Today in Supreme Court History: April 9, 1923

4/9/1923: Adkins v. Children's Hospital decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (decided April 9, 1923): striking down District of Columbia minimum wage law for women as interfering with freedom of contract (a right which, BTW, the Constitution does not protect against federal interference) (overruled by, for example, West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 1937)

NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404 (decided April 9, 1962): Court of Appeals cannot apply stricter “substantial evidence” standard of review for NLRB reinstatement-and-back-pay decisions despite financial effect on employer; must apply same deferential standard as in cease-and-desist decisions

Schulz v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 350 U.S. 523 (decided April 9, 1956): trial judge should not have directed verdict for defendant in Jones Act case; jury could have connected negligence (forcing husband tug operator to work on icy, cold night) with injury (finding his body in water with flashlight in his hand, even though he might have fallen for some other reason than slipping on ice)

Shepherd v. Florida, 341 U.S. 50 (decided April 9, 1951): reversing conviction of four black men for raping 17-year-old white girl, citing Cassell v. Texas, which held that exclusion of blacks from grand jury violated Due Process; Jackson, with Frankfurter concurring in judgment, noted that jurors had read press accounts that falsely stated men had confessed, uncorrected by sheriff (reading their opinion, one sees that this was not the half of it); “defendants were prejudged as guilty and the trial was but a legal gesture to register a verdict already dictated by the press and the public opinion which it generated”

Moser v. United States, 341 U.S. 41 (decided April 9, 1951): applying for exemption from military service during World War II (on the basis that he was a citizen of a neutral country, Switzerland) does not bar him from later applying for naturalization

Comm’r of Internal Revenue v. Smith, 324 U.S. 695 (decided April 9, 1945): for capital gains tax purposes stock of another corporation per stock option agreement with employer is valued when stock is received and not when option exercised

Phipps v. Cleveland Refining Co., 261 U.S. 449 (decided April 9, 1923): fees for state inspection of petroleum products which provided revenue to the state far in excess of the cost to it of inspection burdened interstate commerce and violated Dormant Commerce Clause

Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. James, 125 U.S. 447 (decided April 9, 1888): patent suit involving design of post office boxes; patentee loses because defendant’s design did not have key patent feature (boxes being connected such that breaking into one destroys the overall woodwork)

Sarlls v. United States, 152 U.S. 570 (decided April 9, 1894): beer is not “spiritous liquor or wine” under statute criminalizing bringing such into “Indian Country”

United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 341 U.S. 48 (decided April 9, 1951): taking of Indian lands is not “taking” under Fifth Amendment and therefore usual rule of no interest allowed on claims against United States applies

[Noscitur a sociis]

Shepherd v. Florida, 341 U.S. 50 (decided April 9, 1951): reversing conviction of four black men for raping 17-year-old white girl, citing Cassell v. Texas, which held that exclusion of blacks from grand jury violated Due Process; Jackson, with Frankfurter concurring in judgment, noted that jurors had read press accounts that falsely stated men had confessed, uncorrected by sheriff (reading their opinion, one sees that this was not the half of it); “defendants were prejudged as guilty and the trial was but a legal gesture to register a verdict already dictated by the press and the public opinion which it generated”

The theory was that four men had committed the crime. One was lynched before he was arrested and so obviously didn’t stand trial. After the Supreme Court decision, the sheriff shot two of the remaining defendants, purportedly for trying to escape from custody, killing one of them. The trial of the other was moved to a different county, where he was convicted and sentenced to death again. The governor commuted his sentence and he was released on parole: he died the following year. The final defendant was a minor and so was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was paroled and lived until 2012.

[Dan Schiavetta]

adding more horrible to a horrible story -- thanks for filling this out

[Syd Henderson]

Shepherd v. Florida was one of the many cases Thurgood Marshall argued before the Supreme Court.

