Today in Supreme Court History: March 31, 1962

3/31/1962: Justice Charles Whittaker resigns.

Justice Charles Whittaker

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (decided March 31, 1997): state judge should have known sexual assaults would inculpate him under 12 U.S.C. §242 (the criminal counterpart to 42 U.S.C. §1983) even though statute does not mention sexual crimes and Court has not directly ruled on similar facts; affirms conviction

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (decided March 31, 1977): victims of union’s discrimination against black and hispanic workers (demonstrated by “pervasive” inequalities in promotions) are entitled to retroactive seniority

Pfaff v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 312 U.S. 646 (decided March 31, 1941): apportioning to deceased partner the equitable share of receivable accounts even though he kept his accounts on a cash (not accrual) basis

Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U.S. 320 (decided March 31, 2015): Medicaid Act does not provide private right of action for healthcare providers to sue state (Idaho) for setting reimbursement lower than required by Act

Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 556 U.S. 163 (decided March 31, 2009): Congressional resolution apologizing for conquering Hawaii did not strip state of power to sell state lands

New Jersey v. Delaware, 552 U.S. 597 (decided March 31, 2008): Delaware owns all of the Delaware River within the “twelve-mile circle” up to the New Jersey low water mark (New Jersey v. Delaware, 1934). Here the Court won’t even let New Jersey build a natural gas unloading terminal which would stick out into the river.

United States v. U.S. Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360 (decided March 31, 1998): Art. I, §9, cl. 5: “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State” (this was to prevent Congress from preferring states with busy ports); here, the Court holds that the Court of International Trade (its only courthouse is in lower Manhattan; I’ve passed it many times on my way to appearances at 71 Thomas Street on meatball slip and fall lawsuits) had jurisdiction over a suit to recover “harbor maintenance tax”, and holds that the tax (paid by anyone shipping through a port) violates the above clause, insofar as it’s levied on exporters

Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 (decided March 31, 2022): in deciding to confirm/vacate arbitration award (as opposed to compelling arbitration), federal court looks only to procedural defects alleged, and does not rule on substantive controversy (which involved federal issue; because this was not to be ruled on, no federal court jurisdiction and case remanded to state court)

Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (decided March 31, 1998): Seventh Amendment (right to jury trial in actions “at law”) supersedes statutory language; copyright damages (“at law” and not “equitable” issue) are to be decided by jury even though statute says “court” does it (damages had to do with showings of those artistic gems, “Who’s the Boss?”, “Silver Spoons”, “Hart to Hart” and “T.J. Hooker” -- how much are those shows worth? -- I bet jury selection was a circus -- could plaintiff’s attorney get a PBS watcher excused “for cause”?)

United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (decided March 31, 1998): rule in court martial proceedings excluding polygraph evidence (here, it would have corroborated officer’s denying meth use) did not violate Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to fair trial and to put on a defense

[A Japanese Student]

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 amended §242 to enhance the maximum sentence for aggravated sexual assault. One section (§320103) made the maximum life imprisonment, and another section (§60006) authorized death penalty. The Court did not discuss this in Kennedy.

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, included VAWA reauthorization. This further expanded the sexual misconduct sentence enhancement for civil rights offenses. 18 USC §250

[A Japanese Student]

That is not the correct summarization of Badgerow. I'd summarize it as like this: "Federal courts cannot exercise jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrated dispute involved a federal question." The jurisdiction must be established solely by considering the section 9 application; that is, there must either be a federal question (other than FAA) regarding the award itself, or the parties must be diverse.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks but I like my phrasing better. They can exercise jurisdiction if the federal question also appears on the face of the petition.

[A Japanese Student]

Reading the opinion once again, I'm pretty sure both sides have agreed that FAA does not allow courts to rule on substantive controversy. That's the point of arbitration.

Walters argued that, regardless of lack of substantive issue, the federal court still had jurisdiction due to federal question in underlying dispute, citing a precedent interpreting a different part of FAA on compelling arbitration. The court rejected this approach.

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court in United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997). did not affirm the defendant's conviction. The Court ruled that the Sixth Circuit had employed too stringent a standard in deciding whether prior judicial decisions gave fair warning that the judge's actions violated constitutional rights, vacated the judgment and remanded the case for application of the proper standard. Id., at 272. (A divided en banc court had theretofore reversed the judgment of the district court and instructed the district court to dismiss the indictment. United States v. Lanier, 73 F.3d 1380, 1393 (6th Cir.) (en banc).)

On remand, the en banc court vacated its prior decision, restored the case to the docket as a pending appeal, ordered further briefing, and instructed the clerk to schedule the case for oral argument. United States v. Lanier, 114 F.3d 84 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc). The en banc court also granted the motion of the United States to vacate its June 15, 1995, order releasing Lanier from custody pending resolution of his appeal, United States v. Lanier, 120 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc), and directed Lanier to surrender to the United States Marshal by August 22, 1997.

Instead of surrendering as directed, Lanier fled to Mexico. The district court issued a warrant for his arrest, and ultimately, the Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal with prejudice based on the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine. United States v. Lanier, 123 F.3d 945, 946 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1011 (1998). Because Lanier failed to surrender by the date prescribed by the district court, the court issued an order denying all of his pending motions, including a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2010/12/14/lanier2.pdf

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks! Will delete "affirms conviction".

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Justice Whittaker's resignation opened up a seat for Byron White, a leading man in the Kennedy Justice Department.

White had a long tenure during which he provided pragmatic path that was conservative in various respects. He wrote some liberal opinions, including Coker v. Georgia, which held that it was unconstitutional to execute for rape (at least of adults). He also was notable dissents, including in Roe v. Wade and Nixon v. Fitzgerald (presidential immunity).

Whittaker's largely forgettable tenure is mostly remembered for his resignation.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He seemed ok in the lower courts but for some reason couldn’t handle being on the Supreme Court. Possibly other things were going on with him.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Got to know your limitations.

[A Japanese Student]

Illegitimate Child Inheritance Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 31, 2003): Civil Code §900(4) ("the share in inheritance of an child out of wedlock shall be one half of the share in inheritance of a child in wedlock") is constitutional (3-2 decision; overruled in 2013, see Sept. 4)

Fraud, Counterfeiting Evidence Case (First Petty Bench, decided March 31, 2016): Defendant counterfeited evidence by conspiring with police officers to make a false written declaration (as opposed to simply lying to the police, which is not a crime even if recorded in written form)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In the Order List today ...

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the denial of review in the case of Lance Shockley, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2005 murder of a Missouri highway patrol officer who had been investigating a fatal car accident in which Shockley had been the driver. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor’s six-page dissent.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/justices-decline-to-hear-post-conviction-relief-dispute-in-missouri-capital-case/

The case concerned federal law governing efforts by state prisoners to seek post-conviction relief in federal courts.

[Noscitur a sociis]

To expand:

In federal post-conviction cases, you generally need permission to appeal (a “certificate of appealability”). If the district court judge denies that permission, you can seek it from the appellate court. The issue in this case is what happens when exactly one of the three judges on the appellate panel thinks you should get it, a question on which there is apparently a circuit split. Unsurprisingly, Sotomayor and Jackson think you should get one. That’s not obvious to me, but in either case this seems lime an issue that warrants Supreme Court review.