Today in Supreme Court History: May 7, 1873

5/7/1873: Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase died. One month earlier, he dissented in the Slaughter-House Cases, and was the lone dissenter in Bradwell v. Illinois.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Today marks three years I've been posting these daily summaries. I feel like it's time to go. Thanks to the many who said kind words and also sometimes pointed out where I got a case wrong.

I'll continue these daily posts at captcrisis.com. Comments there will be much welcome.

Kelly v. United States, 590 U.S. 391 (decided May 7, 2020): The famous “blocked lanes on the GW Bridge” case which did such political damage to Chris Christie. Here, the Court throws out the wire fraud convictions of the officials who ordered the blocking because causing four days of traffic jams was not ”obtaining money or property” from the Port Authority such as the statute requires.

United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371 (decided May 7, 2020: The Ninth Circuit had decided sua sponte to bring in amici to brief whether there was a First Amendment problem with a statute criminalizing the encouragement of illegal immigration, an issue brought up by neither party. The Court held that this was improper and remanded to the Ninth Circuit to decide on the issues actually argued by the parties. (The Court itself is sometimes guilty of this, see e.g. Daimler, January 14.)

General Box Co. v. United States, 351 U.S. 159 (decided May 7, 1956): once a State donates its land to the federal government, the feds don't have to obey State notice procedures when it appropriates timber already grown there by private party

Screws v. United States (aptly named), 325 U.S. 91 (decided May 7, 1945): Defendant sheriff had beaten a black man to death. Conviction under Ku Klux Klan Act vacated because no evidence of intent to deprive victim of his civil rights. (!) Opinion written by William O. Douglas. (!!)

Blanchi v. Morales, 262 U.S. 170 (decided May 7, 1923): Puerto Rico (“Porto Rico”) statute allowing summary foreclosures was Constitutional. Very short opinion; the Court held that it was such a clear and simple question of law that it did not require briefs; it decided on the existing record.

[Drewski]

I've always read and enjoyed your summaries. They've elevated Josh's almost-daily, vapid TiSCH post into something worth opening (and scrolling past to read your summary). Thanks for doing these!

[Brett Bellmore]

And they've actually been Supreme court history. Unlike a lot of Josh's posts, that have basically nothing to do with the Court.

[SMP0328]

Screws v. United States (aptly named), 325 U.S. 91 (decided May 7, 1945): Defendant sheriff had beaten a black man to death. Conviction under Ku Klux Klan Act vacated because no evidence of intent to deprive victim of his civil rights. (!) Opinion written by William O. Douglas. (!!)

Maybe the Fourth Amendment not having been incorporated at the time of this case has something to do with the decision.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

More of a "due process for everyone" sort of opinion.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Thanks to the many who said kind words and also sometimes pointed out where I got a case wrong.

To err is Dan, to correct is for thine.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Screws v. United States (aptly named), 325 U.S. 91 (decided May 7, 1945): Defendant sheriff had beaten a black man to death. Conviction under Ku Klux Klan Act vacated because no evidence of intent to deprive victim of his civil rights. (!) Opinion written by William O. Douglas. (!!)

Let the corrections continue to the end!

The holding wasn’t that there was no evidence of willful deprivation of rights: the issue was that the willful deprivation was an element of the crime, but the jury wasn’t instructed on it.

Screws was acquitted when the case was retried: he remained the county sheriff and was later elected to the Georgia legislature. According to online census records, it appears he died in 1965.

https://thejacksonlist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/20100729-Jackson-List-More-Screws.pdf

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks — I’ll look at it and revise.

[John F. Carr]

We'll meet again.
Don't know where, don't know when.
But I know we'll meet again some sunny day.

[Syd Henderson]

Darn. These were the first thing I went to in the morning.

[Syd Henderson]

Of course, now I can go to captcrisis.com

[Stupid Government Tricks]

We've locked horns on just about everything else, but I've always looked forward to these. Fair winds and following seas, Captain.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bon Voyage Capt. Dan.
Too bad Eugene didn't see fit to bring you into the fold.
...and not even a Capt Dan bobble head for your efforts.

[SMP0328]

I'll visit your site Captain Dan, thanks for all your posts. Is it fine if your summaries are copy and pasted from your site to this one?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Of course. I can hardly claim proprietary rights on these summaries -- I did create them but I've been giving them away for free all this time.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

the lone dissenter in Bradwell v. Illinois

His daughter Kate was quite impressive, so it is not too surprising that Chase respected the right of intelligent women.

This is the infamous case where three justices concurred with sexist comments about the natural role of women. The majority applied a limited view of the P&I Clause. The concurrence dissented in The Slaughterhouse Cases so needed another approach. Chase, who did as well, dissented.

He was too sick to write a dissent, which is unfortunate. Like the unwritten dissent in Buck v. Bell, it would have been helpful. Ruth Bader Ginsburg once had a mock oral argument defending Bradwell in front of the "Supreme Court."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Privileges OR Immunities Clause

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Dan's summaries are well appreciated & it takes a lot of work to do the research. For those interested, they can buy a book at Amazon that provides a collection, now we know his name.

[A Japanese Student]

Captain Dan, I cannot thank you enough.

There were some cases I probably would've never encountered but for him. Most case summaries were much easier to read than the court's pages-long "syllabus".

Sometimes the cases touched subjects I already researched, either while looking through appellate decisions (I read almost all new ones) or just randomly. When I know there were some later developments - like Stinson/Kisor or the switch from first-to-invent to first-to-file - I do a quick re-check and post a reply.

When I challenged myself at the start of the year, I underestimated just how time-consuming it is to craft posts like these. I learned a lot from you - and now it's my turn to give what I owe.

I'll continue posting for the rest of the year.

[A Japanese Student]

Massage, Acupuncture, Moxibustion Practitioners Act Case (First Petty Bench, decided May 7, 1964): Definition of "pseudomedical practice" is not vague (since the Act lists massage, acupuncture, and moxibustion)

Corporation Tax Blue Return Approval Case (Third Petty Bench, decided May 7, 2024): Pre-deprivation hearing is not required before revoking "blue return" approval (named after the color of the paper tax return, blue-return taxpayers are entitled to some privileges but must use double-entry bookkeeping)

[apedad]

Capt Dan, how do we comment in captcrisis.com?

In the chat function?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes.

[Dan Schiavetta]

There's a comment box at the bottom of each post (once you open up the post to read it). Is that a better way? That way comments as to various posts don't get jumbled up.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Well, now that Dan Schiavetta is putting an end to his supreme court case commentaries, these comment sections just got about 1000% less interesting.

I say this as someone who doesn't necessarily agree with Dan's views on the constitution, politics, religion, pornography, etc.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks for the many kind comments. The ones from unexpected sources are especially well appreciated.

"Once in a while you get shown the light
"In the strangest of places if you look at it right."

[bernard11]

Great job on these, Dan.

Much appreciated.