered in land office

[A Japanese Student]

Reversing a jury verdict in a railroad case for lack of proximate cause? Sounds like the best plan for welcoming this new Justice.

[Dan Schiavetta]

From what we know of Cardozo, he would have found a way to affirm. Possibly on a strict product liability theory. "Trains are a thing of danger."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Benjamin Cardozo had a famed tenure on the New York Court of Appeals, including writing influential tort and contract law opinions.

His nomination was one of the bright spots of President Hoover's term. Cardozo joined the liberal bloc, but health problems meant he was on the Court only for a few years.

He did write some influential opinions, including Palko v. Connecticut (due process) and Steward Machine Company v. Davis (upholding the constitutionality of Social Security Act).

He replaced Holmes and was replaced by Frankfurter.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He was also not exactly a feminist. His opinion in the Lady Duff-Gorden case was dripping with condescension and contempt. (She survived the Titanic and was one of the few women who was commercially successful on her own merits and hard work.)

[SMP0328]

He did write some influential opinions, including Palko v. Connecticut (due process)

Palko said any particular right enumerated in the Bill of Rights applied to the States only to the extent it was "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty" and that the right against double jeopardy failed that standard. Fortunately, this case was overruled by Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), at which point the influence of Palko ended.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Palko case was a way station between few rights applied to the states and near total incorporation.

The term "ordered liberty" sets forth a general principle that covers more than this specific question or particular enumerated rights.

In this sense, the case still continued to have influence after Benton. See, for instance, Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) citing its rule to apply substantive due process (more than one opinion cites it).

I don't find that part of things unfortunate to the degree it is correctly applied.

[Rubbish!]

Little known fact: it was illegal for judges to trim eyebrows before the civil rights laws of the 1950's.

[F.D. Wolf]

On this day, March 14, 1881, President James Garfield nominated Stanley Matthews to a seat on the Supreme Court. Matthews had previously been nominated to the same seat a few weeks earlier on January 26 by outgoing President Rutherford Hayes, but the Senate had taken no action on it, and the nomination lapsed on March 3, with the end of the 46th Congress. Matthews would be confirmed on May 12 by a vote of 24-23, to date the only Court nominee confirmed by the margin of a single vote.

The vote breakdown in the Senate was interesting for the Republican president’s Republican nominee. Democrats voted 14-9 in favor of confirmation, while Republicans voted 10-13. Independent David Davis, former Supreme Court justice and Lincoln campaign manager, voted “nay”.

What had Matthews done to irritate his fellow Republicans? Well, a few things, but, chiefly, in 1859, as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, Matthews, though an avowed abolitionist, had prosecuted a newspaperman under the Fugitive Slave Act for harboring runaway slaves. In 1861, Matthews resigned as U.S. Attorney and was commissioned a lieutenant colonel in the Union Army. In 1862, President Lincoln nominated him for a promotion to brigadier general, but the Senate took no action on the nomination. Nineteen years later, it seems, all was not forgotten and forgiven.

Matthews died at the age of 64, having served just shy of eight years on the Court. His most notable opinion is probably Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), in which a unanimous Court held that a facially neutral statute, administered in a racially biased manner, was invalid under the Equal Protection Clause.

[A Japanese Student]

Election Invalidation Case (Grand Bench, decided March 14, 1962): Upholds provision voiding elections after voter bribery conviction of winning candidate's chief campaign manager (on the basis that the ballots cast did not reflect true intent of voters) (this statute has since been expanded to cover more people, see yesterday's entry)

Unlawful Assembly with Weapons Case (Third Petty Bench, decided March 14, 1972): Dump truck is not a weapon under unlawful assembly with weapons charge, even if prepared for use in violence

Shufuren Juice Case (Third Petty Bench, decided March 14, 1978): Consumers do not have legal interest in certification of self-regulation agreements (exempt from antitrust law if certified) and lack standing to challenge it

JCP Wiretapping Case (Third Petty Bench, decided March 14, 1989): Warrantless, statutorily forbidden wiretapping by police does not constitute "abuse of authority by public official" because the police officers did not present themselves as public officials during the wiretapping (thus lacking color of law); although wiretapping is a criminal offense under Telecommunications Act, prosecutors dropped the charges and only the abuse-of-authority charge could be brought by the victim (Japanese Communist Party); wiretapping was legalized for investigation of organized crimes in 1999

Nagaragawa Lynching Article Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 14, 2003): Lower court erred in applying Article 61 of Juveniles Act (prohibiting reporting that would identify a juvenile offender) to hold magazine publisher liable for defamation and invasion of privacy, because ordinary person cannot identify the offender from the article, even though the pseudonym used is very similar to his actual name; remanded to consider claims without presumption (19-year-olds like the plaintiff are death-eligible despite being legally "juvenile"; he is on death row for lynching 4 people)

Yokohama Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 14, 2008): Court hearing postconviction relief case must issue "judgment barring prosecution" after general amnesty instead of deciding on merits (defendant was convicted during WWII under now-repealed statute banning criticism of the Government; postconviction proceeding initiated in 1998)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks as always.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Next week, I'm going to start a series of posts on my next book project, which will be about Birch Bayh's Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments.

Gerard Magliocca's writings, especially his book on Bushrod Washington and upcoming book on Jackson's Youngstown concurrence, are suitable background reading for fans of JB's SCOTUS history series.

https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2025/03/the-ford-and-rockefeller-inaugurations.html