Today in Supreme Court History: April 29, 1745

4/29/1745: Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth was born.

Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (decided April 29, 2021): “notice to appear” served on people subject to deportation (and which stops the time accrued in this country) must contain all the information the person needs on a single form, not on various forms sent at various times (opinion is another example of Gorsuch’s clear and informal writing style)

Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 587 U.S. 218 (decided April 29, 2019): The TVA, owned by the federal government, by statute can sue and be sued, but retains some governmental immunity. Here the Court, construing the TVA statute, holds that the usual immunity from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act for “discretionary functions” (decisions by officials, as opposed to negligence in how those decisions are carried out) does not apply to the TVA, and suit for damages due to failure to warn of a downed power line could proceed. (Sounds like negligence to me anyway!)

Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (decided April 29, 2015): upholding against First Amendment attack state rule prohibiting candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting funds for their campaign; integrity of the judiciary is a “compelling state interest”; 5 - 4 decision

McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (decided April 29, 2013): Virginia allows only its own citizens to request records under its Freedom of Information Act. This does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause. (One plaintiff, from Rhode Island, was trying to find out why a court had waited so long to issue a decision on child support he was retroactively owed; another, from California, was trying to get real estate tax records for a client.)

Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586 (decided April 29, 2009): confession obtained in violation of Miranda (statement to jailhouse informant) can be used to impeach if defendant decides to testify (this is why I didn’t go into criminal law: it’s great to free the innocent, but you make your living by freeing the guilty)

Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580 (decided April 29, 2003): magistrate had authority to issue findings in §1983 case against prison doctors; though no explicit consent had been given, plaintiff had acquiesced in magistrate managing case and acting as judge at trial (my practice in federal court is to always consent; you don’t want to piss off the judge by forcing him to manage and then try your case, particularly if it’s a state law diversity case -- which is too mundane for those thinkers, who want to deal only with Great Constitutional Issues)

McLaughlin v. United States, 476 U.S. 16 (decided April 29, 1986): handgun brandished during bank robbery is “dangerous weapon” under statute even though unloaded

EEOC v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 476 U.S. 19 (decided April 29, 1986): Here we have one federal agency suing another, the EEOC seeking review of a FLRA ruling requiring the EEOC to accede to its union’s request for restrictions on contracting out work. The Court holds that the EEOC can’t raise arguments not made before the FLRA. Which is the plain language of 5 U.S.C. §7123(c).

Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (decided April 29, 1974): striking down California prison rules allowing censorship of mail without procedural safeguards and prohibiting legal interviews with law students and paralegals (overruled as to mail censorship by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 1989)

Ball v. James, 451 U.S. 355 (decided April 29, 1981): one-person, one-vote principle not violated by restricting voting for directors of agricultural improvement district to landowners and weighting votes by acreage owned

[apedad]

" . . . but you make your living by freeing the guilty"

As a retired federal officer, I've seen - and have been part of - the enormous power the govt can administer against people.

I would hope that lawyers would concentrate on protecting the rights of accused people and not on whether they're guilty or not guilty.

[Dan Schiavetta]

For every factually guilty person like Ernest Miranda, whose case got taken up by aggressive lawyers and established a right we all enjoy, there are thousands of factually guilty people who got turned loose to do more damage.

[apedad]

" . . . there are thousands of factually guilty people who got turned loose to do more damage."

But would you want it any other way?

What would you remove?

4A, 5A, 6A, 7A?

And this on top of incredible criminal forensics, investigative techniques, ubiquitious cameras, and technical capabilities that are available to law enforcement - and yet thousands of people who in fact commit serious crimes are still able to avoid prosecution.

[Dan Schiavetta]

To get a conviction is like a pitcher having to pitch a perfect game. He can't just be the winning pitcher.

As for technology, most police departments, particularly those in high crime areas, are run on a shoestring and are anything but state of the art. All you have to do is walk into the local precinct and see for yourself. The same is true of the D.A. offices.

[apedad]

At the federal level (there's prolly data for states but too lazy to look), for 2023, the conviction rate for all offenses was 91% and 9% for not convicted.

Perfect games are rare but federal convictions are not.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/fjs23.pdf

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks for the statistics. Under Trump, we can assume that future DOJ reports will be either 1) "cooked" or 2) slapped together with unqualified and inadequate staff.

The 91% conviction rate is just for cases that went to trial ("adjudicated"). A lot of cases get dropped after suppression hearings, etc. mean that evidence can't be used. And it doesn't seem to take account of how many were reversed on appeal.

[not guilty]

"The 91% conviction rate is just for cases that went to trial ("adjudicated")."

