Today in Supreme Court History: March 20, 1854

3/20/1854: The Republican Party is founded. President Abraham Lincoln would be elected President on the Republican ticket six years later on November 6, 1860.

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Honest Abe, who did an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, people are saying

[Dan Schiavetta]

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (decided March 20, 1984): California court had jurisdiction to hear suit by well-known California plaintiff (actress Shirley Jones -- she was great in “Elmer Gantry”) for alleged libel in Florida newspaper with national circulation (National Enquirer) concerning her life in California (article stated that her husband, Marty Ingels -- “I’m Dickens, He’s Fenster” -- had driven her to drink -- case settled with a printed apology)

Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, 583 U.S. 416 (decided March 20, 2018): Construing Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, intended to tighten up how class action 1933 Securities Act violation plaintiffs can proceed in federal court, the Court holds that it doesn’t prevent plaintiffs from suing in state court. What? (Yes, you can run amok with federal law class actions, so long as you bring them in state court!)

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, 566 U.S. 66 (decided March 20, 2012): device that recorded metabolism levels and issued warnings as to “too low” or “too high” was not patentable; metabolism levels are just “phenomena of nature”

Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30 (decided March 20, 2012): What if your claim is against the court itself? Here, an employee of the Court of Appeals of Maryland (that state’s highest court) went to federal court, claiming that his bosses violated the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 by not giving him paid time off for a serious medical condition. But . . . the Court holds suit barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and Congress via the Fourteenth Amendment has not provided exception. Splintered opinion. Guy’s out of luck, I suppose -- he can’t very well sue in state court.

Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (decided March 20, 1996): Secretary of Commerce had discretion to not use statistical method of correcting 1990 Census undercounts (this was a Republican administration, not surprisingly)

International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 500 U.S. 72 (decided March 20, 1991): 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1) gives the right to remove to federal court to “[a]ny officer of the United States or any agency thereof, or person acting under him, [in a suit challenging] any act under color of such office. . . .” The Court here holds that this statute gives the right to remove to federal officers but not to federal agencies. (Statute was then reworded to give agencies themselves the right to remove.) (At issue was a state suit brought by animal rights groups against National Institute of Health for euthanizing monkeys.)

Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225 (decided March 20, 1991): Rhode Island federal judges are not entitled to special deference as to their interpretation of R.I. law. The First Circuit, like any other circuit, has to review de novo. (Plaintiff, booted from nursing program for being overweight, won a jury verdict with the trial judge guessing that the R.I. Supreme Court would hold that she had “substantially performed” so as to support breach of contract claim.)

Chauffers, Teamsters and Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558 (decided March 20, 1990): This is the boring case upon which I based my even more boring law review article (which the editors wisely decided not to print). Plaintiff sued union for breach of duty of fair representation. Entitled to trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment because action was “at common law” (as opposed to in equity). It got my interest because Brennan and Marshall were on opposite sides. Legal vs. equitable factors were “in equipoise”, but plaintiff had to show breach of the collective bargaining agreement to proceed, which is breach of contract, which is at law, therefore, jury trial. Zzzzzzz . . .

Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (decided March 20, 1985): fingerprints obtained at police station after defendant was threatened with arrest if he didn’t go were products of illegal search and therefore inadmissible

Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (decided March 20, 1985): surgery to extract bullet fired by victim was unreasonable search under Fourth Amendment; surgery was hazardous and bullet was not critical evidence (victim was shopkeeper who was allegedly shot by defendant and, being himself armed, shot back)

[A Japanese Student]

Coleman: "Congress via the Fourteenth Amendment has not provided exception" is somewhat inaccurate. FMLA's "Family" part is a proper exercise of Equal Protection Clause authority to deter sex discrimination (and does abrogate 11A immunity), as held in Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003); the "Medical" part, however, has no relevance to constitutionally protected characteristics and thus was unconstitutional as applied to states.

