Today in Supreme Court History: April 8, 1952

4/8/1952: President Truman signs executive order 10340. The Supreme Court declared this executive order unconstitutional in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v. Sawyer (1952).

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Edwards v. Pacific Fruit Express Co., 390 U.S. 538 (decided April 8, 1968): owner and supplier of railroad refrigerator cars was not a “common carrier by railroad” so as to allow suit under Federal Employers Liability Act (statute included other kinds of rail cars but not refrigerator cars; plaintiff was injured while servicing a refrigerator car at a maintenance plant)

Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of City of New Orleans, 44 U.S. 589 (decided April 8, 1845): Constitution does not prohibit states from outlawing certain religious practices (Louisiana ordinance against bringing corpses into churches for funerals) (abrogated by the Fourteenth Amendment)

United States v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 563 (decided April 8, 1968): “outside hoodlums” who attacked blacks after they ate at whites-only restaurant properly convicted under 18 U.S.C. §242 (the criminal equivalent of 42 U.S.C. §1983); 5 - 3 decision; in dissent Stewart, joined by Black and Harlan, point to legislative history and 42 U.S.C. §2000a-6(b) which states that Title 42 is the exclusive remedy for civil rights violations

United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (decided April 8, 1968): death penalty provision of Federal Kidnapping Act (applicable only after jury verdict finding that abductee was harmed) impermissibly burdens right to jury trial but can be stricken without invalidating entire Act

Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktiengesellschaft, 224 U.S. 290 (decided April 8, 1912): United States can exercise eminent domain over patents (Army officer incorporated patented gun and gun carriage designs); patentee can’t sue for infringement but is entitled to just compensation, 28 U.S.C. §1498

Fontaine v. California, 390 U.S. 593 (decided April 8, 1968): conviction for marijuana sale vacated because prosecutor and judge commented on defendant’s failure to testify (informant witness was not available and they pointed out that defendant himself was the only one who could clear up whether he knew it was marijuana and chose not to do so)

Highland v. Russell Car & Snowplow Co., 279 U.S. 253 (decided April 8, 1929): upholding wartime Lever Act of 1917 fixing coal prices even though operators lost money thereby (dismissing suit for lost profits)

Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (decided April 8, 1929): upholding conviction for contempt of Congress; questions as to defendant’s company’s oil contract to supply naval vessels were not “personal” and were pertinent to inquiry (overruled by United States v. Gaudin, 1995, which held that pertinency is for jury to decide)

Helson v. Kentucky, 279 U.S. 245 (decided April 8, 1929): Kentucky tax on gasoline sold to ferries plying the Ohio River between Kentucky and Illinois violates Dormant Commerce Clause

Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Humble, 181 U.S. 57 (decided April 8, 1901): can’t dismiss married woman’s personal injury suit under law of Louisiana where they lived (and which did not allow married woman to bring suit alone) where injury occurred in Arkansas (which permitted her to sue on her own behalf) and where she sued in that state’s court; irrelevant that suit was removed to federal court

[A Japanese Student]

Johnson's description is somewhat inaccurate. Because the defendants were not acting under color of law, neither §1983 nor §242 would have applied. The court applied §241; its civil counterpart is §1985(3). Also noteworthy is that three days after this decision, President Johnson signed Civil Rights Act of 1968 that explicitly criminalized the defendant's conduct - 18 USC §245(b)(2)(F).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks -- got them mixed up. Will revise.

[not guilty]

"United States v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 563 (decided April 8, 1968): “outside hoodlums” who attacked blacks after they ate at whites-only restaurant properly convicted under 18 U.S.C. §242 (the criminal equivalent of 42 U.S.C. §1983); 5 - 3 decision; in dissent Stewart, joined by Black and Harlan, point to legislative history and 42 U.S.C. §2000a-6(b) which states that Title 42 is the exclusive remedy for civil rights violations"

The prosecution here was under 18 U.S.C. § 241, not § 242. Nor is either statute the criminal equivalent of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Also, the Johnson defendants were not convicted; the decision was as to the government's appeal from the District Court's dismissal of the indictment.