No, the 91% conviction statistic includes cases resolved by guilty pleas:

"Nearly all defendants charged with immigration (98%), weapons (94%), drug or other regulatory offenses (both 92%) offenses were convicted. About 89% of defendants adjudicated pled guilty. Two percent of defendants were convicted through a bench or jury trial. . . . The largest percentage of adjudicated cases that were not convicted were dismissed or otherwise concluded by the judge or prosecutor (9%)."

The number of federal criminal cases that go to trial is quite small. Prosecutors have enormous leverage in the charge bargaining/plea bargaining process.

[Speaking for normal people]

Then you should deplore plea bargaining , which hurts one and all. Make the lawyer's life easier, whether you did it or not, plea for a lower punishment (and often undeserved punishment)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Roberts, wanting to send a message that judges are special, joined the liberals in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar. The integrity of legislatures is not as compelling, apparently.

Your brief and to the point summary of McLaughlin v. United States is fitting. Stevens handled the opinion in a few brief paragraphs.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[AmosArch]

So because a foreign leader tweeted some stuff that made them mad and was a member of the 'conservative' party in his country the Canaduhians reelected the party that had been screwing them over for years and they had been whining about nonstop because....uh they're leftwing...and uh the party the foreign leader is in is 'rightwing'...and that somehow makes them more suited to deal with said foreign leader because...ummm ....and Canaduhians want to make it clear they're not a sideshow controlled entirely by what happens in the the United States so they're going to pick leaders based entirely on what happens in the US because uh......

I'm not sure I'm following the logic here. Lol

[Dan Schiavetta]

Carney is well up to the job. Trump has never gotten the best of any foreign leader. Many have played him for a fool. Because he is one.

[AmosArch]

Whatever ends up happening, Trump has already gotten the best of you. You've wasted a good chunk of your life to him already and he will likely continue to exact this price on you to some extent for the rest of your days And he's also gotten the best of Canadians who just proved they they care more about him then their own country.

[Dan Schiavetta]

not a coherent response

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Not a coherent reader

[Speaking for normal people]

Did you say something? Have no idea what you said.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Whether he's right or not, he is understandable. You just have to get the TDS out of your head.

[Frank Drackman]

Canada didn't want Alberta anyway.
Might want their Oil and Natural Gas next winter though.

[apedad]

"Canaduhians"

Who do you think you are?

Frank Drackman???

[SRG2]

Alternatively, .better to have a liberal Canadian government than a dictatorial American regime, sentiments that those of us who are not in favour of a Trumpist dictatorship approve of.

[Speaking for normal people]

I doubt you are Canadian . is this not fool of the century ????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaCY4K9P8ZY

[Bob from Ohio]

He's British by birth.

[David Nieporent]

Well, it makes more sense than your voting for a guy who hates America and everything it stands for, who wants to destroy the world economy and foreign alliances, just because you're mad that someone put "they/them" in an email signature.

[Speaking for normal people]

IT doesn't make more sense because those aren't the only two choices in the universe !!!!!
All you are doing, missy, is insulting 80 million Americans and doing your usual 'The world would be so much better if my sterlling brilliant saintly self were in charge" people laugh at you I AM SURE

[jb]

This doesn't seem that hard.

Your (powerful) neighbor and erstwhile ally suddenly has a leader who is trying to screw up your economy and making noises about annexing your country. Now there's an election and you have one candidate saying "I am going to stand up that guy, he is bad for Canada" and the other candidate saying "that guy has some pretty good ideas". Even if Poilievre didn't agree with all of Trump's policies, he has been much less strident than Carney in pushing back against them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"much less strident than Carney"

Ask Mexico how having the US be semi-hostile has worked out over time.

If Carney was just trying to attrack votes, that's politics. If he is going to act now like the US is an enemy, good luck to him!

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

Whether or not the reaction of Canadian voters to Trump's taunts and tariff attacks was "logical," it was absolutely predictable. Trump's mindless destruction of our most valuable alliance is no better than treason.

[A Japanese Student]

April 29 is a public holiday in Japan - now known as Showa Day. Originally commemorating the birthday of the (perhaps infamous) emperor, National Holidays Act now defines the purpose of this holiday as "looking back on the Showa era, a period of recovery after tumultuous times, and contemplating the future of the country of Japan".

The reigning Emperor's Birthday is a public holiday. Hirohito, aka Emperor Showa, was born on this day in 1901. When he died in 1989, the Diet set December 23, the new Emperor's birthday, as the public holiday, but renamed this holiday as the Greenery Day. In 2007, the Greenery Day was moved to May 4, and April 29 was designated as the Showa Day. When the previous emperor abdicated in 2019, December 23 became a regular business day, and February 23, the current Emperor's birthday, became a public holiday.

