Today in Supreme Court History: April 20, 2010

4/20/2010: United States v. Stevens decided.

Comments

[Thought about __ all my life]

Brown appears wrong to the average parent.
The State has an interest in the health of children and families.
And what bad motive can you ascribe to "labeling" ? Many educators know what Mark Twain illustrated in "The Man who Corrupted Hadleyburg" --- that morals, violence, and deparvity thrive when government gives the impression that what is not explicitly called cancerous, violent, hateful, anti-American is assumed fine and dandy

A very poor decision.
"The town of Hadleyburg is most proud of its reputation for being the "most honest and upright town in all the region." This reputation is so deeply ingrained in the town's culture that they actively work to shield them from any temptation" This causes many to end up corrupt and loathsome citizens because they are babes in the face of the demonic.

[Dan Schiavetta]

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (decided April 20, 1983): nobody has standing to seek injunction preventing police use of chokeholds because can’t show that every officer will always use a chokehold on every suspect; 5 - 4 decision (Marshall, writing for the dissent, notes that on this reasoning federal courts would have no power to enjoin a “shoot to kill” policy, or a policy of shooting one out of ten suspects on sight)

Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (decided April 20, 2020): guilty verdict for serious crime must be unanimous (overruling 1972 cases saying 10 - 2 was okay)

United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (decided April 20, 2010): striking down on First Amendment grounds federal statute criminalizing depictions of animal cruelty (not animal cruelty itself) (defendant sold videos of pit bulls tearing apart pigs -- who the hell would buy that stuff??)

Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. 212 (decided April 20, 2016): no separation of powers problem with statute designating property available to satisfy particular judgments (here, bank accounts in New York, and judgments against Iran brought by victims of terrorism)

UNUM Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 526 U.S. 358 (decided April 20, 1999): A provision of the ERISA law says that it does not affect state insurance law (I give a CLE -- Continuing Legal Education -- presentation on this really boring topic). So Court holds that claim on group insurance plan was subject to California’s “notice-prejudice” rule (insurer can’t disclaim for late notice unless it can show it was prejudiced by the delay) but ERISA preempts California law deeming notice to the employer to be notice to the insurer.

McDermott v. AmClyde, 511 U.S. 202 (decided April 20, 1994): apportionment of fault in admiralty case (damage to 5,000-ton crane placing offshore platform) to settling defendant is by percentage of fault, not by dollar amount

United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (decided April 20, 1983): This case arose on the Court’s own property, contesting statute disallowing political activity on the abutting sidewalks. Court strikes down statute on First Amendment “grounds”.

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (decided April 20, 1983): no Free Speech impediment to firing for insubordination Assistant D.A. who was upset at being transferred and circulated a questionnaire to other A.D.A.’s as to transfer policy, morale, pressure to work on political campaigns, etc.

Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (decided April 20, 1983): “reckless or callous indifference” shown meriting punitive damages in §1983 action against juvenile facility guard for placing plaintiff in same cell with others who were likely to beat and sexually abuse him

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union America, 451 U.S. 77 (decided April 20, 1981): Title VII does not provide right to contribution (airline liable to female cabin attendants for back pay could not seek contribution from union whose policies were partly at fault for the discrimination)

[SRG2]

I note that Thomas and Alito disagreed in Ramos. Thomas concurred, Alito dissented. It is possible.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I did my Con Law seminar paper on "The Supreme Court and Psychology". As a former psych major (and social worker) I was surprised at the lack of "people smarts" in many areas of the law, especially criminal law. In my paper I noted that the Court makes assumptions that social science has proven to be false. One (which is just common sense when you think about it) is that you will get more convictions with a 6 person jury than with 12. With 12, you're more likely to get 2 people having reasonable doubts, and they support each other. With 6, it's hard for one person to stand alone. (It works the other way around with acquittals, but more rarely.) Unfortunately this insight had no effect on the Court in Williams v. Florida, 1970, where it held that a 6 person jury was permissible for serious crimes.

[A Japanese Student]

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons: There is one important exception today - the federal government, under VCCLEA of 1994 (34 USC §12601).

[Dan Schiavetta]

That was the big crime bill, right? I don't see how that is related.

[A Japanese Student]

Yes, it is the Clinton crime bill. One of the provisions, 34 USC §12601, authorized the federal government to file a lawsuit for unconstitutional "pattern or practice" by law enforcement. Unlike private plaintiffs, the federal government always has standing to enforce federal law. e.g. United States v. County of Maricopa, 889 F.3d 648 (CA9 2018) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the US, where it alleged Joe Arpaio's policy encouraged racial profiling)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. Though under Trump, who publicly encouraged police to “be rough” with suspects, it’s a dead letter.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The United States government is at war with "grace" today.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Debates over the lines involved in the animal cruelty stuff (there is a fetish involving crushing animals) led to hypos about a crucifixion channel and so forth. Mel Gibson would subscribe.

