Today in Supreme Court History: April 14, 1873

4/14/1873: The Slaughter-House Cases argued.

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (decided, Josh, not argued April 14, 1873): Fourteenth Amendment (states can’t abridge “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”) doesn’t prevent states from abridging state rights, only federal rights (which the Court refuses to give examples of) (upholding state’s police power to centralize butcher operations for public safety reasons) (in lecturing on this case my Con Law professor, who like many law professors was unaware how he came off, kept spitting out the phrase “the BUTCH-ers of New OR-leans!” like they were mass murderers; as the son of a butcher I resent how people use the verb “butcher” to describe shoddy or violent mishandling)

Butler v. Whiteman, 356 U.S. 271 (decided April 14, 1958): jury in Jones Act case should have been allowed to decide whether decedent killed while cleaning tug boiler at wharf was in aid of navigation, was a seaman and whether defendant’s negligence was a factor (overruled by McDermontt Int’l v. Wilander, 1991, to the extent that non-seamen can sue under the Jones Act) (sometime after 1991 I defended a Jones Act case where plaintiff was injured when his truck tipped over while loading pallets onto a ship)

Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 598 U.S. 175 (decided April 14, 2023): challenges to Constitutionality of FTC and SEC ALJ’s can be brought in federal district court (instead of the usual process of agency determination and then appealing to Court of Appeals)

United States v. Adams, 281 U.S. 202 (decided April 14, 1930): double jeopardy to prosecute making false entry in bank book where already acquitted as to making false entry as to same transaction in another book

Miller v. McLaughlin, 281 U.S. 261 (decided April 14, 1930): Nebraska can regulate fishing on its side of the Missouri River; does not interfere with interstate commerce with Iowa

Walling v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., 331 U.S. 17 (decided April 14, 1947): Fair Labor Standards Act not violated by arrangement where employees (servicers of oil wells) sometimes have to work more than 84 hours a week to get overtime due to wildly varying hours worked weekly (often less than 20, but also often more than 100 hours/week!) (this decision provoked Congress into amending the overtime statute, 29 U.S.C. §207)

Crane v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 331 U.S. 1 (decided April 14, 1947): homeowner’s taxable gain or loss as to property is measured by its fair market value at the time of acquisition without subtracting for mortgage

United States v. Resler, 313 U.S. 57 (decided April 14, 1941): local ordinance requiring license for storing coal did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause even though coal destined for interstate sale; no “continuity of transit”

Wisconsin v. Illinois, 281 U.S. 179 (decided April 14, 1930): orders Illinois to quit stalling and stop diverting Lake Michigan water from Wisconsin as previously ordered (“If its Constitution stands in the way of prompt action it must amend it or yield to an authority that is paramount to the State”)

Kentucky v. Indiana, 281 U.S. 163 (decided April 14, 1930): fact that state (Indiana) is being sued by its own citizens in dispute over contract with another state (Kentucky) to build bridge (over Ohio River) is no defense to original jurisdiction suit (by Kentucky) for breach of contract

Matters v. Ryan, 249 U.S. 375 (decided April 14, 1919): Two women (one English and one American) claimed to be mother of the same baby, who was brought in from Canada by the American woman. Instead of threatening to cut the baby in two, the Court holds that any federal question presented by the allegation that immigration laws were violated by a minor being brought into the United States by a non-parent is “frivolous”. (unknown what happened after this)

[Brett Bellmore]

"as the son of a butcher I resent how people use the verb “butcher” to describe shoddy or violent mishandling"

I'm actually the son of a machinist, but I've butchered enough deer in my time to sympathize with your resentment. It's actually a skilled trade, and not the easiest of them.

The worst part of the Slaughterhouse case is that Court has never overturned it. I suspect because it was an economic liberties case, and overturning it would be "Lochnerism".

[Thought about __ all my life]

The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution...CRUIKSHANK

And what did happen ...the Louisiana Colfax Massacre. Because you lawyers won't recognize natural law , natural rights -- -which our Declaration and Constitution do acknowledge

[SRG2]

you lawyers won't recognize natural law , natural rights -- -which our Declaration and Constitution do acknowledge

IANAL but there is no mention of natural rights in the Constitution - nor indeed, given what the Constitution is, does there need to be.

Where do natural rights come from?

</i

[Brett Bellmore]

I've always regarded the Constitution as implicitly incorporating the Declaration of Independence, to flesh out the reference to the blessings of liberty in it's preamble.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The purpose of the Constitution was to set up a (new) federal government, setting up its powers and limits vs. the powers and limits of the states.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Natural rights" is a category and rights such as worshiping one's God were generally understood to be included.

Many thought that the Ninth Amendment in part protected natural rights. Many still do. FWIW.

[A Japanese Student]

On this day in Japan: why the Japanese Wikipedia almost never names a criminal, even after conviction.

Abortion through Professional Conduct Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 14, 1953): Statutory notice of right to remain silent not necessary when given in another interrogation eight days before; also holds that the Constitution does not mandate that such notice be given (obviously not good law in the U.S.)

