Today in Supreme Court History: March 15, 1933

3/15/1933: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's birthday.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Bakery Sales Drivers Local Union No. 33 v. Wagshal, 333 U.S. 437 (decided March 15, 1948): A deli changed bakeries because its drivers would deliver only at noon. (Understandable. I grew up in a deli, and later delivered to delis, and this is a b-a-d time for deliveries, with the lunch crowd waiting for their sandwiches. Bakery goods, such as rolls and bagels, are customarily delivered in early morning, for obvious reasons.) Anyway -- the bakery drivers’ union refused to let any of its members service the deli and picketed; the deli sued in District Court under the Norris-LaGuardia Act and got an injunction stopping any interference with the deli’s business. Here, the Court notes that this was not a “labor dispute” such as allows review of the injunction under the Act. (Faced with the injunction, the union lifted the boycott and reason prevailed.)

Eccles v. People’s Bank of Lakewood Village, Cal., 333 U.S. 426 (decided March 15, 1948): declaratory judgment to bank as to lack of conflict of interest was premature even though Federal Reserve had already approved admission into Federal Reserve System after investigation of possible improper stock buy-up cleared it

The Antelope, 25 U.S. 546 (decided March 15, 1827): Spaniards entitled to reclaim Africans who already belonged to them despite seizure of vessel under Slave Trade Act

Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians Local 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255 (decided March 15, 1965): NLRB preempts state court intervention into picket of radio station having less than statutory minimum $100,000 in gross receipts, where it was part of larger radio network

Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272 (decided March 15, 1954): Congress has plenary power to give land to some states and not others (such as under Submerged Lands Act of 1953) and states cannot question it

United States v. Evans, 333 U.S. 483 (decided March 15, 1948): dismissing indictment for harboring illegal aliens because the statute is so unclear as to what penalty applies (“The choice is not simply between no penalty, at the one extreme, and, at the other, fine plus imprisonment up to the specified maxima for each alien concealed or harbored. The problem is rather one of multiple choice, presenting at least three, and perhaps four, possible yet inconsistent answers on the statute’s wording.”)

Woods v. Stone, 333 U.S. 472 (decided March 15, 1943): one-year statute of limitations for government to recoup excess rent (in violation of wartime price controls), where due to owner’s failure to register property excess rent escaped the attention of authorities, began to run from the date of breach of Area Rent Director’s refund order, not from the date when excess rents were collected

Walters v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 347 U.S. 231 (decided March 15, 1954): not denial of Equal Protection to treat self-employment income differently from wage income for tax purposes

Federal Power Commission v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U.S. 239 (decided March 15, 1954): hydroelectric provider could set off rent paid to owners of upstream water rights from surplus earnings for purposes of amortization reserve

Phelps v. Oaks, 117 U.S. 236 (decided March 15, 1886): in determining who is real party in interest for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction federal courts are not bound by state law on that question

Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (March 15, 2024): whether City Manager violated First Amendment by blocking commenter on his private Facebook account is question of fact for trial court (he often discussed official business on it and there was no “views expressed here are my own” disclaimer); whether he was “state actor” bound by Constitution depends not on labeling but on substance

[A Japanese Student]

Walters v. City of St. Louis, Mo.: Interestingly, the Supreme Court of Japan faced the same question three decades later. It, too, held that such distinctions do not violate the Constitution. https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=81

[Malika the Maiz]

The Antelope, 25 U.S. 546 (decided March 15, 1827): Spaniards entitled to reclaim Africans who already belonged to them despite seizure of vessel under Slave Trade Act

I wonder if this was consistent with the disposition of other contraband property at the time?

[Dan Schiavetta]

?

[Malika the Maiz]

Were owners of seized contraband allowed to get it back?

[Dan Schiavetta]

With slaves, the situation was complicated at the time. Importation of slaves had been prohibited in 1808 (which the Constitution allowed) but this did not apply to what other nations were doing.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Lindke v. Freed was written by JB's favorite justice.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The issue is sure to come up with Trump appointees. In fact, it probably already has.

[BBSquatter]

Ruth is reminiscent of the Sheakespeare tragedy of Julius Caesar. That and she was a wolf in sheep's clothing

Caesar. Who is it in the press that calls on me?
I hear a tongue, shriller than all the music,
Cry 'Caesar!' Speak; Caesar is turn'd to hear.

