Today in Supreme Court History: April 23, 1985

4/23/1985: Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. argued.

Comments

[Thought about __ all my life]

What about necrophiliacs and cross dressers and pedophiles ???

"precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.""

This is a just law

And today I saw this
Dershowitz: Harvard Law Doesn’t Focus on Principle and Produces People Like Schiff, Raskin, and Warren

We are allowing sick disgusting people like Dylan Mulvaney to get sicker and sicker in the name of freedom

[registration]

This thread's definitely gone off track from any constructive legal or tech discussion. While it's fair to critique institutions or public figures, lumping in unrelated and inflammatory comparisons doesn't help make a serious point.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (decided April 23, 2008): not a Fourth Amendment violation to arrest rather than issue summons as required by state law (for driving with suspended license) (drugs found incident to arrest) if police had independent “probable cause” suspicion (knew that he had suspended license)

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. 212 (decided April 23, 2020): can recover profits from infringed trademark (Lanham Act) even when infringement was unintentional (magnetic snap fasteners for handbags, recently very trendy) https://fineartamerica.com/featured/new-yorker-september-24th-2007-paul-noth.html?product=metal-print

Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (decided April 23, 2003): ineffective assistance of counsel argument (did not ask for continuance to evaluate surprise evidence as to bullet found in victim’s car) can be raised on motion to attack sentence, 28 U.S.C. §2255, even though not raised on direct appeal

Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (decided April 23, 2001): “I hear that making love to you is like making love to the Grand Canyon.” Not a tactful comment to make to a female co-worker (at least one who isn’t Storm Large). But no evidence that she was punished for complaining about this (though I hope the commenter got some serious grief). Title VII retaliation suit dismissed.

Holly Farms Corp. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 392 (decided April 23, 1996): NLRB reasonably held (Chevron deference) that truckers hauling chickens to slaughter were not “agricultural workers” exempt from NLRB jurisdiction; therefore they’re entitled to union representation

Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (decided April 23, 1985): The Secretary of Labor claimed a non-profit violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by underpaying its employees, even though the people at issue denied they were employees but just volunteers, being former drug addicts and “derelicts” who built and staffed facilities in return for food and shelter. The Court agrees with the Secretary, based on the dollar value of what was provided. The non-profit was ordered to provide back pay, and litigation went on for years, with the IRS eventually seizing the properties. (The Alamos led a cult and there was sexual abuse going on, which might have provoked enforcement.)

Florida v. Meyers, 466 U.S. 380 (decided April 23, 1984): no warrant needed for more extensive search of car impounded after arrest following admittedly valid search (strip of cloth found matching victim’s description of what she had been tied down with during rape)

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (decided April 23, 1974): White man sued law school claiming he was denied admission due to race (of the 37 black applicants who got admitted, 36 had lower LSAT’s than him). He won a preliminary injunction to admit him. By the time the case got the Court, he was in his last semester. Court dismisses case as moot; 5 - 4 decision; dissent (led by Douglas) notes the Constitutional questions that should be ruled on (the Court apparently did not think this was one of those “capable of repetition yet evading review” cases).

Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (decided April 23, 2013): “social sharing” of marijuana (i.e., possession) is not an “aggravated felony” requiring deportation under Immigration and Naturalization Act of Jamaican national (good thing -- otherwise half the college-age Jamaican population of this country would be deported, to hear my dormmate from 1976 tell it -- the one whose wall was plastered with posters of Bob Marley in clouds of smoke -- “he is seeing God”)

Forncrook v. Root, 127 U.S. 176 (decided April 23, 1888): dispute between beekeepers as to who first devised an improved “honey frame” (prefabricated so that one doesn’t have to fit pieces together, laboriously and inaccurately -- a diagram is in the opinion), and as to whether this is too obvious to be patentable; court affirms verdict for Root (who allegedly started using his model in 1873) against Forncrook (whose patent application was submitted in 1879) (notice I didn’t make any jokes about a “sweet” result, “swarming” sales or “stinging” accusations -- whoops I just did)

[David Nieporent]

Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (decided April 23, 1985): The Secretary of Labor claimed a non-profit violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by underpaying its employees, even though the people at issue denied they were employees but just volunteers, being former drug addicts and “derelicts” who built and staffed facilities in return for food and shelter. The Court agrees with the Secretary, based on the dollar value of what was provided. The non-profit was ordered to provide back pay, and litigation went on for years, with the IRS eventually seizing the properties. (The Alamos led a cult and there was sexual abuse going on, which might have provoked enforcement.)

It's important to understand that the Alamos were running commercial businesses with these 'volunteers.' Quoting from the opinion:

"It derives its income largely from the operation of a number of commercial businesses, which include service stations, retail clothing and grocery outlets, hog farms, roofing and electrical construction companies, a recordkeeping company, a motel, and companies engaged in the production and distribution of candy"

If it had been running soup kitchens and orphanages, the case would likely have come out differently. But the idea was that they were competing in the marketplace with ordinary businesses that had to pay minimum wage to their employees, and thus had an unfair advantage.

That's the general rule today: if your church has a social hall which it allows church members to use for their weddings and such, it probably doesn't have to comply with wage & hour laws. But if the social hall is also rented out to the general public, then it's competing in the marketplace with other event places and has to comply with the same laws as them.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

To be exact, the case was reargued OTD.

The oral argument concerned:

In 1980, Cleburne Living Center, Inc. submitted a permit application to operate a home for the mentally retarded. The city council of Cleburne voted to deny the special use permit, acting pursuant to a municipal zoning ordinance.

(to quote Oyez.com)

The justices agreed the denial was illegitimate but divided on the usage of heightened scrutiny. This was one of the "animus" line of cases which was also used in the gay and lesbian context.

Stevens (curiously joined by Burger) separately noted:

The term "rational," of course, includes a requirement that an impartial lawmaker could logically believe that the classification would serve a legitimate public purpose that transcends the harm to the members of the disadvantaged class. Thus, the word "rational" -- for me at least -- includes elements of legitimacy and neutrality that must always characterize the performance of the sovereign's duty to govern impartially. The rational basis test, properly understood, adequately explains why a law that deprives a person of the right to vote because his skin has a different pigmentation than that of other voters violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Stevens was not a big supporter of "tiers of scrutiny." Nonetheless, doctrinal divisions of that sort can be helpful in guiding lower courts.

[Dan Schiavetta]

My Con Law professor noted Stevens's denial of the scrutiny divisions. Stevens was "the Justice who always marches to his own drummer". This was 1991.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Marshall also used a more open-ended approach.