Today in Supreme Court History: April 30, 1789

4/30/1789: President Washington's inauguration. He would appoint eleven members to the Supreme Court: Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth, and Justices Wilson, Blair, Cushing, Rutledge, Iredell, Johnson, Paterson, and Chase.

President Washington's Appointees

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (decided April 30, 1900): Kid shot a gun into the air for fun. Tribal policeman (his cousin) had no right to arrest him, such that he had self-defense argument when things came to a head the next day when the policeman drew a gun on him. The extensive account of the facts describes a slower-moving frontier society and might have made a good episode of “Gunsmoke”, though with an all-Native American cast. (The defense that one has the right to resist an unlawful arrest is no longer permitted, at least not in South Dakota where this incident happened, S.D. Cod. L.§22-11-5.)

Berra v. United States, 351 U.S. 131 (decided April 30, 1956): can’t give jury the choice of convicting for felony (filing false tax return) or misdemeanor (submitting false valuation) where same facts supported either charge (overlap was removed by later Code change, see Sansone v. United States, 1965)

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (decided April 30, 2007): electronic sensor for pedal position adaptable for short-legged people was too “obvious” to be patentable in light of then-existing technology (pity, no diagram is provided) (my knowledge of pedal mechanisms is intimate but is limited to my 1959 VW Beetle)

Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28 (decided April 30, 1986): error to refuse request to question prospective jurors as to racial bias in capital crime prosecution involving black defendant and white victim

Wilkins v. United States, 441 U.S. 468 (decided April 30, 1979): petition for certiorari should have been entertained even though 17 months late due to court-appointed attorney’s inaction after defendant wrote to him repeatedly requesting that petition be filed; this petition was pro se, supported by affidavits from wife and minister; remanded to Circuit Court so that proper, lawyerly petition could be filed (Mann Act case; not clear how it turned out)

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (decided April 30, 1979): Due Process requires that showing of mental illness requiring commitment must be made by “clear and convincing” evidence, not just preponderance (though preponderance is enough if already criminally tried and acquitted on insanity defense, see Jones v. U.S., 1983)

Comm’r of Internal Revenue v. Bilder, 369 U.S. 499 (decided April 30, 1962): rent paid for winter Florida apartment can’t be deducted as medical care expense even though was following doctor’s orders to spend cold months in warm climate (fact that wife accompanied him might have been a factor, but what did he expect?)

Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115 (decided April 30,1956): The CPUSA argued that it wasn’t a “Communist-action organization” (controlled by Moscow, dedicated to world Communist revolution) requiring registration and monitoring. Here, there was so much perjured testimony that the finding against them was vacated. Case remanded; no record of what happened after this. (My understanding is that though the CPUSA marched in lockstep with Moscow, it was their choice to do so, and there was internal debate between world revolution and single-country revolution.)

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (decided April 30, 2007): police enjoyed qualified immunity after stopping high-speed car chase by ramming car from behind, causing loss of control of vehicle and injuries; §1983 suit dismissed

Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (decided April 30, 2007): Microsoft can make lots of $ infringing AT&T’s voice recognition patent so long as it’s sold overseas (even though master disk holding software was made here with disks for sale made abroad)

[Malika the Maiz]

Bad Elk v. United States-very interesting, thanks!

[A Japanese Student]

Scott v. Harris, if I remember correctly, introduced video footage exception to the usual summary judgment rule (that courts must take plaintiffs' allegations as true). Still not sure if this was the right decision.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You're thinking of a motion to dismiss on the pleadings (Rule 12). On a summary judgment motion (Rule 56) evidence is introduced by both sides.

[David Nieporent]

J.S. phrased it a bit off, but he had the gist of it. On summary judgment, the court must examine if there is evidence to establish genuine disputes over material facts. Ordinarily if I submit testimony saying I was driving safely (I'm simplifying; that's too conclusory and would require elaboration) and the cops submit testimony saying I was driving recklessly (ditto), on summary judgment the trial judge would not be able to choose between those two narratives and would have to deny summary judgment, letting the jury decide how I was driving.

But in Scott v. Harris, SCOTUS held that if swore I was driving safely and the cops supplied a video showing me driving recklessly (and there's no question about its authenticity) then the trial judge could resolve the disputed fact of how I was driving, even on summary judgment.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Summary judgment is given if no reasonable jury would believe the other side's story. Here, no reasonable jury would believe the driver's statement in the face of a video that belied it. (Of course, there are unreasonable juries -- I would love to ask Marion Barry, "So what did you think was in that pipe?")

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that that’s the rationale behind this decision, but the general rule for summary judgment is that all disputed facts need to be resolved against the moving party, even if the evidence putting it in dispute is weak or unpersuasive.

[Dan Schiavetta]

In law school we were referred to Brennan's opinion in the then-recent case of Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 1986, which is still a good summary of what has to be shown, pro and con.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I’m not sure I see what relevance Celotex has to this discussion.