Emperor Showa is one of the two modern-era emperors whose birthday remains to be a public holiday. The other is Emperor Meiji, born November 3 in Gregorian calendar. That day is now designated as Culture Day, celebrating freedom, peace, culture, and the promulgation of the new Constitution on November 3, 1946. (The post-war government specifically chose that date.)

Today, the week that contains the Showa Day, the Constitution Memorial Day (May 3; when the Constitution took effect in 1947), the Greenery Day, and the Children's Day (May 5) is known as the Golden Week. Moderate temperature and good weather make this period a perfect candidate for camping.

(TL;DR: there are no cases to report today. See Court Holidays Act, §1(ii).)

[Dan Schiavetta]

All the man wanted to do was study marine biology. Being emperor did not suit him.

[Frank Drackman]

What's George Constanza got to do with this?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

He was out of his depth, you could say.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Oliver Ellsworth supported independence & served in a diverse number of public positions including judge of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

He played a significant role in the Constitution Convention, including in the negotiation of the "Great Compromise." One account suggested he was the most underrated Founder.

Ellsworth became a U.S. senator & was the main author of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the structure and jurisdiction of the federal court system and created the position of attorney general.

As Chief Justice, he tried to initiate the policy of the Supreme Court’s handing down per curiam opinions for the entire Court instead of each justice announcing opinions separately.

Like Chief Justice Jay (to Great Britian), he was sent on a diplomatic mission (to France). John Marshall was involved in what is known as the "XYZ Affair" with France but that time he went before becoming a Chief Justice.

The mission negatively affected Oliver's health, leading to a vacancy that was filled by John Marshall. Ellsworth kept active in state politics until his death in 1807.

He had nine children. His wife Abigail was praised thusly: "She exercised such concern and thoughtfulness for her husband’s needs that no anxiety regarding household cares ever disturbed his public life.”

https://ellsworthhomesteaddar.org/?page_id=184

Note: The musical Oliver! was not about Oliver Ellsworth.

One or more opinions "may" drop at 10 A.M. today and tomorrow.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Judges tend to be boring people. Occasionally they have interesting pursuits but they never say anything interesting about them.

One federal judge (I forget who) had a biography of Ellsworth on his coffee table, next to a little statuette. He said something about reading his biography. I noted that at the Convention Ellsworth was known for talking to himself and constantly pinching snuff. The judge didn't know what I was talking about and had no rejoinder.

[Speaking for normal people]

That wasn't so in the Founder Era.
Because law was something everyone could understand from first principles.
The breadth and depth of popular interest in the Constitution in 1787-1788 was remarkable. The towns of Massachusetts, for example, elected 370 delegates to the state’s ratifying convention, of whom 364 attended. Most were eager to meet and discuss the Constitution. It took six days for the delegates from Bath, Maine (then part of Massachusetts), to make their way south across rivers and through snow to Boston. The people of Massachusetts believed they were involved, as the little town of Oakham told its delegates, in deciding an issue of “the greatest importance that ever came before any Class of Men on this Earth.”

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Deputy SG Ed Kneedler had his final oral argument (his 160th) last week & got a standing ovation. He served as a mentor for both Alito and Kagan. A rare unity of praise. I wonder if JB will find a reason to complain about him. Ha ha.

https://archive.ph/2vaAw

[Dan Schiavetta]

He's 79, and leaving, but the article notes that half the SG staff is leaving also. Wonder why? The "unity of praise" would have ceased as soon as he took a position that Trump does not approve of.

[JohnSmith97]

And here I was thinking the SG staff argued the position of the administration in court, not whatever their personal feelings were.

[Dan Schiavetta]

We've seen Trump sack lawyers all over the place because they didn't represent him the way he wanted it done. Often it involved unethical behavior or false representations to the court -- which is why it soon became hard for him to find someone good. That this kind of thing will happen with the SG office is, I think, a foregone conclusion. The lawyers are leaving because they care about their law licenses.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Among the defense team for Judge Hannah Dugan is Paul Clement.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/2025/04/29/see-the-legal-players-in-the-case-against-milwaukee-judge-hannah-dugan/83327855007/

Also, Steven Biskupic, whose sister is a SCOTUS reporter.

[not guilty]

I seriously doubt that the feds -- who are grandstanding here big time -- want this matter to go to trial. The arrest was a dog and pony show useful primarily for its in terrorem effect.

It is entirely possible that a grand jury won't even indict, which I suspect is the reason the matter was initiated by criminal complaint. The DOJ wanted its perp walk more than anything else.

[JohnSmith97]

How usual in this forum. "Nobody is above the law". Unless you are a leftist - then nothing is a crime.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Paul Clement"

Third strike this year siding against Trump. Adams in NY, WilmerHale, now this.

Good luck in his new Resistance! career.