top of page

Today in Supreme Court History: April 28

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (decided April 28, 2008): Indiana law requiring photo ID to vote did not violate Equal Protection (6 - 3 decision)


Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, PLLC, 596 U.S. 212 (decided April 28, 2022): emotional distress damages not available under Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or Affordable Care Act (physical therapist did not provide sign language interpreter for deaf and blind client)


Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (decided April 28, 2004): no justiciable question presented by Pennsylvania Republicans’ political gerrymandering, no matter how obvious (the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seemed to disagree, striking down a subsequent map that “clearly, plainly and palpably” violated the Pennsylvania Constitution, 645 Pa. 1, 2018)


Edwards v. United States, 523 U.S. 511 (decided April 28, 1998): sentencing judge can permissibly find that defendants distributed crack (as well as cocaine), which the Sentencing Guidelines treat more harshly, even though verdict did not necessarily involve crack


Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (decided April 28, 1997): no-knock entry (with warrant) justified because police were aware defendants knew it was the police at the door (of a motel room) and waiting for response would give them chance to flush the cocaine


Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (decided April 28, 1987): the term “political propaganda” as used in the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“intended to influence foreign policy”) is content neutral and therefore no First Amendment impediment to registration and disclosure requirements for materials so designated by the Department of Justice (Canadian films that a California state senator wished to show, dealing with nuclear war and acid rain)


Costarelli v. Massachusetts, 421 U.S. 193 (decided April 28, 1975): In Massachusetts, trial for certain criminal offenses was without jury -- but if found guilty, can “appeal” and get a de novo jury trial in Superior Court.  Does this system violate Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury?  No jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal as to this; defendant must go through to Massachusetts’s highest court (he never got that far -- perhaps he was acquitted?).  (Massachusetts has since eliminated this two-tier system.)


Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., 421 U.S. 168 (decided April 28, 1975): reports given to Renegotiation Board (watchdog agency as to excessive defense contractor profits) are not “final opinions” disclosable under the Freedom of Information Act (Dick Cheney fought tooth and nail, mostly successfully, in resisting disclosure of documents as to his pre-9/11 Energy Task Force -- this holding was probably helpful to him)


Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (decided April 28, 1952): upholding against First Amendment attack Illinois statute criminalizing materials “portraying lack of virtue in a class of citizens” (white supremacist handing out broadsheets accusing black people of rape, murder, etc.); if there can be criminal libel against individuals, there can be such against classes of people (this case, with opinion by the Jewish Justice, Frankfurter, with recent memories of the Holocaust, has in effect been overruled by later First Amendment jurisprudence, see discussion in Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie School District, 523 F.3d 668)


Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (decided April 28, 1952): (no, this was not Zorach from “Space Ghost Coast to Coast”, a great show) “release time” from public school to attend religious classes is Constitutional (we Catholic kids were let out an hour early for the bus, though with Catechism added in, we ended up getting home an hour later than everyone else)

Recent Posts

See All

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
bottom of page