Section 241 prohibits conspiring "to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same. . . ." Unlike 42 U.S.C. § 1983, action under color of state law is not an element -- conspiracy among private individuals is also criminalized. While a conspiracy may be actionable under § 1983 where there is also an actual deprivation of rights, the statute also reaches actions under color of state law by a single individual.

While acting under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom is an essential element of § 242, that is not limited to state law as is § 1983. For the purpose of § 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.

Federal officials acting under color of federal law are not suable under § 1983, except when federal officials are engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive constitutional rights, the state officials provide the requisite state action to make the entire conspiracy actionable under section 1983. Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600, 623 (7th Cir. 1979), rev'd in part on other grounds 446 U.S. 754 (1980).

[Thought about __ all my life]

Okay, go further...this concerns people ? but right now most of our steel is outside the country and in the hands of enemies Roughly a quarter...and did stupid clueless lumbering Biden (from Scranton) give a shit Naaaaah. Trump is right ,Biden was wrong and you are enablers

[Krayt]

[Stupid Government Tricks]

"Quarter" is not "most". Trump is an economic ignoramus and you aren't far behind.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Thought about nothing all your life?

Is this a new game? Commenters will have a Mad Libs nickname?

[F.D. Wolf]

On this day, April 8, 1970, the Senate rejected President Nixon's nomination of G. Harrold Carswell to the seat on the Supreme Court formerly occupied by Abe Fortas by a vote of 45-51. Six months earlier, the Senate had rejected Nixon's nomination of Clement Haynesworth to the same seat by a vote of 45-55. (Nixon and Cleveland are the only two Presidents to have had two Court nominees formally rejected by the Senate). Nixon's next nominee, Harry Blackmun, would be confirmed by a vote of 94-0.

Both Haynesworth and Carswell were unfairly smeared as segregationists, but the Democratic Senate may have been intent on rejecting virtually any two nominees as a form of symbolic payback for the Fortas filibuster, which had ended up costing President Johnson two Court appointments and giving them to Nixon.

Carswell had been appointed a district judge for the Northern District of Florida by President Eisenhower in 1958. Nixon would elevate him to the Fifth Circuit in 1969. Carswell's tenure on the Fifth Circuit would last only ten months, as he would resign four days after the Senate rejected his Supreme Court nomination to run for the open Senate seat in Florida, an election he would ultimately lose, after which, he returned to private practice.

In 1976, Carswell would be charged with lascivious behavior after making advances toward an undercover officer in the men's room of a Tallahassee shopping mall, ultimately pleading guilty to battery. In another incident in 1979, Carswell was beaten and robbed by a man he had invited back to his Atlanta motel room. Carswell, who was married, passed away from lung cancer in 1992. His widow Virginia passed away in 2009.

[Dan Schiavetta]

IIRC Potter Stewart made a rare public comment on the Carswell and Haynesworth nominations, criticizing Nixon's "politicization" of the Court.

[David Nieporent]

Carswell, famously, was the "beneficiary" of Senator Hruska's defense, "So what if he's mediocre? There are lots of mediocre people; they deserve representation, too. They can't all be Cardozos and Brandeises and Frankfurters."

(It should escape nobody that he named three Jewish justices.)

[Frank Drackman]

Most people don't even use the word correctly, while the Chicago Cubs of the 1970's were "Mediocre", the Atlanta Braves of the 1970's (and most of the 1980's) were "Abysmal".
I'll go Spelling Bee Style, and use them both in a sentence, "G. Harrold Carswell was a Mediocre Judge, Katanji Brown Jackson is an Abysmal Judge"

Frank

[Dan Schiavetta]

Jews bring with them a presumption of intelligence. At least to the rest of us they do. One can think of reasons for this, most of them complimentary.

