Today in Supreme Court History: March 1, 1880

3/1/1880: Strauder v. West Virginia decided.

 

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Happy Birthday (Feb. 29) to Dan's wife.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/01/today-in-supreme-court-history-march-1-1880-5/

Justice Strong with a strong opinion:

The questions are important, for they demand a construction of the recent amendment of the Constitution. If the defendant has a right to have a jury selected for the trial of his case without discrimination against all persons of his race or color, because of their race or color, the right, if not created, is protected by those amendments and the legislation of Congress under them.

The opinion sets forth a general principle:

If this is the spirit and meaning of the amendment, whether it means more or not, it is to be construed liberally to carry out the purposes of its framers.

Justice Field's dissent, unlike his dissent in The Slaughterhouse Cases, provides a more restrictive interpretation, with an appeal to state power.

Nothing, in my judgment, could have a greater tendency to destroy the independence and autonomy of the States, reduce them to a humiliating and degrading dependence upon the central government, engender constant irritation, and destroy that domestic tranquility which it was one of the objects of the Constitution to insure than the doctrine asserted in this case -- that Congress can exercise coercive authority over judicial officers of the States in the discharge of their duties under State laws. It will be only another step in the same direction.

He expressed a narrow view that jury service is not covered. The 14A protects certain "civil" rights. The 15th Amendment protects voting rights. Jury service arguably is covered by that amendment (jurors "vote"). But he argues that jury service is a "political" right not covered by either amendment.

Strauder discusses how the 14th Amendment was ratified to protect racial equality. That was a core purpose.

It did more. Those who wrote and ratified it noted as such. For instance, people noted how the Southern states mistreated white abolitionists, including suppressing their freedom of speech.

Birthright citizenship is a general rule. Likewise, equal protection is a general rule. Again, this was recognized then, and it was the "purpose" of the amendment. The 15th Amendment, in comparison, singled out specific classifications.

Constitutional text should not be narrowly applied with reference to some single reason behind its ratification. That tends to undersell its reach.

[Dan Schiavetta]

¡Gracias!

Ana Mercedes Schiavetta Álvarez