1972 House of Representatives Malapportionment Case (Grand Bench, decided April 14, 1976): Constitution requires that any inequality in representation must be justified by important legislative interests; 500% malapportionment violated equal protection; in this situation courts should not void elections, but instead issue a declaratory judgment calling the election illegal

Tort Claims Case (Second Petty Bench, decided April 14, 1978): Statute barring negligent fire claim without showing of gross negligence does not violate property rights under the Constitution

Criminal Records Disclosure Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 14, 1981): In a 2-page opinion, affirms lower court, holding that 1) municipal government usually cannot disclose criminal records; 2) even when requested by an attorney, they must establish that the record is necessary for use in litigation and cannot be obtained through other means; and 3) wrongful disclosure of criminal records can be tortuous; in concurrence Justice Ito states the importance of the right to privacy (which, here, is usually discussed as an personal data handling issue - not abortion)

Setting Fire to Objects Other than Structures Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 14, 2003): Japan classifies the offense of arson by what burned and whether there was a public danger. Arson of vehicles and other effects requires finding of public danger; here the Court rules that "public danger" can be satisfied without possibility of spreading fire to structures.

Injury, Forcible Rape Case (First Petty Bench, decided April 14th, 2005): Shielding the witness's face from the gallery does not violate Public Trial Clause; shielding from the defendant (but not to the defense attorney) does not violate Confrontation Clause

Defense Medical College Professor Groping Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 14, 2009): Acquitted professor of "indecency through compulsion" (abusive sexual conduct); given that alleged victim's testimony is the only incriminating evidence, courts must carefully evaluate reliability (3-2 decision; the district court judge that convicted the defendant, Shin-ichiro Fukuzaki, acquitted 7 defendants as an appellate judge in the 18 months preceding his retirement in 2017, earning the nickname "the reversing judge" - in a 2023 interview, he said this decision made him re-think how to approach criminal cases)

[John F. Carr]

Setting Fire to Objects Other than Structures Case reminds me of a couple American cases.

1. The Hammonds. Ranchers set a fire that burned some brush on federal land in rural Oregon. The prosecution said they set the fire to cover up evidence of illegal hunting. The defense said a fire on their own property got out of control by accident. What matters is they were convicted of arson of federal property. Arson of federal property has a five year mandatory minimum. The judge thought that was unconstitutionally harsh under the circumstances. The Ninth Circuit disagreed. The mandatory minimum applies even if all that burns is sagebrush. The Hammonds became a right wing cause celebre and were pardoned by President Trump.

2. The penny challenge. A teen, as teens do, took a Tik Tok challenge seriously. He used a coin to short out a 120 volt outlet. Massachusetts courts held charring of an outlet cover to be arson, the same as if he burned the building down. As a juvenile under state law he was not punished as harshly as the Hammonds were under federal law.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It is ironic that John Campbell, who left the Supreme Court to help the Confederacy & hated what the 14A stood for, used it to argue the Slaughterhouse Cases. You use what you have.

Michael Carpenter, "the Daniel Webster of the West," argued the other side. He was a leading constitutional lawyer of the day. He also argued for Myrna Bradwell in her attempt to gain admission to the bar. They told her "If you want to drink, do it at home."

The majority and dissents both went too far. The reasonable thing to do would be to hold that the regulation was an appropriate health law. No need to go with an open-ended restriction of what the 14th Amendment means right off the bat.

The dissent probably went too far too regarding arguing the law was invalid. Justice Field wrote the primary dissent and retained his strong economic libertarian beliefs. His record on civil liberties generally was mixed. He did support rights for the Chinese in some cases but his record on black civil rights was not great.

Since water tends to find an outlet, the Court's restriction of the Privileges or Immunities Clause led to usage of the Due Process Clause. Scalia in McDonald v. Chicago rejected an attempt by those law school types to try to fix things by starting anew though Thomas (more of a "nut") argued they should have.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that it wasn't actually a health law. It was a commercial monopoly that put most of the area butchers out of business in favor of a politically connected group.

If they'd instead enacted a generally applicable health law, it would have been much more defensible.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Slaughterhouse Cases dissents also have some due process love, and substantive due process in economic matters was already developing by then. For instance, one dissent noted:

In my view, a law which prohibits a large class of citizens from adopting a lawful employment, or from following a lawful employment previously adopted, does deprive them of liberty as well as property, without due process of law. Their right of choice is a portion of their liberty; their occupation is their property. Such a law also deprives those citizens of the equal protection of the laws, contrary to the last clause of the section.

Charles Black was a strong critic of the ruling & wrote an interesting book near the end of his life, "A New Birth of Freedom: Human Rights, Named and Unnamed," providing an open-ended view using the Declaration of Independence, 9th Amendment, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I've said: They couldn't just outright overturn Slaugherhouse, because it was an economic liberties case, and by the time the Court was interested in undoing Jim Crow, the judiciary had turned radically hostile to economic liberty.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I referenced reading "The Traveling Cat Chronicles" by Hiro Arikawa (a beloved novel). It turns out there is a legal connection: one of the characters is a lawyer and judge. One judicial decision plays an important role in the overall story.