[Frank Drackman]

Thank you! but don't forget witty, charming, and good looking too

[SRG2]

One must therefore commend Bob from Ohio from departing from his Jewish ancestry, hence maintaining our reputation 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

Hairy Blackmun, Herr Gauliter for the Pro-Death movement, wrote the majority opinion for Roe v Wade, overturned 60 million deaths later, what a guy! Thanks Milhouse.

[SMP0328]

Nixon wasn't thinking about abortion when he appointed Blackmun. His concern was pulling back on the criminal defense decisions from the Warren Court (e.g., Miranda v. Arizona). On that issue, Blackmun made Nixon very happy.

[Frank Drackman]

But Burger didn't, in a period of 7 months the "Burger Court" said you couldn't execute Murderers, but you could execute the unborn (Murderers or Not) People forget, but Burger was part of the majority in "Roe"

[Syd Henderson]

If Carswell and Haynesworth were rejected because of the Fortas filibuster, then why was Blackmun accepted unanimously? They were rejected because they were unfit for the Supreme Court.

[not guilty]

Interestingly enough, neither Clement Haynesworth nor G. Harrold Carswell claimed to be victims of a high-tech lynching by the Senate. Haynesworth went on to serve for another twenty years on the Fourth Circuit.

Nice work if you can get it.

[Michael Ejercito]

Also, on this day in history in 1994, Judge Wayne Andersen enjoined an joint effort by the Chicago Police Department, Chicago Housing Authority, and HUD to curb school shootings and gang violence.

https://archive.md/mgil3

“The erosion of the rights of people on the other side of town will ultimately undermine the rights of each of us,” Andersen said in refusing to lift a ban he imposed last month.

[Frank Drackman]

From WTTW News (Pubic Broadcasting) Feb 3, 2025
"Chicago saw a slight uptick in the number of homicides through the first month of 2025 compared to the same time last year, while shootings decreased slightly.
There were 38 homicides recorded throughout the city in January, an 8.6% jump over the same month in 2024, according to new data from the Chicago Police Department.
While fatal shootings increased, the number of total shootings (111) and shooting victims (130) recorded in Chicago last month were both below totals from January 2024 and both figures were the fewest since 2019."
What Pubic Broadcasting doesn't tell you is of the 573 Homicides in 2024. 428 were Blacks, 23 were White. (I'll leave you to guess the 3rd Demo group, just a hint, it's not the Asians)
Yay for the 4th Amendment!

[David Nieporent]

If the Article II fetishists were on the court in 1952, Youngstown Sheet & Tube would probably have come out the other way. Definitely the 1952 Volokh comments section would've had the usual suspects ranting about courts interfering in questions of national security.

(Biden made a tactical mistake: he should've couched all his covid mitigation measures / vaccine requirements as national security matters. Indeed, if he had just accepted the framing that Covid was a Chinese bioweapon, then obviously all of those orders would've been totally unquestionable. Don't want to get vaccinated? Then you're a traitor.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

They also would have been rooting for the majority in Abrams v. U.S., criticizing Holmes and Brandeis for supporting dangerous aliens opposing the government. They would talk about how they should be prosecuted and kicked out of the country.

[Frank Drackman]

and poor Moe-hammad Atta! he had no criminal record, just trying to earn his ATP and get hired by one of the Regional Carriers, not his fault he was more interested in the enroute navigation than taking off or landing.

[Michael P]

I see the plain meaning of the Treason Clause still escapes the left.

[David Nieporent]

I see the meaning of "the left" still escapes Michael P.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer resulted in a 6-3 opinion with the majority justices writing multiple opinions. We remember Justice Robert Jackson's concurrence the most.

Gerard N. Magliocca, who has written multiple interesting books on SCOTUS subjects, has a forthcoming book discussing it. He blogs at a couple of places.

