Today in Supreme Court History: June 12, 1967

6/12/1967: Loving v. Virginia decided.

 

Comments

[SMP0328]

Brought to you by captcrisis.com

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (decided June 12, 1967): striking down on Equal Protection and (substantive) Due Process grounds Virginia’s prohibition on interracial marriage (a good decision for me personally) (in the trial court the one-year sentence imposed on the Lovings, who had gone to D.C. to get married and were indicted when they moved back to Virginia, had been suspended on the condition that they move out of state and not return for 25 years, not so coincidentally after Mildred was past childbearing age)

Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U.S. 47 (decided June 12, 2017): striking down requirement that foreign-born non-marital children seeking citizenship needed a U.S. citizen father who had been here for at least five years before birth while for a U.S. citizen mother needed only one year (8 U.S.C. §1409)

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (decided June 12, 2008): American citizens held by post-Iraq-invasion Multi-National Force (accused of helping al Qaeda, kidnapping) can petition for habeas corpus (the MNF was about to transfer them to a local criminal court for trial), but petition denied because Iraq had sovereign right to try crimes committed on its soil (our regard for Iraq’s sovereignty is truly touching /s)

Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, 582 U.S. 79 (decided June 12, 2017): Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies only to those collecting debt “for another”; does not apply to creditor collecting debt for itself, and therefore also doesn’t apply to company which regularly purchases other companies’ debts (opinion by Gorsuch, a wonderfully clear and unpretentious writer)

POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (decided June 12, 2014): Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not preclude private action for false advertising on a matter the FDA has not set a rule for (Coca-Cola Co. sold “pomegranate-blueberry drink” with only minimal amounts of both) (jury decided for Coca-Cola in March 2016)

Adarand Constr. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (decided June 12, 1995): use of race-based presumptions in approving economically disadvantaged subcontractors on federal projects viewed under “strict scrutiny”, not a more lenient standard (at issue was the awarding of federal highway construction contracts)

Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (decided June 12, 1972): right to have counsel provided (Gideon) applies to all criminal prosecutions not just to those to which the right to trial by jury attaches (which is maximum sentence six months or more)

House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (decided June 12, 2006): habeas after rape/murder conviction may go forward based on chain of custody problems (not heard by the jury) as to the incriminating blood and possible confession of victim’s husband; no proof of “actual innocence” but enough that jurors might have reasonable doubt

New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (decided June 12, 1984): statement by handcuffed defendant in supermarket as to nearby location of gun admitted into evidence under “public safety” exception to Miranda (rape victim told police he ran into supermarket and had gun; police chased him and found him unarmed)

New York et rel. Kennedy v. Becker, 241 U.S. 556 (decided June 12, 1916): Seneca tribe bound by state fish and game laws despite what was promised to them in 1797 treaty because land in question was not on a reservation

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This entry sponsored by a certain “pomegranate-blueberry drink."

The Supreme Court, though Earl Warren thought it was a shitty move, avoided dealing was interracial marriage for years after Brown, using a "the South is already pissed off at us already" prudential strategy.

The opinion rested on equal protection and due process; the latter connected to the first (racial discrimination not a reasonable ground to deprive someone of the right to marry). So, no, Clarence Thomas need not be upset if his substantive due process principles were evenly applied.

As to original understanding, there was some that the 14A required the result. It was far from firmly established and the lower court opinions were split in the first few years.

Mildred Loving (her husband died in a car accident in the 1970s) later argued the principles of equality applied to same sex marriage.

[bernard11]

Just another one of those uber-liberal decisions by the socialist Warren Court.