Today in Supreme Court History: April 17, 1978

4/17/1978: Penn Central Transportation Corporation v. New York argued.

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Today's case involves the Takings Clause and involves a landmark protection law. Penn Central, which owned the Grand Central Terminal (opened in 1913), was not allowed to construct a multistory office building above it. That was upheld 6-3.

(Burger, Rehnquist, and Stevens dissented.)

We should have one or more opinions at 10AM.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The one opinion is a unanimous opinion involving ERISA by Sotomayor with Alito (Gorsuch & Kavanaugh) concurring with an opinion concerned about its applications.

SCOTUSblog: "The court holds that one provision of ERISA sets out affirmative defenses, and that plan fiduciaries have the burden to plead and show that an exemption under that section applies to a transaction that would otherwise be prohibited under another ERISA provision, Section 1106."

[Dan Schiavetta]

Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (decided April 17, 1905): striking down New York statute setting maximum work hours for bakery employees as violating freedom of contract and not within police power; in Holmes’s much-overrated dissent he says, “This case is decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain” (?? I don’t see any hint of economic theory in the Court’s decision); the dissent by Harlan (along with White and Day) is the more relevant one, arguing that the statute was indeed within the police power (this case was pretty much overruled by cases beginning with West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 1937)

Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. 122 (decided April 17, 2018): federal court can consult lower state court decision as to why habeas was denied, where higher state courts did not explain why they were affirming (here, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim after a murder conviction)

United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (decided April 17, 1922): “Workhouses” still existed post-Dickens! Here, people convicted of failure to pay a debt were required to work there and their “earnings” given to the person owed. Defendant here was sentenced to six months for flouting child support order, with mother the beneficiary. The Court here holds that because defendant could have been sentenced to a year, this was an “infamous” crime under the Fifth Amendment so grand jury indictment required. (The grand jury provision of the Bill of Rights has never been applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, but this was D.C. where the Fifth Amendment applied directly.)

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (decided April 17, 2013): The Alien Tort Statute Act floats over the United States like a many-tentacled squid, suctioning certain claims into U.S. courts. Who knows what it means? Here, the Court holds that at least it doesn’t encompass claims made by foreigners against foreign entities concerning something that happened overseas (Nigerian nationals suing British, Dutch and Nigerian corporations over atrocities in Nigeria).

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148 (decided April 17, 2018): Is burglary a “crime of violence” so as to allow deportation? Court holds that the statutory phrase is too vague for Due Process purposes and vacates removal order.

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (decided April 17, 2013): fact that alcohol metabolizes as the minutes pass can’t always serve as excuse for emergency warrantless blood test; here, there was time to get warrant where trucker was apparently drunk and police officer took him to hospital for test

Pabst Brewing Co. v. Crenshaw, 198 U.S. 17 (decided April 17, 1905): upholding Missouri’s fee on inspection of incoming beer; did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause because Congress had specifically allowed states to impose such fees (i.e., it can regulate interstate commerce by giving some power over it to the states)

Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U.S. 5 (decided April 17, 1939): Japanese patentee (here, of lead powder used in making batteries) can invoke patent protection by showing date of actual invention, not just date of application for patent in this country; issue of fact as to whether patent was abandoned (by allowing others to use and sell it)

Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (decided April 17, 2000): bus passengers have reasonable expectation of privacy as to their bags on open overhead racks (Border Control officer squeezed overhead bag and felt hard surface which was a “brick” of meth; evidence suppressed because no warrant)

Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530 (decided April 17, 1991): Warsaw Convention (allowing suits against international air carriers) does not provide for mental distress claim if no physical injury (plaintiff frightened when plane headed for Bahamas almost crashed due to power loss and turned back to Miami)

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (decided April 17, 2024): plaintiff suing under Title VII (alleged sex discrimination because transferred from job to job because she’s female) has to show some harm but not “significant” harm (e.g., getting fired)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One of the VC contributors has a book on Lochner with a picture of the writer of the majority knocking out Holmes. I think Harlan's dissent deserves some more love.

https://joshblackman.com/blog/2014/03/page/2/

Victoria Nourse's "A Tale of Two Lochners" is a good discussion.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/999/

[Bernstein signed a letter opposing a successful filibuster of her nomination to the court of appeals during the Obama Administration.]

[SRG2]

Someone recently commented on my frequent criticising Thomas for his - IMO predictable - dissenting in criminal cases, implying that I was merely identifying one or two random instances.