Soothsayer. Beware the ides of March.

Caesar. What man is that?

Brutus. A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March.

Caesar. Set him before me; let me see his face.

Cassius. Fellow, come from the throng; look upon Caesar.

Caesar. What say'st thou to me now? speak once again.

Soothsayer. Beware the ides of March.

The Tragedy of Julius Caesar
Act I, Scene 2
William Shakespeare

[Krayt]

Which will be in two days. I wonder if any other backstabbings are in progress.

[ducksalad]

You have some horological-historical disagreement that it's on the 15th? Or is it like a federal holiday that gets moved to the next Monday?

[Noscitur a sociis]

What

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Retirement choices and so on should not erase the rest of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's impressive long life and career.

Her name was originally "Joan," which, along with "Ruth" (see a joke on the show Friends along with two members of my family), was a popular name at the time. She began to be known as "Ruth" to forestall confusion with other girls in her class.

Ginsburg's work ethic (she made sure to be the first person to complete her opinion assignments) was shown when her husband, Marty was treated for cancer while in law school. RBG made sure to take notes for him, along with taking care of her work.

On the Basis of Sex, a pretty good film with Felicity Jones, had a bit where Scandinavian family policies arose during a party. A man referenced it.

Those who know her career might be miffed that it was skipped over that Ruth was the one who was a true expert on Scandinavian family law policies, learning Swedish to study them. Ginsburg's use of the term "pathmarking" is often said to be her invention. If so, she was inspired by a Swedish word.

https://www.supersummary.com/my-own-words/part-2-summary/

Ginsburg had a long career in academia. She became the leader of a women's rights project, applying the text and values of the Equal Protection Clause in ways consistent with its wider purpose.

RBG argued multiple cases in front of SCOTUS with her calm, deliberate, and firm style. Nonetheless, it is her wider work fighting sexism in a bunch of ways that was her greatest legacy.

(She would have appreciated this article:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5036471)

Along with Breyer, she was eventually chosen by President Carter for the court of appeals, where she met Scalia. RBG was a moderate on the court of appeals. A few were even concerned she was not a strong enough choice for justice.

Her beloved husband helped convince people otherwise, starting a long tenure even if she was over 60 when confirmed. As Justice Rehnquist once noted while she argued a case, no, she was not satisfied with Susan B. Anthony being on the dollar coin.

She got her nickname toward the end of her tenure, helped by the book Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg by Irin Carmon and Shana Knizhnik.* By then, her husband had died, and she became a sort of living legend.

Her decision to retire in hindsight especially comes off as misguided if understandable. Either way, it doesn't erase a wonderful life and career.

---

* Shana is less known than her co-author.

She worked as a public defender and is an intersex activist.

[Dan Schiavetta]

In her defense, she, like most of us, thought Hillary Clinton would be elected in 2016, and maybe she liked the idea that the first woman President would appoint her successor. Unfortunately Trump was elected, and doubly unfortunately she didn't make it to 2021.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yes, I saw the movie too, and it was attuned to modern sensibilities, not displaying the salami tactics which were her hallmark: a little piece here, a little piece here, and soon there was no salami left. The movie had her go for the whole salami right away.

And in the movie, she had no faults. Even her lack of cooking skills showed her awesomeness because she wasn't a slave to traditional womanly roles. Instead, she resorted to the feminist method of having a richer husband supporting her career, and this husband was also an excellent cook and relieved her of household drudgery.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Dramatic license typically simplifies, and the film was not particularly notable in that sense.

Her husband was notable for supporting her career, especially in an era where men often did not. She honored him for respecting her brains. He was also known for his cooking skills. A man in the 1950s and 1960s cooking instead of the woman was notable.

The film portrayed her losing her cool for dramatic effect when she did not. So, no, she wasn't just perfect.

https://slate.com/culture/2018/12/on-the-basis-of-sex-accuracy-rbg-biopic-fact-fiction.html

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think that, from the intended audience's point of view, her getting angry would *not* be seen as a fault - to the extent that the target audience would have wanted her to have a freakout even if in the real world she wouldn't.

