Today in Supreme Court History: May 15, 2000

5/15/2000: U.S. v. Morrison is decided.

Comments

[SMP0328]

From captcrisis.com

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (decided May 15, 1939): Second Amendment guarantees only right to keep and bear arms in “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. Contains long discussion of Articles of Confederation period, such as sentiment in favor of militias so as to obviate creation of a standing army and militia possession and training requirements states placed on males. The sawed-off shotgun at issue was not reasonably a militia weapon and therefore statute penalizing possession of such weapons (and requiring federal agency approval of any ownership or transfer of even militia-type weapons) was within Congress’s power.

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (decided May 15, 2000): statute allowing civil remedy for victims of gender-related violence was outside Congress’s Commerce Clause power nor did Equal Protection clause apply to private conduct

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (decided May 15, 1967): juvenile and his parents are entitled to due process (e.g., assistance of counsel, protection against self-incrimination) before commitment to “industrial school” as a delinquent

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (decided May 15, 1893): United States could expel without due process any Chinese laborer who does not get a residency card from the IRS within the first year

Kindred Nursing Centers et al. v. Clark, 581 U.S. 246 (decided May 15, 2017): effect under Kentucky law of power of attorney given to relatives of nursing home resident was to exclude agreeing to arbitration from scope of authority and therefore was in violation of the Federal Arbitration Act; arbitration clause in contract therefore applied and lawsuit alleging negligence was dismissed

Randon v. Toby, 52 U.S. 493 (decided May 15, 1851): “The buying and selling of negroes, in a State where slavery is tolerated, and where color is prima facie evidence that such is the status of the person, cannot be said to be an illegal contract, and void on that account. The crime committed by those who introduced the negroes into the country does not attach to all those who may afterwards purchase them.”

Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84 (decided May 15, 1978): California court had no jurisdiction over father in alimony dispute because he did not live there even though he had consented to mother and children moving to California from New York in contravention of separation agreement

Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695 (decided May 15, 1995): 18 U.S.C. §1001 (criminalizing false statements made to federal officials) doesn’t apply to lying in court (in the process the Court holds that §1001 applies only to lying to the Executive Branch, overruling United States v. Bramblett, 1955) (this holding prompted an amendment to §1001 to make it conform with Bramblett)

Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445 (decided May 15, 1899): application for “citizenship” in tribe allowing participation in election of tribal commission and access to United States courts can be denied without due process safeguards

[JoeFromtheBronx]

U.S. v. Morrison concerns a federal civil remedy.

It provided a chance for Justice Souter to write one of his many powerful dissents. That is an important part of his legacy.

Souter argues, as he did in Lopez, that judicial lines attempting to cabin commercial power was repeatedly artificial. The ultimate limit is structural — the political processes including our bicameral system with multiple veto points.

Justice Breyer added a dissent that touched upon but did not rely on the back-up 14A enforcement argument. I think the argument deserved a bit more love than given.

A question by Justice Ginsburg during oral argument flagged that the law did not interfere with multiple constitutionally implied powers of the state. For instance, it did not commandeer state legislators. This provides a third argument: the law was a legitimate exercise of necessary and proper enforcement.

People complain the current federal power is excessively applied. Repeatedly, they do so when addressing things quite reasonably applying federal powers. The PPACA, for instance.

The remainder which does not violate some explicit constitutional barrier or implicit state power [putting aside this is sometimes applied incorrectly including current immunity law] is a vague dubious subset that very well is probably best addressed politically.

And political actors very well can weigh constitutional principles when deciding these questions. That was one reason for a written Constitution. For instance, trying to determine “excessive fines” is usually going to be political matter. Courts only strike down excessive punishments in narrow cases.

[Speaking for normal people]

It disgusts normal foks that rape is legallyl treated in connection with interstate commerce !! She was raped and I don’t think that is denied. I know Clarence Thomas says — and I agree — even a shitty law is adjudged as binding or not, all shttiness aside. But the whole thing degrades women

Justice Thomas : By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.

You lawyers and lawmakers are a goddam disgrace.
SHE WAS RAPED !!! Interstate Commerce???? You should be in prison for such nonsense

[denvelsamit234]

On May 15, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Morrison, a landmark case that limited Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, ruling that parts of the Violence Against Women Act were unconstitutional. This decision marked a significant moment in federalism and the role of federal authority in addressing gender-based violence. For those interested in exploring historical moments or engaging content in a different format, check out https://hapunangame.com/ as a fun way to take a break while staying curious.