Today in Supreme Court History: March 23, 1870

3/23/1870: Justice Joseph Bradley takes oath.

Justice Joseph Bradley

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Sort of an 1876 version of 2000’s Surpremes, giving the erection to the Repubiclown, Rutherford B Hayes (most 19th Century POTUS name ever, and was often mentioned on the “Wild Wild West” (60’s TV version, not the awful Wil Smith movie) not a bad deal for the DemoKKKrats, they had to accept a Repubiclown POTUS, but got back control of the South for the next 100 yrs

[Dan Schiavetta]

Comcast Corp. v. National Ass’n of African American-Owned Media, 589 U.S. — (decided March 23, 2020): owner of African-American owned network must show that race was related to being denied a spot on cable TV service (“but-for” causation); remands to examine Complaint under proper standard

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (decided March 23, 1993): upholding against Due Process attack INS regulation prohibiting release of juvenile aliens if no family member or guardian to claim them (plaintiffs in custody were teenagers suspected of being deportable)

Allen v. Cooper, 589 U.S. — (decided March 23, 2020): Congress has no power to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity as to copyright violations (state posted plaintiff’s videos of shipwreck; Court strikes down relevant section of Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990)

Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538 (decided March 23, 1972): Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. §2283) did not prevent federal court from staying on Due Process grounds pre-suit garnishment of wages permitted by state law; no “state proceeding” in existence yet

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (decided March 23, 1970): state can’t terminate welfare benefits without hearing

Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (decided March 23, 1908): state can’t (without a hearing) set rates so high that railroads would be forced to go to court to contest them; this case is the origin of the legal fiction that if a state officer acts in conflict with federal law he has “stripped himself” of authority and therefore can be sued in federal court despite the Eleventh Anendjent

Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U.S. — (decided March 23, 2020): upholding against Eighth Amendment attack Kansas statute prohibiting insanity defense as to guilt (can be asserted only as to sentencing)

South Florida Water Mgmt. District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95 (decided March 23, 2004): tribe protested pollution due to pumping water from Everglades pond without special permit; Court remands to trial court for proper analysis

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (decided March 23, 1999): Daubert rule (that expert testimony must be based on reliable principles reliably applied) also applies to non-scientific testimony (precluding expert testifying as to cause of tread wear pattern on allegedly defective tire who could not determine how many miles it had been driven)

Lyng v. International Union, United Automotive, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 485 U.S. 360 (decided March 23, 1988): upholding against First Amendment and Fifth Amendment attack Reagan-era rule cutting off welfare benefits if one member of the household had job but was on strike

[A Japanese Student]

Flores case was eventually settled, producing a set of agreements that governed children's treatment by the immigration authorities. They are in the process of terminating this agreement.

[SRG2]

I note that they were held pending deportation hearings. How very 20th Century...

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes seems quaint now

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks Japanese Student

[A Japanese Student]

I always felt like Ex parte Young is way more convoluted than it needs to be, especially in cases where §1983 is invoked. We could apply it to state officers regardless of capacity, and interpret it as abrogating Eleventh Amendment under 14A. Although the statute doesn't say so, it is clear from legislative background that this was meant to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments.

There are some situations where this is not enough (such as Medina this term). But I don't see why Young has to be invoked everywhere.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Young was decided well before the Bill of Rights became “incorporated” bit by bit into the 14A. In 1908 it was probably the best they could do.

[SRG2]

Kahler is worth reading for Kagan's historical review of mens rea.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/589/18-6135/

[A Japanese Student]

Kagan is a good writer, and this case is no exception.

Although I am not familiar with Japan's insanity defense law, it appears somewhat different from M'Naghten. It includes both the lack of moral capacity and volitional incapacity. I have to re-check who has the burden of proof, though - I think (once the defendant alleges insanity) the prosecutor has to show lack of insanity beyond a reasonable doubt.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Chief Justice Rehnquist discusses Justice Bradley's role on the special commission to settle the 1876 election here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/viewspeech/sp_04-14-03

He also referenced Bradley in another speech available on the website:

After Chief Justice Chase died in May 1873, Grant waited until the following November before offering the appointment to an old political ally, Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York. Conkling declined. Three Associate Justices were favored by various factions of Grant's administration: Justice Samuel Miller, Justice Noah Swayne and Justice Joseph Bradley. But in late November, President Grant decided he would not appoint anyone currently on the Court.

[A Japanese Student]

Narcotics Control Act Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 23, 1960): Dismisses appeal because pro se brief was written in Chinese; the attorney also submitted a brief in Japanese, and that appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Extraordinary Appeal Case (Third Petty Bench, decided March 23, 1971): Rare decision vacating a "proceeding" (not judgment) as requested by the Prosecutor General for failure to convene three-judge district court (required for criminal cases with mandatory minimum - here, commercial possession of heroin)

Marusho Defamation Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 23, 1976): Defense attorney can be held criminally liable for naming someone else as the true culprit in a press conference

Attorneys Act Case (Third Petty Bench, decided March 23, 1976): Uncharged conduct may be used to establish that the defendant engaged in "business" of unauthorized practice (i.e. not "I helped my friend once or twice")

Tort Claims Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 23, 2006): Constitutional to limit correspondence by prisoner so long as it is reasonable in addressing substantial likelihood of security or rehabilitation issues; warden abused discretion by banning letter addressed to newspaper that sought reporting of petitions made to legislators

Mukai Aki's Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 23, 2007): Ordre public principle bars recognition of Nevada decree naming egg-providing plaintiff as mother of child born in gestational surrogacy; under Japanese law, the surrogate is always the mother (even if genetically unrelated), and the couple must instead adopt the child (codified by 2020 statute, ART Special Provisions Act §9)

2009 House of Representatives Election Malapportionment Case (Grand Bench, decided March 23, 2011): Guaranteed-seat provision of Electoral District Council Act, §3(2), is unconstitutional; districting plan drawn in accordance with §3(2) is constitutional because prior decision upheld the provision and no showing that they failed to correct within reasonable period

[F.D. Wolf]

On March 23, 1775, exactly 250 years ago today, Patrick Henry delivered his famous "Give me liberty or give me death!" speech in favor of revolution to the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia. Among the other delegates at the convention were future Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. The speech concluded:

If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Henry was perhaps the most prominent of the anti-Federalist, those that argued against ratification of the proposed Constitution, which they felt stripped the states of too much sovereignty in favor of the central, federal government. Despite this, President Washington would offer Henry several positions within the government, including Secretary of State, all of which Henry declined. After the Senate rejected the nomination of John Rutledge as Chief Justice in December 1795, Washington offered the position to Henry, but, again, he declined, chiefly due to his declining health. Henry would pass away on June 6, 1799.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Most of the slave holding Founding Fathers were embarrassed by the contradiction between “all men are created equal” and slavery. Henry was an example. “Don’t ask me to defend it. I cannot.”