[Dan Schiavetta]

yes, thanks

[Syd Henderson]

That was an incredible case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groveland_Four. Shepherd, I note, was shot four hundred times by a sheriff's posse. One of the four (Greenlee, who was 16) was paroled in 1962 and lived another 50 years.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That was actually Thomas who was shot 400 times. He died, of course, so was not one of the defendants standing trial.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Imagine being the coroner and counting 400 bullet holes. Is there even enough room on a human body for that?

[Mr. Bumble]

"...and thought the holes were rather small, they had to count them all".

[Malika the Maiz]

Four hundred? JFC!

[Richard Johnston]

Highly recommend the book on this (or at least a book on this):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_in_the_Grove

[not guilty]

Thurgood Marshall's role as field general of the battle against de jure segregation suggests that he influenced American history more than any other twentieth century figure during peacetime. The second President Roosevelt's prewar expansion of the federal government probably ranks second in that category.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

An aspect of this opinion was the citation of the 19th Amendment (which the author supported) to argue that women did not need special protections. Or, at least, the time was close when men and women would be on equal footing in the economic field.

This would explain why an earlier opinion about limiting hours for women employees should not apply. Others argued that it was a bit premature to so argue. This led to divisions in early debates over an equal rights amendment.

Regardless, this wider view of the meaning of the 19A has interesting possibilities. Women having an equal role in the public sphere (and the things required for that) would be used in the promotion of abortion rights, for instance, in Abele v. Markle (lower court opinion that was influential to multiple Roe v. Wade justices).

As to the "right to contract," Art. I, sec. 10 states that states can not impair the obligation of contracts. That was not interpreted to mean states lacked the power to regulate them.

No such prohibition, however, is explicitly cited for the federal government. And this case involved the District of Columbia.

Still. The Ninth Amendment cites unenumerated rights. The right to contract was a protected "liberty" that the government could not unduly deprive. I think that is valid as far as it goes.

The question then becomes, again, what sort of contractual limitations are valid. The Supreme Court would later determine that minimum wage laws were one such valid limitation.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If the 9A can vaguely protect the right to contract -- a right which the federal government is, by implication, otherwise entitled to infringe -- it surely could protect another non-enumerated right, the right to personal privacy.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes. Another VC contributor wrote a book on Lochner and spoke about that sort of thing.

The issue with the right to contract is not that it's unenumerated or does not exist. It is a question of proper regulation & such things as the supposed equal playing field.

[A Japanese Student]

Cabinet Order No. 201 Case (Grand Bench, decided April 8, 1953): Cabinet Order 201 was constitutional despite lack of statutory authority because it was ordered by General MacArthur; banning workplace strike by Government employees does not constitute involuntary servitude nor infringe upon Constitutional right to strike

Ienaga Textbook Case II (First Petty Bench, decided April 8, 1975): Vacated and remanded to consider mootness in light of Curriculum Guidelines amendment; one of the three Ienaga Textbook Cases, where he challenged the government's refusal to recognize his history textbook for use in public schools; after remand, case dismissed because textbooks under the outdated Guidelines cannot be approved anyway and this case sought only prospective relief (while other cases included damages claim)

Mount Fuji Ownership Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 9, 1974): 1947 law giving back to temples religious land previously taken by the Government does not violate the Constitution, and under that law, the entire top of Mt. Fuji from the eighth stage upwards is owned by Fujisan Hongu Sengen Taisha, not the Government

Tort Claims Case (First Petty Bench, decided April 9, 2015): 11-year-old boy is practicing soccer in the schoolyard. What could go wrong? Instead of scoring a goal, the ball went over a fence and rolled all the way to a road. An 85-year-old, who was riding a motorcycle, falls trying to avoid the ball, resulting in death. Are the boy's (or, the now-23-year-old man's) parents liable? Reversing the lower court to the contrary, the Court says no.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Rulings like Buchanan imply a tacit admission of racism. What to do with mixed marriages? What percent Black must you be?