If I have one myopic, schizophrenic, convicted perjurer who hates you who says the light was green, and you have a hundred Boy Scouts who say it was red, you normally wouldn’t be able to get summary judgment.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

See here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/media.aspx

[SMP0328]

The Court in Scott v. Harris ruled the police action did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It was not a QI decision.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. Will revise.

[apedad]

Hang on a sec...

"The Court of Appeals thus concluded that (police officer) Scott was not entitled to qualified immunity. We granted certiorari, 549 U. S. __ (2006), and now reverse."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/372/

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes — that’s why I thought the Court was ruling on qualified immunity. They did reverse the judgment, but with a different rationale, as SMP pointed out. I was also confused by Breyer’s concurrence which did rely on the QI issue.

[A Japanese Student]

I think at that time courts still had to rule on the constitutionality before reaching QI, right?

[Dan Schiavetta]

To oversimplify -- whether the police enjoy QI depends on if a Constitutional right was involved. If no Constitutional right, you never get to the QI question.

[A Japanese Student]

Yes, but the current (i.e. post-Pearson) jurisprudence allows judges to decide on QI grounds without ever ruling on the constitutionality itself, perpetually making the constitutional law not clearly established.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A government defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless they both violated a constitutional right, and that right was clearly established. It’s the second part that is controversial: with the possible exception of David Nieporent, no one thinks that someone should be liable for not violating the constitution. So it’s not a qualified immunity case inasmuch as qualified immunity had no effect on the outcome.

[Frank Drackman]

"All Native American Cast"??
wouldn't it have been better to have the American Indian roles on "Gunsmoke" played by, I don't know, actual American Indians?
and except for the occasional foreign guest star like Ricardo Montalban, the entire cast was "Native American"
There's one of the original 30 minute Black & White episodes "The Guitar" with a young Aaron Spelling playing a dim-witted Guitar Player 2 Ex Confederates plan to lynch, as good today as it was in 1956

Frank

[The Margrave of Azilia]

After the Supreme Court ordered a new hearing on the Communist Party's status, the Subversive Activities Control Board (without the tainted testimony this time) found that the CPUSA was...the envelope, please...a Communist action organization. By now it was 1961, and the law under which the CPUSA was declared a communist action organization had been passed in 1950. (By way of contrast, this is longer than the typical Communist court tends to take to find someone guilty, since there are fewer technical hangups. USA! USA!)

As a communist action organization, the CPUSA was subject to various legal requirements - like compulsory registration with the government, which got struck down for violating the non-self-incrimination rights of the Party's officers who were supposed to sign. Other triggered sanctions were also struck down.

The SACB had become a joke by the lat Sixties when LBJ made some crony (or a crony's wife) a member of the body.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks.

I recommend "The Front" (1976), with Zero Mostel, Woody Allen, Andrea Marcovicci and Herschel Bernardi.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (decided April 30, 1900): Kid shot a gun into the air for fun.

I feel like this has come up before, but I’m not sure why you’re calling him a kid: as best I can tell he was born in 1872, so he would have been 26 or 27 when this happened in 1899, and was also a tribal police officer himself. He ultimately died of consumption while in jail awaiting a retrial in August, about three months after this decision came down.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"died of consumption"

to further add to the old-timey flavor

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It must be nice, it must be nice to have
Washington on your side

You can find a list of the Washington justices here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx

==

John Bad Elk v. United States explains the deceased was named John Kills Back.

Justice Breyer once noted in an oral argument that a person's very name could be incriminatory in rare cases. "Mr. Bank Robber" or some such. I wonder if that name qualifies.

I'm not sure why reference is made in the summary to a "kid."

The opinion explains that "Both the deceased and the plaintiff in error were Indians and policemen residing on the reservation at the time of the killing."

The opinion noted:

At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if, in the course of that resistance, the officer was killed, the offence of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Justice Breyer once noted in an oral argument that a person's very name could be incriminatory in rare cases. "Mr. Bank Robber" or some such. I wonder if that name qualifies.

According to this story, a John Good Shot was convicted of a different murder at the same court session.

[Syd Henderson]

Berra v. United States involves one Louis Berra, not Lawrence Peter Berra, which would have been more interesting. It involved fraudulent tax returns for 1951, 52 and 53. Yogi was MVP in 1951 (and 1954 and 1955).

[Dillinger]

I was thinking "there's a Yogism in there about giving juries choices"

[Rubbish!]

Little known fact: Justice John Blair was the great-great grandpappy of Marty Feldman.

[Dan Schiavetta]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICE6l-5qTYE

Unfortunately the title gives away the punchline.

It works best as a video, seen on his 1971 - 1972 TV show, but I can't find that at the moment.

[bernard11]

Are you sure, or is that just a hunch?

[Dan Schiavetta]

It might be a joke -- Blair looks a bit cockeyed in that (ineptly painted) portrait.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I believe it’s what’s sometimes colloquially referred to as a “joke”.

(One of which is on me, I guess, if “hunch” was a Young Frankenstein reference.)