Today in Supreme Court History: March 24, 2009

3/24/2009: Citizens United v. FEC argued for the first time.

Comments

[Thought about __ all my life]

More Roberts failures, sprouting like a rash

FEC is where ROberts showed almost no comprehension of modern society
https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/04/02/no-justice-roberts-the-internet-cant-do-governments-job/

[Dan Schiavetta]

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (decided March 24, 1966): poll tax violates Equal Protection (though literacy tests are o.k. if not used for discriminatory purpose)

Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. 411 (decided March 24, 2022): execution stayed because defendant had valid argument that prohibiting his pastor from laying hands on him in the execution chamber violated First Amendment (state allowed pastor to lay on hands, and Ramirez was executed on Oct. 5, 2022)

United States v. George, 228 U.S. 14 (decided March 24, 1913): homesteader lied about his time of residence on land but by statute residence has to be proved by two non-homesteader witnesses; administrative rule only, so conviction for perjury vacated

Black v. Thorne, 111 U.S. 122 (decided March 24, 1884): only nominal damages for patent infringement (fuel formula for producing steam) because infringer did not save money on steam, even if saved money overall

Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265 (decided March 24, 1919): Arizona law restricting working hours for women in hotels did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause; did not apply to employees in restaurants along train lines (i.e., interstate commerce)

Bank of Iron Gate v. Brady, 184 U.S. 665 (decided March 24, 1902): tort claim booted from federal court when death of defendant brought value of case below jurisdictional minimum (evidently overruled by St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 1938 (“events occurring subsequent to the institution of suit which reduce the amount recoverable below the statutory limit do not oust jurisdiction”))

Kaiser v. New York, 394 U.S. 280 (decided March 24, 1969): wiretapped conversations (in pay phone in bar) were not illegal at the time so are admissible in state prosecution

Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (decided March 24, 1976): federal courts will abstain in state water rights dispute where federal government got dragged into state court by McCarran Amendment even though government sued in federal court first (McCarran Amendment gives automatic consent for federal government to be joined in any water rights suit) (this case is the source of the “Colorado River abstention” doctrine)

Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (decided March 24, 1976): This is Dr. Benjamin Spock, of “Baby and Child Care” (a very reasonable and sensible book for new parents -- the first sentence is, “You know more than you think you do”). Here, Spock, running for president on the People’s Party and trying to distribute political literature at Fort Dix, fails in overturning a regulation prohibiting political speech (though not other types of speech) at Fort Dix even if invited.

Houston Community College System v. Wilson, 595 U.S. 468 (decided March 24, 2022): no First Amendment retaliation claim when trustee of public college was censured by his board for “inappropriate” and “reprehensible” conduct; not an adverse action, and criticism comes with the territory (fittingly, he was censured for bringing multiple lawsuits against the board)

[SRG2]

Ramirez wins 8-1. Thomas, of course, dissented, and spends 9 paragraphs going into the details of the crimes and in total an unnecessary 22 pages, mostly dealing with all the ways in which Ramirez had previously tried to delay his execution. He might have saved much time and energy had he merely written, "Ramirez is a murderous scumbag who's tried to avoid being executed for years. Fuck him."

[A Japanese Student]

A couple of corrections: the stay of execution in Ramirez was issued in September 2021, which also granted cert. The decision referenced was on the merits. Court resolved this case on RLUIPA grounds, not First Amendment.

Ramirez is not the only death-row inmate who raised the prayer claim. One such inmate is Ruben Gutierrez, who in 2020 brought a similar claim and had his execution stayed by SCOTUS. 590 US --- (June 16, 2020); see also Gutierrez v. Saenz, 592 U.S. --- (Jan. 25, 2021) (GVR). This is different from Gutierrez II, which was argued in February. I believe he is the second inmate whose execution was stayed by SCOTUS on two different occasions for two different grounds (method-of-execution and postconviction relief). It should not be difficult to name the other inmate.

[SRG2]

Rationally, Texas must think that a DNA test would mitigate Gutierrez' sentence

[Dan Schiavetta]

Japanese Student:

The decision did in effect stay the execution, as the syllabus states. Though the actual decision concludes with its usual squishy "case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion".

