Today in Supreme Court History: March 22, 1957

3/22/1957: Justice Charles Whittaker takes oath.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (decided March 22, 1972): Massachusetts statute prohibiting sale of contraceptives to single people (but not married people) violates Equal Protection

Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. 405 (decided March 22, 2017): issue of fact as to whether arrangement of lines, chevrons, and colorful shapes on cheerleading uniform are “original works of art” (copyrightable) or just “industrial designs” (not) — unfortunately we don’t get pics of cheerleaders, but Breyer’s dissent appends photos of objects that illustrate the distinction, e.g., two versions of siamese cat lamp

Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. 451 (decided March 22, 2017): bankruptcy court needs creditors’ consent before it changes normal order of distribution (here, former employees with wage claims found themselves getting nothing, while leveraged buyout beneficiaries got paid)

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. 386 (decided March 22, 2017): parents of autistic child could get reimbursement of private school expenses if public school did not provide services tailored to child’s needs in accordance with Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (for which it gets federal funds); judgment for defendant vacated and remanded for trial (from the description of the facts it seems that the adjustments would have been considerable; the private school was a small academy specializing in educating autistic children)

Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (decided March 22, 2011): even if it’s just a verbal complaint, not a written one (worker complained about time clocks which were placed so that they could be punched only after protective gear was put on, and threatened to sue), you can’t be discharged in retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27 (decided March 22, 2011): securities fraud case could go forward: company told investors it had concluded that its nasal spray did not cause loss of smell when in fact it had not done any studies on it (by 2006 hundreds of lawsuits from anosmic users had been filed)

Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (decided March 22, 2006): can’t search apartment based on wife’s consent if husband refuses (cocaine found is suppressed)

Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (decided March 22, 2005): officers conducting search (based on warrant alleging involving in gang-related drive-by shooting) were justified in handcuffing defendant and asking about her immigration status (5 - 4 decision)

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205 (decided March 22, 2000): Wal-Mart took photos of Samara flowery dresses being sold to J.C. Penney and arranged for knock-offs that looked the same. “Trade dress” (ha) infringement? Only if the public thought it was a Samara dress. Remanded for new trial

Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (decided March 22, 1989): When I was a kid I calculated that if NYC’s governing body was apportioned by population, it would have to have 43 members before Staten Island deserved a single seat. The Board of Estimate, ruling “Greater New York” since its founding in 1898 and consisting of three citywide officers and the five borough presidents, grossly violated “one person, one vote”. This case finally put an end to that.

[SRG2]

Czyzewski was correctly decided but interestingly, Thomalito dissent on grounds that cert should have been DIG'd as plaintiffs appear to have changed the question. Or possibly on the grounds that their supporters liked the original structure, which violated every known principle of priority in bankruptcy, because it prioritised LBO creditors over staff, and that accords with their supporters' preferences.

[Dan Schiavetta]

One of the several ways the law favors people who sit around and watch what their money does, over people who work for their income. Is there a Law & Economics rationale for this? Or is it simply the product of more affluent lobbying?

[SRG2]

It was always understood that in bankruptcy, wages take priority over all other unsecured obligations (except, depending on country, taxes) to avoid the fraudulent creation of senior debt and because, I think, it was generally regarded as fair, hence literally equitable.

[bernard11]

No.

The "rationale" is purely political.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Speaking of NYC, the New York Court of Appeals this week held that the state constitution does not allow the city to provide non-citizens the right to vote in local elections. I do find the dissent convincing.

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_01668.htm#2CASE

[Dan Schiavetta]

You mean as to the issue being moot because there was no referendum?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The majority held that "We hold that Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution limits voting to citizens, and affirm on that ground" and I think the dissent provides a good reason why that's wrong.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes. Just because citizens are guaranteed the vote doesn’t mean others can’t.

[Krayt]

Louder! Louder! Let everyone know exactly what politicians favor letting non-citizens vote!

Don't be shy!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I guess the NY Court of Appeals has joined the ranks of the reactionary, backwards, right-wing hayseeds who won't even do a little thing like allowing non-citizens to vote. Those judicial bigots.

Or...maybe the NY high court are worried that people from other countries might not vote solidly Democratic.

[David Nieporent]

Or maybe that's gibberish.

[EllaWilson]

It's disappointing to watch judge roberts destroy the Supreme Court's respect and legitimacy.

[SRG2]

Well, that's what happens when you invent the principle that in many circumstances the president is above the law.

[not guilty]

"It's disappointing to watch judge roberts destroy the Supreme Court's respect and legitimacy."