Also, Arthur Goldberg, General Counsel for the Steelworkers and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), was involved in the case. Goldberg's later much-criticized argument in a case about baseball is the one many remember.

==

Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of City of New Orleans was a pre-14A case involving the regulation of state practices some people thought violated the Bill of Rights.

Today, under Oregon v. Smith, the regulation might be constitutional if it was a generally applicable law.

==

I read Mary Ann Franks's book on Fearless Speech, which was critiqued in a post here. I did not agree with all of it & found the final chapter a slog. Overall, however, it is worthwhile.

We do sometimes exaggerate the value of "reckless" speech and overly disrespect the regulation. For instance, the regulation of harassment and stalking itself furthers the speech of those who are otherwise silenced in many ways.

Also, certain speech is protected from government regulation, but that doesn't mean we need to glorify it and promote similar protections when private parties are involved.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2024/11/legal-theory-bookworm-fearless-speech-by-franks.html

[A Japanese Student]

Today I read a news story on Karen Read's (long-shot) attempt at staying her trial under Double Jeopardy Clause, docketed 24A955. Her argument was this: the jury unanimously agreed to acquit her on murder charge, but could not announce it due to being deadlocked on manslaughter charge. Retrial for murder therefore violates Double Jeopardy Clause.

The reason this feels long-shot - ignoring the fact that they're relying on juror testimony, which is almost always inadmissible - is that there is a precedent, directly on point, that rejects her argument. In Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012), the jury was deadlocked on manslaughter after voting unanimously to acquit on murder, resulting in mistrial as to all charges. 6-3 court ruled for the state.

Though, this has some facts that might differentiate it from Blueford. That case involved pure lesser-included offenses, but if the petition correctly states the charges, then the murder and manslaughter might not technically count as such. The manslaughter offense was specifically for "while operating under the influence of alcohol", but I don't think that's an element of murder charge. Does that mean manslaughter, under Blockburger, isn't really a lesser-included offense?

(Yes, I probably should read a proper analysis written by attorneys. Unfortunately state-court briefs are not easy to access.)

[John F. Carr]

The state court appellate briefs in the Read case are at https://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/docket under docket SJC-13663. Her case is weaker than Blueford's. Her jury never indicated it had agreed on some charges. The only evidence of such agreement is inadmissible post-trial statements by jurors.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"ignoring the fact that they're relying on juror testimony, which is almost always inadmissible"

So all a state has to do to try you twice is to make the evidence that it tried you the first time inadmissible? I wonder why states haven't thought to make verdict forms indicating an acquittal inadmissible.

[A Japanese Student]

"At common law jurors were forbidden to impeach their verdict, either by affidavit or live testimony." Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___ (2017)

[John F. Carr]

On this day in 2025 the Supreme Court observed that its precedents do not allow unions, environmentalists, and the like to sue over termination of probationary employees. The employees themselves have only administrative remedies. So why do third parties have more rights when their harm is only indirect? Quoting the government's application for a stay of a District Court order reinstating employees:

Yet they have now parlayed such alleged harms as the late opening of a national park’s bathroom facility or supposedly dilatory Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses into a sweeping, nationwide preliminary injunction ordering six federal agencies to immediately reinstate, to full duty status, more than 16,000 terminated probationary employees.

Seven members of the court voted to stay the order. Sotomayor dissented without opinion. Jackson would not grant emergency relief and did not comment on whether the plaintiffs had standing.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a904.html

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Seven members of the court"

Probably, though, since it was unsigned and the justices didn't openly state their votes going along, technically we don't know.

[David Nieporent]

On this day in 2025 the Supreme Court observed that its precedents do not allow unions, environmentalists, and the like to sue over termination of probationary employees.

That is incorrect. The unions were not included in the order or in SCOTUS's stay of it.

[Sarcastr0]

unions, environmentalists, and the like

You sound like McCarthy, but now that bit's old and busted.