The Court goes back and forth as to discussing the 1A and RLUIPA but you are correct that RLUIPA is more directly relied upon. It seems more like a Free Exercise situation but I will rephrase. Thanks!

[A Japanese Student]

From what I've read, the March decision did not stay the execution. It instead suggested that the district court issue an injunction to allow the spiritual advisor during execution. Part IV-C explicitly says that the execution should not be stayed, and the stay entered in September likely expired when the judgment is entered in the merits case. (This part I'm not quite sure. When the Court grants a stay without granting cert concurrently, it usually orders the stay to terminate "upon the sending down of the judgment". Because the Court granted cert. concurrently with the stay, that language was not in the order.)

First Amendment free-exercise claim could have been barred by Employment Division v. Smith. RLUIPA, which was passed to abrogate Smith, has no such bar.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections has some wider things to say about the right to vote & equal protection.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Alito (who recused from a case again without comment as all the conservative justices do) and Gorsuch today provided statements on why the Court should think about re-examining its rules about the Confrontation Clause.

The behind-the-scenes drama regarding Citizens United includes an unreleased draft dissent by the then retiring Justice Souter. It reportedly was a bit of a "barn burner." Really, David?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/05/citizens-united-justice-david-souters-dissent-in-the-supreme-courts-momentous-campaign-finance-case.html

As to the final decision, I think both sides of the debate exaggerate its reach, including the reach of the "censorship" and how much novel power was given to corporations.

A notable thing was how far its overall principles were taken in later cases. As to its effects, a lot of debate there too.

[I'm not going to debate the weeds here. I talked a bit about the subject in the past.]

[A Japanese Student]

Nissan Motor Case (Third Petty Bench, decided March 24, 1981): Gender discrimination (separate retirement age) violates public policy (Civil Code §90), and employment contract is therefore void (gender discrimination was banned by statute in 1999)

Kidnapping for Ransom Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 24, 1987): In bank CEO kidnapping, its executives are persons "who would be concerned about the kidnapped person's safety" (such that money demanded is ransom)

Tort Claims Case (Grand Bench, decided March 24, 1999): Allowing prosecutors to designate the "date, place, and time" of attorney interviews when "necessary for investigation" does not violate the Constitution; "necessary for investigation" includes when the defendant is about to be interrogated (as there is no constitutional right to have attorneys during interrogation)

Dentsu Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 24, 2000): Employer liable to tort claim arising from employee's suicide attributed to overworking-induced depression (at one time he returned home at 6:30AM only to go back to work at 8AM)

Hakamata Postconviction Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 24, 2008): Rejects postconviction appeal from death-row inmate Iwao Hakamata because claim of fabricated evidence is implausible (he succeeded at second postconviction petition and was exonerated last year; the opinion suggests that the prosecutor did fabricate evidence)

Vietnamese Technical Intern Stillbirth Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 24, 2023): Vietnamese woman, who miscarried a twin, gave them names, wrapped the bodies gently with a towel, placed them inside a cardboard box with a letter of apology addressed to the twin, and visited the doctor the next day. She gets charged with "abandonment of corpse" and is sentenced to probation. Court rules that the concealment of the dead fetus did not amount to "abandonment" and reverses her conviction. ("Technical intern" is an euphemism for a modern slave; people like the defendant get into debt so that they can work in Japan as part of vocational training program - which in effect is a way to obtain cheap labor. Labor violation and exploitation is commonplace, yet fear of deportation and massive debt repayment silenced many. The defendant here had to hide her pregnancy so that she can continue working.)

Co-ownership Transfer Registration Case (Second Petty Bench, decided March 24, 2023): Party that fully prevailed in district court may appeal in order to vacate procedurally defective judgment (here, signed by non-participating judge)

[John F. Carr]

What did it mean for the employment contract to be void? In American law the courts would tend to disregard the offensive clause rather than voiding the entire contract. When a contract is void for violation of public policy the court refuses to intervene and leaves the parties as they came. No specific performance, no refunds, no judicial action.

[A Japanese Student]

Yes, should've rephrased. The Court held the part of the contract establishing separate retirement age as void but did not invalidate other parts.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good God! One of the twins was born alive, and she wrapped it up with the dead one??

[A Japanese Student]

To clarify: Both were born dead.