Today in Supreme Court History: April 22, 1992

4/22/1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S. 98 (decided April 22, 2021): not “cruel and unusual punishment” to sentence juvenile to life without parole for homicide so long as it’s discretionary and not mandatory (oh thanks so much -- excuse me while I vomit) (15 year old stabbed his grandfather after fight about boy’s girlfriend)

McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (decided April 22, 1987): study showing that death penalty imposed more often on black defendants as to white victims did not show specific discriminatory motivation of this jury so as to vacate death sentence

Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (decided April 22, 2014): warrantless “investigative” stop comported with Fourth Amendment where anonymous 911 caller reported that a vehicle had run her off the road; police located vehicle with reasonable suspicion of intoxication (marijuana found in car)

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action<, 572 U.S. 291 (decided April 22, 2014): no Equal Protection violation by Michigan constitution amendment forbidding affirmative action in public education, employment or contracting

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (decided April 22, 2009): strict standard of 1996 immigration statute amendment as to appeal of removal orders (must show by “clear and convincing evidence” that removal order was “prohibited as a matter of law”) refers to orders to “enjoin” removal but not to “stay” removal order; traditional factors governing stays apply (Cameroon national claimed he would face persecution if he returned; removal order later vacated by Fourth Circuit, 585 F.3d 818)

Jinks v. Richland County, S.C., 538 U.S. 456 (decided April 22, 2003): upholding against Eleventh Amendment attack 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) which tolls state statutes of limitations while related federal suit is pending (§1983 action arising from mishandling of alcohol withdrawal in jail dismissed, followed by wrongful death suit in state court)

California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc., 523 U.S. 491 (decided April 22, 1998): not a violation of the Eleventh Amendment to contest with state over ownership of shipwreck; wreck not in state’s possession (yet) even though in territorial waters

Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368 (decided April 22, 1987): upholding against Due Process attack Reagan-era regulation classifying personal injury awards as “income” sufficient to disqualify welfare benefits (even though IRS regulations say they’re not income because the award is not a gain, but to make you whole again)

New York v. P.J. Video, Inc., 475 U.S. 868 (decided April 22, 1986): First Amendment implications of seizing materials listed in warrant did not change standard “probable cause” requirement (store renting out videos of what today would be considered rather limp porn, including “Debbie Does Dallas” and “Deep Throat”, though the latter has a number of good jokes, e.g., the Medicare card)

Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (decided April 22, 1968): another porn case, where the Court upholds New York statute prohibiting sale to minors

[not guilty]

"Rather limp porn"? I see what you did there.

I represented several adult bookstore operators during my career. I have long found most pornography tedious and boring.

I recall an obscenity trial in Louisiana. One scene from the movie on trial showed two men and one woman boarding a boat on a lake. The camera was aimed at the stern and showed one man and the woman getting busy, with the wake of the boat framing them to either side. The second man joined in, and my principal thought was, "Who's piloting the boat?"

[Dan Schiavetta]

A friend of mine writes porn (sorry, "erotic fiction") and can't find a market for it. Her problem is that her stuff (which I've read) is too inventive and too well thought out.

According to her, porn that sells is either 1) predictable 2) misogynist or 3) extreme (in predictable ways). Consumers are either 1) easily and mindlessly catered to, 2) going with what they expect and have a Rain Man-like aversion to any change ("Jeopardy" at 7:00!), or 3) are resigned to wanking to whatever turns them on. Seems like a joyless existence.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The "life without the possibility of parole" concept is dubious.

If there is some possibility of parole, perhaps after a long time, it doesn't mean it will be given. It took a long time before Red in Shawshank Redemption got out.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Planned Parenthood's advocate during oral argument focused on stare decisis with the probable assumption they were going to lose. The specifics of the law, a significant part of which precedent did clearly deem unconstitutional, was given limited discussion. I found that somewhat problematic.

I think it would have been helpful if abortion related cases addressed limited issues instead of regularly being about a collection of provisions. For instance, focus on the speech related issues involved in the informed consent guidelines or address the specifics of waiting periods.

Anyway, Casey upheld the core of Roe, including the viability line and the basic liberty interests involved. The plurality included discussions of how it was important to equality and a matter of conscience. These choices split religious and moral traditions in a variety of ways, making it important that it is left to the individual to make the final judgment calls.

The plurality helpfully provided more detail on how these fits into precedent. Roe provided a summary with citations to cases. It spent much more time summarizing history and setting forth doctrine. This was somewhat ill advised.

[Dan Schiavetta]

8 of the 9 Justices had been appointed by Republican Presidents -- and the only one appointed by a Democrat (White) voted in favor of the abortion restrictions.

[Thought about __ all my life]

You are either taking a human life OR you are not. "Undue Burden" is such a hateful avoidance of the real issue.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Undue burden" addressed the test the government had to meet to regulate abortion. It builds off of the constitutional text ("due process of law").

The people and the government are allowed to take life in various cases (such as in self-defense) and cases provide tests they must meet without defining "life" itself.

Roe discussed how "person" in the constitutional sense doesn't involve fertilized eggs, embryos, or fetuses. This doesn't mean that the government cannot regulate for various reasons and both Roe and Casey also discussed that.

"Life" in general can be protected in various respects. So, animal cruelty laws exist, including on how to kill "pests."

The Constitution protects the life of constitutional persons. For instance, unlike some wish, higher primates are not covered by current law.

Roe and Casey references how the meaning of life is a philosophical and religious question that is largely a question of personal liberty [before Dobbs]. For various reasons, viability is the line drawn for abortion bans (with exceptions).

The question overall, that is, is not really avoided.

[A Japanese Student]

Will post yesterday's as well.

Robbery Case (Grand Bench, decided April 21, 1948): Cannot deny request to examine witness as unnecessary then admit out-of-court statements (while not deciding whether unavailable witnesses' statements can be admitted; later cases says they can)

Meguro Ward Mayoral Appointment Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 21, 1964): Generalized claim of voting rights infringement is not justiciable; here, the appointment of mayors without elections equally affected all residents, so none of the plaintiffs had personal stake in the suit that would permit lawsuit

Damages Claims Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 21, 1970): Contract to offer money in exchange for testifying truthfully is invalid

Damages Claims Case (First Petty Bench, decided April 21, 2016): Government "does not assume an obligation, under the principle of good faith, to give consideration to the safety" of pretrial detainee (This obligation, recognized in employment context, is subject to longer statute of limitations compared to ordinary tort claim (which the detainee could have sought))

And today, a rare sighting - a statute being declared facially unconstitutional:

Injury Case (Second Petty Bench, decided April 22, 1955): Code of Criminal Procedure being a statute (as opposed to court rule) does not violate the Constitution

Co-Owned Forest Case (Grand Bench, decided April 22, 1987): Held unconstitutional Article 186 of Forest Act, prohibiting partitioning of forests in co-ownership by co-owner not having majority interest, as infringing property rights; in this case, each of the two brothers held 50% interest, which meant neither could partition without the consent of the other

Narcotics Special Measures Act Case (Third Petty Bench, decided April 22, 2008): Courts cannot order accessory to forfeit principal's drug proceeds