The Supreme Court has been neither respected nor legitimate since Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70 (2000), and Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

Senator Mitch McConnell's playing Calvinball after the Scalia vacancy vis-a-vis the Ginsburg vacancy destroyed any remaining vestige of legitimacy.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Federal Judicial Center entry notes he received his commission on 3/22 and took his SCOTUS oath on 3/25.

https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/whittaker-charles-evans

"In 1962, Whittaker suffered a nervous breakdown as he deliberated over his vote in Baker v. Carr, a landmark voting rights case. He retired from the Court on March 31, 1962 and was replaced by Justice Byron White. Whittaker later served as counsel to General Motors, while criticizing the protests of the civil rights movement. He died on November 26, 1973, in Kansas City. The federal courthouse there is named after him."

https://supreme.justia.com/justices/charles-evans-whittaker/

[SMP0328]

On this date in 1972, the Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress and submitted to the States for ratification. Seven or ten and a half years later, the deadline for adoption expired and the proposal failed. Although, the Equal Protection Clause has been expanded by SCOTUS to cover government discrimination on account of sex or sexual orientation.

[Dan Schiavetta]

What SCOTUS has given, SCOTUS can take away.

[SMP0328]

Very true (see Dobbs, especially Justice Thomas's concurrence).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The text of the ERA appears broader than what even pre-Dobbs SCOTUS precedent provided & yes a firm textual command would add additional protection. As to the "failure," there was some dispute, though I agree w/o congressional action, it is kaput.

[John F. Carr]

People couldn't agree what the ERA meant. Does it mean no more than a ban on de jure pay discrimination in government jobs? Is any disparate impact unconstitutional? Are segregated bathrooms in government buildings unconstitutional? Are abortion restrictions unconstitutional?

A woman who was of working age before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 told me pay discrimination was overt then. That was recent history to the authors of the ERA. Modern arguments about how many months of leave new parents get are higher up the hierarchy of need.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

People couldn't agree what the ERA meant.

People can't agree on what multiple things in the current Constitution mean.

At any rate, the text of the ERA suggests it is broader than the reach of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14A. As does looking at some of the original debates. Whatever the ultimate reach is.

[Frank Drackman]

52d Anniversary of the EOB meeting with Milhouse, John Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and that rat John Dean where at the end Nixon pulled Mitchell aside and
said “….I don’t give a shit what happens, stonewall, plead the 5th, coverup, anything to save the plan…..”
Of course even back then the Fake News left out the next part
“Of course I would prefer to do it the other way,…(Mitchell takes the rap)
Of course Mitchell didn’t see it that way, didn’t confess, still went to prison, saw him at the Maxwell AFB gym in 1979 handing out basketballs

Frank

[A Japanese Student]

Took 2 days off due to lack of noteworthy cases (Vernal Equinox Day, a public holiday). I'm back.

Same-Surname Requirement Case (Third Petty Bench, decided March 22, 2022): One of many cases challenging law requiring couples to share the same surname; Court dismisses appeal for want of jurisdiction. Although the Court has jurisdiction for constitutional issues, the lower court applied qualified immunity-like defense as well, which is a statutory issue. (The constitutional claim was rejected in Grand Bench twice, in 2015 and 2021.) (To clarify the defense: this case is a emotional-distress tort claim, a procedural device used to challenge unconstitutional laws. Tort claims require negligence. And officials are not negligent if they follow the law, which is presumed to be constitutional, even if it turns out not to be. In that aspect this is different from QI applied to police violence in the US.)

[Syd Henderson]

Just to clarify, do they have to both share a particular surname, like the husband's, or do they have options to choose the wife's surname, or hyphenate, or merge them, or pick a different name altogether?

[A Japanese Student]

Legally, they have to pick either the husband's or the wife's. (Practically it's almost always the husband's.)

Despite being supported by a majority of citizens in numerous polls, as well as politicians across the ideological spectrum (except a handful of right-wing LDP politicians), the ruling party has consistently refused to seriously consider allowing people to keep their surnames.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts a marriage comes bundled with free name changes for both spouses. The new name does not have to be based on either original surname. She can take his surname. They can blend their names. They can adopt totally different names to hide from Google searches.

[John F. Carr]

Part of broader concept of qualified immunity is not being liable for obeying a law before it had been declared invalid. I remember a state law case where a municipal traffic ordinance facially contradicted state law. Police got one free traffic stop because no court had officially noticed the contradiction.

I also remember in South Dakota the posted speed limit on I-90 dropped from 80 to 65 heading towards Rapid City, well out of town. As there was no reason to slow down there this spot was a happy hunting ground for police. But the legal speed limit was 80. Somebody had put the 65 mph sign in the wrong place. Nobody suggested the traffic stops were invalid. The state DOT ratified the improper placement by changing its regulations to match the signs.

(I-90 in western South Dakota gets a lot of motorcycle traffic. Most of the bikers are good people. Some are up to no good and police like being able to hassle them.)