Bayes' Theorem to the rescue.

1. Wilson v Sellers - where I would predict that Thomas and Alito dissent, possibly joined by Gorsuch, and lo! It is so. The logic of the majority here is simple. If an appellate court merely affirms the decision of a lower court, it's reasonable to presume that they accept the lower court's reasoning. This is completely obvious, but would mean that the murderer in this case would get another go at a sentencing hearing with less deficient counsel, which would be catastrophic for Western civilisation and the global economy, hence the necessity of denying the appeal.

2. Sessions v Dimaya - Thomas, predictably dissenting again, with this nice comment: "I continue to harbor doubts about whether the vagueness doctrine can be squared with the original meaning of the Due Process Clause" - these "doubts" cannot be honestly held, because if one take the original meaning as argued here, the vagueness doctrine is merely separate and distinct, not forming part of the meaning. That is very different from saying it cannot be squared with it. The vagueness doctrine can be applied by itself without having to use "Due Process" at all and without contradicting it. Only if one wants the opportunity to convict someone (unfairly) under a statute which is plausibly vague would one claim that the doctrine does not square with Due Process.

FWIW the original meaning of Due Process implies that Garcia and others similarly situated unambiguously do have a Due Process claim.

[Dan Schiavetta]

As years go by Thomas has been less required to rely only on his own dissents and has been able to cite other judges who have been relying on his dissents.

[SRG2]

At least he's not citing the legal scholar Sam Chontacleer in support of his position.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No love for holmes' legal poetry?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Lochner was properly overruled, despite Bernstein’s Trump-like antipathy. “The life of the law has not been logic, but experience.”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"*I'm* obsessed? Doctor, *you're* the one with all the ink drawings of Trump!"

[A Japanese Student]

I think Leahy-Smith abrogates Shimadzu. Before the passage of that law, the United States was the only country that had the first-to-invent law. Leahy-Smith brought it to the international standard - first-to-file. Since patent applications must be filed to each country's patent office (unlike copyright), the first inventor cannot claim patents when they fail to file here.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[Thought about __ all my life]

They were not allowed to build that structure but it was not a blanket denial of any structure at all. This calls to mind stupid heartless dumb sub-standard Biden's first day revocation of President Trump's “Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture” executive order.

What can you do with fools in public office, incl the law profession

[A Japanese Student]

The tariff lawsuit brought to attention one of the unique features of the Court of International Trade: political balance requirements. Like many independent commissions, not more than five of the nine active judges can belong to the same political party - a requirement not found in other Article III courts. (Not the appointing president's party affiliation; while six seats have been filled by Democratic presidents, one of the judges is a Republican.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Will Trump refuse to appoint Democrats if that is what is required? Will he cripple it by denying it a quorum? He probably wishes that court didn’t exist.

[A Japanese Student]

CIT does not have a quorum; cases are heard by a single judge. I guess it's technically possible for a court to have zero active judges - but they enjoy life tenure.

The more realistic (I hope not) scenario is Trump firing judges of the Court of Federal Claims.

[Bob from Ohio]

"one of the judges is a Republican"

A strong Trump supporter I'm sure.

[A Japanese Student]

Theft Case (Second Petty Bench, decided April 17, 1957): Not an Article 400 error to reverse suspended sentence with briefing only (unlike reversing acquittals); 3-2 decision

Road Traffic Act Case (Grand Bench, decided April 17, 1963): "Hit-and-run" constitutes two offenses, one for failure to report and one for failure to give aid (overruled per September 22, 1976 decision)

Election Broadcast Censorship Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 17, 1990): During free political advertisement allotted equally to all candidates, candidate used slurs alleged to be discriminatory to disabled people, which the TV station censored; Court rules for TV station because candidates are legally forbidden from making indecent speech on air (in some elections candidates can now record the broadcast themselves; otherwise candidate has to talk facing the camera for 5 minutes; paid TV advertisement is strictly forbidden)

Revocation of Resident Record Registration Denial Case (Second Petty Bench, decided April 17, 2009): City rejected a birth registration after unmarried parents asked not to record their child as illegitimate, making the child effectively stateless. Court holds this is not a "disposition" subject to judicial review (since this is just asking the Government to exercise its discretion), and the denial is not unlawful anyway.

Revocation of Disciplinary Dismissal Case (First Petty Bench, decided April 17, 2025): Not abuse of discretion to deny severance pay of 12M yen ($84,000) to bus driver dismissed for embezzling 1,000 yen ($7)