Today in Supreme Court History: March 17, 1777

3/17/1777: Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney's birthday.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Patton v. Brady, 184 U.S. 608 (decided March 17, 1902): upholding extra tax on already taxed goods (on manufactured tobacco under War Revenue Act of 1898, Spanish-American War)

United States v. Florida, 420 U.S. 531 (decided March 17, 1975): Submerged Lands Act of 1953 supersedes Florida’s 1868 State Constitution insofar as setting seaward boundaries

First Nat’l Bank of Columbus, O. v. Louisiana Highway Comm’n, 264 U.S. 308 (decided March 17, 1924): jurisdictional minimum for diversity (then $3,000) not met where plaintiff alleged loss of land that would have been worth more than that if government had routed highway correctly

Tank Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 356 U.S. 30 (decided March 17, 1958): trucker can’t deduct fines for innocent (as opposed to willful) weight violations for income tax purposes

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Remund, 330 U.S. 539 (decided March 17, 1947): Farm Credit Administration is “United States” under 31 U.S.C. §191 (now 31 U.S.C. §3713), so unpaid debt due it by decedent takes priority in probate

Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 312 U.S. 563 (decided March 17, 1941): Removal did not used to be self-executing; the state court had to order it, and one could appeal the order (in state court). Or one could just go to federal court. This case shows the resulting mess, and sets rules as to what proceedings are valid.

Staten Island Rapid Transit Ry. Co. v. Phoenix Indem. Co., 281 U.S. 98 (decided March 17, 1930): This New York case is an example of the rarely-used (and to my mind under-used) “action on agreed facts” (now CPLR R. 3222), which allows one to bring a suit in the first instance in the Appellate Division. Here, the Court upholds a statute allowing an insurer to recoup worker’s compensation benefits after a wrongful death suit settles.

FTC v. American Tobacco Co., 264 U.S. 298 (decided March 17, 1924): tobacco company did not have to comply with FTC investigation authorized by Senate; statute allowed FTC to investigate only antitrust violations (and none alleged here)

South Dakota v. Collins, 249 U.S. 220 (decided March 17, 1919): An example of a state suing an individual directly in the Supreme Court under the Court’s original jurisdiction. Here, the state treasurer pocketed interest on the state’s bank accounts. Amazing that he thought he could get away with it. He didn’t.

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (decided March 17, 1884): posed photo is copyrightable (this was the famous photo of Oscar Wilde, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Wilde#/media/File:Oscar_Wilde_ by_Napoleon_Sarony._Three-quarter-length_photograph,_seated.jpg

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Happy St. Patrick's Day.

Roger Taney likely had some Irish roots. He was the first Catholic to serve on the Supreme Court. Irish Catholics are key to St. Pats.

Justice William Paterson was born in Ireland.

https://supremecourthistory.org/scotus-scoops/william-paterson-son-of-ireland/

"While Chief Justice Roberts’ father had Irish and Welsh roots, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, a first-generation Irish American, now connects him strongly to Ireland. The Roberts have rented a cottage in County Limerick, near where her mother grew up."

[A Japanese Student]

Public Offices Election Act Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 17, 1961): "Document used for electioneering" only includes documents whose contents indicate that it is for election campaigns; distribution of business card with the candidate's name and occupation constitutes an offense under §146, which prohibits circumvention of §142 (but not §142, which prohibits distribution of "documents used for electioneering")

Road Traffic Act Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 17, 1988): Evidence obtained by police vehicle committing speeding violation need not be suppressed

Tort Claims Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 17, 2000): Constitutional to prohibit appeals from small-claims judgment because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to appeal (note that the plaintiff can choose to not file as small claims, and the defendant has the right to transfer to non-small claims proceeding)

Graveyard Licensing Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 17, 2000): This case must be discussed in conjunction with Charnel House Licensing Case (May 9, 2023). The disputes themselves are simple: a resident sues to revoke a license for something NIMBY, and the defendant disputes standing. They arise from the same statute (Graveyards and Burials Act), and the implementing local regulations are quite similar as they prohibit construction of graveyards within 300m radius of a dwelling. Yet in 2000 case the Court rejected standing, while in 2023 case they accepted - even though 2023 majority did not overrule this case. So, what happened? The 2000 case involved Osaka Prefectural ordinance, which barred construction near all sorts of buildings and allowed the Governor to grant exemptions after finding "that it will not impair public health or welfare". The Court found that the ordinance did not intend to protect individual residents' interests. On the other hand, the 2023 case involved Osaka City regulation, which barred construction near schools, hospitals, or dwellings and allowed the Mayor to grant exemptions after finding that "it will not significantly impair residential environment". The Court found that this regulation did intend to protect individual residents' interests. (There is one development lurking behind the difference, as shown in Justice Hayashi's 2023 concurrence - 2004 amendment to Administrative Case Litigation Act, which added §9(2) concerning third parties' standing to seek revocation of Governmental actions. https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3781#je_ch2sc1at2)

Koshibyo Case II (First Petty Bench, decided March 17, 2025): Another dispute involving Koshibyo, a Confucius temple (that used to receive municipal park user fee exemption before the Court found it unconstitutional); here it rules that granting municipal park use permit does not violate separation of church and state (and denies review on property tax deduction because they forgot to raise in the briefs)

[Dan Schiavetta]

The charnel house case reminds me of the 1984 Japanese comedy "The Funeral" (I don't know what they called it in your country) which I saw with a friend in New York circa 1988. It was both insightful and funny, but I kept wondering: How accurate is it as to modern Japan? (Does the family really watch the body incinerate? Do they really hire a stranger as a priest to do the praying?) Let me know.

[A Japanese Student]

It's called a comedy for a reason...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This article references our host.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/17/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court