Progressives manage to hold conflicting thoughts in their head at the same time, all while building up the requisite amount of indignation in defiance of oppressive standards of logic.

By modern standards Ginsburg is a transphobe. Her old outfit, the ACLU, changed a quote of hers - defending women's "right" to abortion - to be gender-neutral.

The ACLU apologized for changing the quote, while maintaining that she would have eventually evolved to a modern level of enlightenment.

https://nypost.com/2021/09/28/aclu-apologizes-for-changing-rbg-quote-to-delete-woman-and-she/

Men can get pregnant! But limits on abortion are specifically a threat to women's rights! And it's OK to work up outrage under either theory!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Humans "manage to hold conflicting thoughts in their head at the same time, all while building up the requisite amount of indignation in defiance of oppressive standards of logic."

Conservatives and libertarians on this blog included.

People who view films, of all persuasions, like human characters with human emotions and foibles. The film not making her perfect would be appreciated, not only for dramatic purposes.

Your framing of the film is slanted, and the reply wants to continue to make trouble. What "audience" are you playing to?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"The film not making her perfect"

The film I saw didn't give her any faults which the intended audience would acknowledge as faults.

"What "audience" are you playing to?"

The audience which *doesn't* have a collection of RBG pins, RBG T-shirts, RBG coffee mugs, RBG bobblehead dolls, and RBG underwear.

If she hadn't been pro-abortion, the woke crowd would have ditched her by now because of her, I think the term is "essentialist," view of women.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I forgot to mention the RBG wine glasses and the RBG breath mints ("don't lose your appeal").

[Frank Drackman]

RBG couldn’t beat the Big C

[CJColucci]

RBG was a devoted opera fan, like her Odd Couple pal, Antonin Scalia. Sadly for her, she couldn't carry a tune in a bucket, though she did get a small, non-singing part in an opera late in life.
She also had a sense of humor, which she rarely exhibited, but would have had to have to be married to Martin, who, besides being a great cook, was very funny.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

She found Scalia very amusing.

[F.D. Wolf]

On this day, March 15, 1836, the Senate confirmed two of President Andrew Jackson's nominees to the Court: Roger Taney to the position of Chief Justice, replacing the deceased John Marshall, and Philip Barbour, replacing the retired Gabriel Duvall. This meant that Jackson had now appointed five of the Court's seven members, shifting the Court from one with a more expansive view of federal powers to one with a more limited view of those powers.

On March 3, 1837, Jackson's last full day in office, Congress would pass the Eighth and Ninth Circuit Act, expanding the Court from seven justices to nine. Jackson would nominate John Catron and William Smith to the two new seats. Both would be confirmed on March 8, though Smith declined to serve. (Though Catron was nominated by Jackson, as he was confirmed and his commission delivered under President Martin Van Buren, he is technically considered a Van Buren appointee.)

[A Japanese Student]

Tort Claims Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 15, 1968): Out-of-court settlement does not waive damages claims not foreseeable at the time of settlement

Road Traffic Act Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 15, 1973): Prosecution for traffic offense must be dismissed sua sponte due to failure to seek civil penalty (which, if paid, bars prosecution)

Toyama University Case (Third Petty Bench, decided March 15, 1977): Whether to grant a credit for a university course is not a justiciable question because it is a matter of internal discipline not suitable for judicial adjudication; whether to allow graduation is justiciable, because disputes on whether one can use a public property is justiciable, and one uses a university by enrolling and graduating

Club Cats' Eye Case (Third Petty Bench, decided March 15, 1988): Nightclub infringed composers' copyright by letting its customers sing using the club's karaoke machine (even if the customer does not infringe copyright under uncompensated-performance exception; established the "karaoke doctrine")

Ageo City Welfare Center Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 15, 1996): City cannot refuse group from using a community center (to host a funeral for a murdered union executive); denial requires evidence of likely interference with center's business (which did not exist)

Criminal Defamation Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 15, 2010): Online defamation is determined under the same standard as offline one, rejecting the defendant's argument that people do not trust online sources as much as offline ones (and the scope should be narrowed); affirmed conviction because defendant's mistake of fact as to truth of the statement is not grounded in reliable sources