I thought he might go with John Paul Stevens' birthday, which was 105 years ago today. President Ford (the guy who aimed to impeach his predecessor) stuck with his pick, noting thirty years later that:

I am prepared to allow history's judgment of my term in office to rest (if necessary, exclusively) on my nomination thirty years ago of Justice John Paul Stevens to the U.S. Supreme Court. I endorse his constitutional views on the secular character of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, on securing procedural safeguards in criminal case and on the constitution's broad grant of regulatory authority to Congress. I include as well my special admiration for his charming wit and sense of humor

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-04-14-fordletter_N.htm

Stevens also repeatedly showed that a judge's policy view can clash with his view of what the law demands. He noted in an interview that he opposed the marijuana law he upheld in Gonzalez v. Raich. See also this on the minimum wage:

I agree that it is unwise for the Federal Government to exercise its power in the ways described in the Court's opinion. For the proposition that regulation of the minimum price of a commodity -- even labor -- will increase the quantity consumed is not one that I can readily understand.

(See his dissent in National League of Cities v. Usery.)

Upon his death, the justices provided various statements. Souter went with a simple one: "He was the soul of principle and an irreplaceable friend."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_07-17-19

[Dan Schiavetta]

Amen to that. And I always admired Ford for the nomination (which I didn't approve of when it happened), and how he stood by it.

[Bob from Ohio]

That quote from Ford is an illustration why no one of his kind exists in the modern GOP. Carter beating him, though I hated it at the time, was the best thing in the long run. It led to RR being elected and the American revival from stagflation at home and disgrace abroad.

Stevens was just a Democrat in GOP clothes, like Souter. So his quote is appropriate.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Carter made the hard choices, got blamed, Reagan sat back and reaped the benefits.

[Frank Drackman]

Keep telling yourself that

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Stevens was acting Chief Justice for a short time.

He also presided over arguments while Rehnquist was away. O'Connor presided over the Kelo oral argument.

I am not aware of an oral argument (perhaps there was) where Scalia presided. Also, I don't think Thomas has yet either. If I missed one, someone can fill it in.

Of course, sometimes various justices are not present at opinion announcements. Once, Brennan even announced Douglas's dissent in a school segregation case. When Brennan oversaw the announcements, he also followed Burger's process of thanking the person at the end. A touch that maybe should have been left in.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe the current Chief can end every session with the word "Courage!" like Dan Blather did for awhile

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"O'Connor presided over the Kelo oral argument."

Too bad Stevens' statist view, not O'Connor's property-rights views, prevailed in the Kelo case.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He applied precedent appropriately to allow local governments, chosen by the people, to take property, which is compensated for public use, in a way that (as further noted by Kennedy) has various safeguards against misuse.

Statist is defined as "an advocate of a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs." I don't know how "statist" that is but if people don't like it, they can (as states have) block it by state constitutions or other means. The majority validly applied the federal Constitution, that allows various "statist" types of things.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

From the dissent, written by that extremist Sandra Day O'Connor:

"Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:

"“An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority … . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean… . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).

"Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/469/#tab-opinion-1961891

[Frank Drackman]

4-20, also the Birthday of You-Know-Who, Ironic that Sleepy Joe will go down as the last POTUS who was alive during You-Know-Who's lifetime.

[Frank Drackman]

To date, there hasn't been a POTUS who was born in the 1930's, 2 tried but lost (Do-Cock-Us, and McCain) BUT....................
Chuck Grassley, 3rd in line to the POTUS-y, born in 1933, during FDR's first year. 91 yrs young
Youngest is Pete Hedge-Sex, 6th in line, a mere babe at age 44
2 POTUS's born in 1924, 3 in 1946, a whole generation in between that got left out (of being POTUS, but hey, they got 3 wars! an (un)lucky few served in all 3)

Frank

[A Japanese Student]

Local Autonomy Act Case (Second Petty Bench, decided April 20, 1984): Illegal to pay someone to vote in a mayoral recall referendum

Daiun-ji Bonsho Seizure Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 20, 1990): A millennium-old bell, designated as National Treasure, went missing and was found in a museum. It turns out the bell was sold to a for-profit company. Police seized the bell and "returned" it to the Kyoto Prefectural Government; charges against the company's CEO were later dropped. Company sues to get the bell back. Court rules that seized property must be returned to the owner.

Income Tax Reassessment Case (First Petty Bench, decided April 20, 2006): Heavy penalty tax cannot be imposed where tax accountant embezzled taxpayer's money and underreported income without the taxpayer noticing; understatement penalty tax can be imposed because taxpayer's negligence in not noticing discrepancy was enough

Special Kokoku-Appeal to Order Granting in Part Increase of Defense Counsels (Third Petty Bench, decided April 20, 2012): Suspect must first appeal to High Court an order only granting in part motion to allow appearance of more than three defense counsels; dismisses direct appeal for want of jurisdiction