There is a well-known contract case in Japan where a court was sued - Tokyo District Court Welfare Bureau Case (Oct. 21, 1960). "Tokyo District Court Welfare Bureau" did not pay the amounts due after purchasing fabric from a private company. The company sued the district court in the Tokyo District Court. The court argued that "Tokyo District Court Welfare Bureau" is not an actual bureau of the court (but an unincorporated association whose members happened to be employees of District Court, Office of the Secretary, General Affairs Division, Welfare Section, and conducted business using the court's official seal inside the court's office). Supreme Court held this wasn't enough to escape liability because a person that allows another to use its name in commerce can be held jointly and severally liable against someone mistaking who is doing business (also see Commercial Code §14).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. I'll revisit this.

[ReaderY]

A post on that RINO traitor? Think about it Josh. Think about your future. Do you want to jeapardize your career by giving column space to RINO garbage like this who was against just about everything today’s MAGA-great Republican Party stands for? Think about it. He has a long memory and won’t take your support of traitors like this lightly.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Now do JFK.
What would he make of the freakshow that is the modern Democrat party? Go trans your kid.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You're an idiot. Muted.

[Swede425]

BUT WHAT ABOUT MY FEELINGS!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Unlike that awful Trump, Lincoln was a free-trader who believed in open commerce with all nations, without tariffs.

Hold on a second, let me check my notes...oops, never mind what I said, but the bottom line is Trump is Hitler and modern progressives are Lincoln.

Exception: In areas where he wasn't sufficiently progressive, Lincoln was Hitler.

[Longtobefree]

Just the man to take on those evil, racist, slave owning democrats!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Historians call that the "Third Party System". Right now we're on the Seventh.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You know what else was called the "Third [something]"?

[Swede425]

They still haven't forgiven Republicans for that.

[SRG2]

Absolutely. And had he lived one hundred years later, perhaps taking on those evil racist, anti-civil rights now Republicans.

I: am always amazed that there are still really really stupid Americans who suffer from the insane delusion that because the Southern Democrats were pro-slavery and treason in the 1860s, modern Democrats share those views. Their delusions might have a grain of truth if the modern South were still predominantly Democrats. And it is interesting how the Democrats can be "accused" of descent from the pro-slavery Southern Democrats but those same accusers never accuse the South of such descent. Funny that..

[Swede425]

See?
Still really really mad.

[SRG2]

Mad at a racist authoritarian South, whether Southern Democrats then or Southern Republicans now....?

Do you see what the two have in common? Or are you still going to pretend otherwise?

[Jerry B.]

"And it is interesting how the Democrats can be "accused" of descent from the pro-slavery Southern Democrats but those same accusers never accuse the South of such descent. Funny that..'

Are you serious?

Liberal Democrats accuse entire states of racism, and cheer when something bad like a hurricane or tornado causes damage there. Even if a town mostly composed of Blacks is destroyed, they are happy.

[SRG2]

Feeble attempt at whataboutism

Even if a town mostly composed of Blacks is destroyed, they are happy.

Prove it.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Also funny how Democrats do the same for Republicans. Anything old Republicans did, modern Republicans are responsible for.

[SRG2]

Which is of course wrong as well.

But thanks for agreeing with me about the lack of criticism of the South rather than party.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

At some point, the [modern] Republican Party jumped the shark.

This is long past the entry of Ted McGinley into the cast. The party needs a Kansas-Nebraska moment. Where is the new Lincoln?

I know! It will be Amy Coney Barrett, that O'Connor wannabee, who will be a latter day Charles Evans Hughes, resign from the Court, and run against Trump in 2028!

Winston v. Lee is one of the bodily autonomy cases cited in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Winston v. Lee? Wikipedia says:

"Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that a compelled surgical intrusion into an individual's body for evidence implicates expectations of privacy and security of such magnitude that the intrusion would be "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, even if likely to produce evidence of a crime."

Explain how this implicates the rights of the unborn?