GPS Investigation Case (Grand Bench, decided March 15, 2017): Similar to United States v. Jones; Court holds unanimously that warrantless use of geolocation tracking devices violates Article 35 of the Constitution; conviction sustained on harmless-error grounds (as translated by me, "GPS investigations ... allow thoroughly tracking the locations and movements of the vehicle and its users. This method, which necessarily tracks one's activities continuously and exhaustively, can infringe upon an individual's privacy. And by attaching a device enabling such infringement to one's effects secretly, it constitutes an intrusion into a private area by Governmental authority, unlike tracking locations on public highway by eyesight or photography. Although Article 35 defines the rights 'to be secure in their homes, papers and effects against entries, searches and seizures', we find it reasonable to interpret this as including the freedom from 'entries' not only to 'homes, papers and effects' but also to private areas equivalent thereto.")

Habeas Corpus Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 15, 2018): American habeas corpus petitions usually come from death row; Japanese ones come from a parent in child custody dispute. In this international parental kidnapping case, the father (who lives in the US) seeks return of his son (US-Japan dual citizen) who lives with his mother in Japan; despite final judgment under Hague Convention Act ordering return to the US, both the mother and the son resisted court enforcement officer's attempts to secure him. Court rules that the son could not consent to his custody and habeas corpus should have been granted (!?)

[Dan Schiavetta]

In the GPS case, did the court cite Jones?

[A Japanese Student]

No - in fact Japanese courts rarely cite foreign case law. Which is a shame because Japan's Constitution is heavily influenced by the American one - most importantly, the strong opposition to Lochnerism.

From the court's official website search, I could find the following cases referring to SCOTUS.

- Parricide, 1950-10-11: cites not a case, but "Equal Justice under Law" inscribed in the building (and says it is meaningless due to pervasive segregation)
- Tokyo Metropolis Public Safety Ordinance Case, 1960-07-20: upholds ordinance requiring permit for demonstration; in dissent Justice Fujita cites Hague v. CIO and Saia v. New York
- Third-Party Criminal Forfeiture Case, 1962-11-28: in concurring majority's holding that the defendant has standing to object to (unconstitutional) forfeiture of third-party's property, Justice Tarumizu cites third-party standing law without identifying a case, same for Justice Shimoiizaka in dissent
- Tokushima City Public Safety Ordinance Case, 1975-09-10: Justice Kishi, concurring, lists several First Amendment holdings (including "clear and present danger", whoops) without identifying cases (though it seems to cite Dennis, O'Brien, and Broadrick.)
- Election Dispute Case, 1976-04-14: Justice Okahara's dissent discusses US malapportionment case law without naming the case
- Tsu Jichinsai Case, 1977-07-13: Justice Fujibayashi, in dissent, discusses how SCOTUS has refused to define religion
- Juvenile Protection Case, 1983-10-26: Justice Danto discusses SCOTUS cases protecting due process of juveniles, without naming one (though I suppose it's Gault and Winship)
- Election Dispute Case, 1999-01-22: Justice Fukuda in dissent cites Brown v. Thomson (1983) for the maximum ratio allowed before malapportionment claim arises
- Election Dispute Case, 2004-01-14: Justice Kajitani, in dissent, notes that SCOTUS since 1963 has consistently mandated one person, one vote
- Election Dispute Case, 2009-09-30: Justice Miyakawa, in dissent, cites Reynolds v. Sims
- Horikoshi's Case, 2012-12-07: Justice Chiba, concurring, cites Ashwander v. TVA and Rescue Army v. Municipal Court to say that the majority opinion is not a form of constitutional avoidance in this case
- Election Dispute Case, 2014-07-09: Yet another Justice Chiba concurrence citing Ashwander.
- Pravastatin Case, 2015-06-05: Justice Chiba cites CAFC and SCOTUS cases on product by process claim in patents, such as Scripps Clinic v. Genentech (CAFC 1991), Atlantic Thermoplastics v. Faytex (CAFC 1992), Abbott Labs v. Sandoz (CAFC 2009), and Nautils v. Biosig (2014)
- Election Dispute Case, 2015-11-25: Justice Chiba, concurring, cites Baker v. Carr

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks

[Frank Drackman]

Beware the Ideas of March!