Today in Supreme Court History: April 12, 1945

4/12/1945: President Harry Truman's inauguration. He would make four appointments to the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Vinson, and Justices Burton, Clark, and Minton.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (decided April 12, 1937): in an early demonstration of the “switch” of 1937, upholding Constitutionality of National Labor Relations Act (and actions of NLRB) (forcing major steel producer to bargain with union)

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (decided April 12, 1869): holding, mostly, that Texas is a state over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, and secondarily, that it had jurisdiction over suit against Texas for recovery of bonds issued pre-Civil War (limited to its facts in Morgan v. U.S., 1885)

Gerende v. Board of Supervisors of Elections of Baltimore City, 341 U.S. 56 (decided April 12, 1951): upholding state statute requiring candidates for public office to declare they are not subversives

Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. Chero Cola Bottling Co., 271 U.S. 19 (decided April 12, 1926): wharfboat (always tied to wharf, used as office, warehouse, etc., connected to city’s water, electric and telephone systems, never transports cargo) was not “vessel” within meaning of traditional rule limiting owner’s liability to value of ship plus cargo; therefore no admiralty jurisdiction for limitation of liability where plaintiff’s merchandise lost when wharfboat sank

Liberato v. Royer, 270 U.S. 535 (decided April 12, 1926): Italian parents could not recover compensation due deceased son upon whom they were dependent because Pennsylvania no-fault scheme expressly disqualified foreign parents from recovery; treaty with Italy extended only to right to bring suits alleging fault

People v. Wilson, 318 U.S. 688 (decided April 12, 1943): habeas remanded to state trial court because state’s highest court had changed the law in the meantime (issue was whether conviction could be vacated where guilty plea had been obtained fraudulently, Lyons v. Goldstein, 290 N.Y. 19)

Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103 (decided April 12, 1937): another early “switch” case, this one holding that news gathering organization was involved in “interstate commerce” and subject to NLRB jurisdiction

Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Marcus, 213 U.S. 288 (decided April 12, 1909): plaintiff’s case (fell when train jerked while she was crossing between trains via their vestibules; allegation was train should have given her notice that it was about to move) should not have gone to jury

Greenleaf-Johnson Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 237 U.S. 251 (decided April 12, 1915): no “taking” when Congress established new harbor line for expanded Navy yard which destroyed wharves of private owners

Massachusetts v. New York, 271 U.S. 65 (decided April 12, 1926): Massachusetts, incredibly, claimed land in western New York, citing a pre-Revolutionary War grant (you know, like the one that gave Connecticut part of what is now California, https://mieummedia.com/2019/04/10/that-time-connecticuts-borders-extended-to-the-pacific-ocean-explained/); it supposedly had sold it in 1786 to Nathaniel Gorham, at the time the “president” of the Articles of Confederation Congress (who the next year chaired the formative Committee of the Whole weeks of the Constitutional Convention)

Bissonnette v. Lepage Bakeries, 601 U.S. 246 (decided April 12, 2024): Federal Arbitration Act exception for workers engaged in interstate commerce applies even if not working for a transportation company (here, bakery delivery drivers); voiding arbitration clause in employment contract

Macquarie Infrastructure v. Moab Partners, 601 U.S. 257 (decided April 12, 2024): can’t sue for incomplete disclosure in statements relating to buying/selling securities (Rule 10b-5(b)) if omissions do not make the statements misleading (disclosed decline of fuel oil sales but omitted fact that this was due to international regulation making that grade of oil hard to sell)

[A Japanese Student]

Bissonnette did not void the arbitration clause (yet). The industry requirement was just one of the arguments; the justices did not resolve whether the bakery drivers are transportation workers, nor did they resolve whether the plaintiffs engaged in interstate, as opposed to intrastate, transportation. The case is currently at CA2 on remand, waiting for its decision.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. Will change final phrase to, "arbitration clause not voidable on those grounds".

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado is another possible option.

https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/client-alerts/2024/4/supreme-court-update-apr-12

It was written by JB's favorite justice. (/snark)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. I'll look at it.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Truman was a good president in various respects, but his decision regarding picking justices is suspect.

Chance led Vinson only to be a short-term Chief Justice. Tom Clark was the best and longest-lasting selection. He joined multiple Warren Court rulings, including writing Mapp v. Ohio.

==

Texas v. White asked if Texas, by purporting to secede from the Union, "cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?" That would go to jurisdiction.

Answer:

The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.

When Texas joined the Union, it was final:

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Note the second option shows that there was a way to secede constitutionally: a constitutional amendment could have been passed to do so. Anyway, a failed revolution is a rebellion.

If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

The opinion has various other interesting aspects, including talking about how the end of slavery led to former slaves becoming part of "the people." It also discusses how Reconstruction was authorized by the Guarantee Clause, since Congress had the power to return a republican form of government once the illegitimate governments were defeated, leaving a vacuum.