[Dan Schiavetta]

The unborn have no rights. At least none ever recognized in American law. That might change, but not yet.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It didn't take long to show that to be incorrect.

"In 1762, English jurist and judge William Blackstone wrote that an "infant in its mother's womb" could benefit from a legacy and receive an estate as if it were actually bom. The fetus was thus considered a person for purposes of inheritance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights

Your Taneyesque language isn't just shocking, it's wrong.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Five executions were scheduled this week.

One was held up by the Texas courts.

The liberals (without comment) and Gorsuch (religious liberty ground, with an opinion saying he would have also granted cert) would have held up one.

Jessie Hoffman was executed without his petition for cert ultimately ruled upon though the stay request was denied 5-4.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-6778.html

Aaron Gunches was executed after years of requesting it. No final appeals to SCOTUS.

Wendell Grissom was executed today. No final appeals.

Edward Thomas James is due to be executed. Multiple appeals pending that can be accessed via the SCOTUS docket page.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A few orders were dropped disposing of James' petitions without any written dissents.

[SRG2]

Astonishing - for once they all seem to be guilty.

Weird grounds for Gorsuch to dissent in Hoffman's case - hypoxia will interfere with his religious exercise.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Eugene Volokh comments separately.

There have been a few cases where the person wanted something specific at the execution to further their religious beliefs (like a certain type of minister) without asking for a different method of execution overall. This was different in that respect.

I wonder what sort of religious exercises would be interfered with if the firing squad is used. I'm sure someone could find one.

[Thought about __ all my life]

And REASON called Biden the Great Unifier !!!!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I thought I'd elaborate on my criticism of Trump's "Alien Enemies Act" behavior. Recall that I mentioned the context of two deportation laws of 1798 - Alien Friends Act and Alien Enemies Act - and how the Alien Friends Act was divisive and denounced as unconstitutional while the Alien Enemies Act was accepted as proper by both majority Federalists and minority Republicans.

My contention was that Trump is *wrong* to use the Alien Enemies Act as a method of going after foreign criminals. Instead, the "Alien Enemies" in the law's title refer to enemy *countries,* not individuals.

Let me elaborate on how this contravenes Trump's interpretation.

An enemy country is, by the Act, a country against which Congress has declared war or which is making or about to make an invasion or predatory incursion.

So, what is an "invasion or predatory incursion," and is Venezuela doing it, thereby justifying deporting Venezuelan citizens?

No, Venezuela is not an enemy of the United States because there's no declaration of war against it *and* because no proper definition of invasion or predatory incursion can cover Venezuela's behavior. In its proper context, the invasion, etc. language should be read to apply *only* to situations where Congress can't act in a timely manner. If Congress *can* act in a timely manner, then the choice of whether to make a country an enemy nation rests with Congress via a declaration of war.

Even if we assume that Venezuela is dumping criminals into the U. S., Congress has had time to act, so there is nothing to justify the President jumping in to avoid the risks of Congressional delay. It's up to Congress to decide if there's a casus belli and so far Congress hasn't declared war on Venezuela, ergo Venezuela is legally not an enemy nor are its citizens deportable as alien enemies.

Having said that, if a country *did* have the misfortune of being an enemy of the U. S., then the precedent currently on the books doesn't allow judicial review of deportations of that country's citizens except to decide whether the person's country is actually an enemy. If so, the courts aren't supposed to stop the deportation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/335/160

The Supreme Court could always change its mind (the original decision was 5-4), and maybe some hints of mind-changing can be picked up in later opinions, but we'll just have to see how that works out.

I'd note that Ludecke is an interesting person. Not a nice one, but an interesting one. He was a Nazi, an S. A. founder, and a scam artist (but he broke with Hitler and wrote a book about it). He argued his case in person before the Supremes, maybe not caring or knowing about the adage that a person who serves as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Also, once a country is an enemy, then then it's a political question when it *stops* being an enemy. But I don't think that applies when the facts invoked by the President aren't legally enough to change a county into an enemy.