The decision also divided actions by the Confederate governments into acts necessary for everyday governance (such as authorizing marriages) & (as applicable here) furtherance of rebellion that do not retain legitimacy. See also, 14A, sec. 4.

The dissenting justices argued that Texas was not currently a "state," given it was not represented in Congress. One dissenting justice argued it was "held and governed as a conquered province by military force." He also talked more about the bond issue.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Some Texans believe it still has a unique right to secede, based on something in the Texas Constitution. I heard this when I was visiting friends there in 1980.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Last I heard was that the treaty which brought Texas into the union has some clause about entering as 5 separate states, since the territory was so much bigger than other states at the time. The theory is that they can split into 5 states any time they want.

Whether and how that relates to actual secession, I do not know. Maybe that's different legal nuttery.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Perversely, one could argue that the admission of Texas was illegal, because the sole purpose of the creation of Texas in the first place was to allow slavery in it. I say "perversely" because the people making this argument in favor of secession would hardly be the ones who care about the rights of nonwhite noncitizens.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Why only an amendment?

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Note the second option shows that there was a way to secede constitutionally: a constitutional amendment could have been passed to do so.

It doesn't take a constitutional amendment to enter the union, just a congressional vote. Surely a congressional vote would be enough to leave the union.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Surely a congressional vote would be enough to leave the union."

I would not use the word "surely."

The argument made is that the Articles of Confederation formed a "perpetual" union and the Constitution a "more perfect" union than that. In that respect, a majority congressional vote would be a problematic way to break apart the union.

It was debated if a simple vote or such could be used to bring in territory (Louisiana and Texas) but once there it was part of country. Once part of a territory became a state, they had equal footing with existing states. And the existing states had that "perpetual union" etc. that was formed at first unanimously and then by a supermajority vote (Constitution).

This sort of thing can be debated but an amendment would provide the clearest approach.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Taking the Articles of Confederation "perpetual" as still valid makes the 1787 Constitution illegal.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...the Articles of Confederation formed a "perpetual" union ..."
Union being operative.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Taking the Articles of Confederation "perpetual" as still valid makes the 1787 Constitution illegal.

The AOC is not what is "perpetual." It is the union of states.

Anyway, taking a word literally & without certain context is not a useful way of analysis in the long run.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

The AoC require uninimous consent to be modified. The Constitution came into effect with 9 states ratifying, and Rhode Island was threatened with isolation if they did not ratify after the fact.

You don't get to cherry pick context either.

[A Japanese Student]

Criminal Insult Case (First Petty Bench, decided April 12, 1956): Statute of limitations is evaluated against the offense resulting in conviction, not the original charge; because the defendant was convicted of criminal insult and not defamation, the statute of limitations already passed (made obsolete by 2022 amendment authorizing imprisonment for insults, making the statute of limitations the same as defamation)

Special Kokoku-Appeal of Order Overruling Prosecutor's Objection (Third Petty Bench, decided April 12, 1973): Conclusion of prosecutor's opening statement is too early for ordering them to disclose documents related to the defendant's arrest (the defense attorney argued that the arrest was unlawful and the indictment should be dismissed, and sought discovery in support of the argument)

"Enpon Kenkyu Kunisada" Case (First Petty Bench, decided April 12, 1973): Affirmed historian's conviction for selling obscene books (here, Edo period ukiyo-e that depicted genitals); whether something is obscene must be judged by its content, not the author's intention behind publication or who the actual readership is

Petition for Postconviction Relief (Second Petty Bench, decided April 12, 1988): Courts can hear postconviction challenges to 1945 conviction by navy court-martial under pre-1949 Code of Criminal Procedure; appeal nevertheless dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction

Election Dispute Case (First Petty Bench, decided April 12, 1990): Poll watcher must actually watch the voting process; invalidated election because they were too busy helping voters cast a ballot (at issue were 158 ballots cast during early voting; winner won by just two votes)

Yokota Air Base Nighttime Flight Injunction Case (Second Petty Bench, decided April 12, 2002): United States enjoys sovereign immunity under international customary law for its sovereign acts; dismisses suit seeking to block USAF operation (foreign sovereign immunity was codified in 2009)

New National Theatre Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 12, 2011): Opera performers (who signed both one-year and per-performance contracts) are workers under Labor Union Act and not independent contractors; the individual contracts signed before each performance were just a formality

Iressa Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 12, 2013): Prescription drug's warning label must document foreseeable side effects, but omission not enough to trigger strict liability where the expected side effects were comparable to that of other chemotherapy drugs and the typical users (here, oncologists) recognized the risk

Tort Claims Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 12, 2016): Warden's denial of mail by death-row inmate addressed to an attorney was lawful; the letter did not include legal matters but asked the attorney to forward it to named supporters