Today in Supreme Court History: February 25

North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, 574 U.S. 494 (decided February 25, 2015): upholding FTC ruling that North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners committed antitrust violation by prohibiting non-dentists from providing teeth whitening services (State action is immune from antitrust liability, Parker v. Brown, 1943, but Board was not a governmental entity nor was under State supervision)

Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528 (decided February 25, 2015): Yates, caught with undersized fish in violation of conservation laws, threw them overboard despite being told by wildlife official to preserve them.  Court holds that this did not violate 18 U.S.C. §1519, which criminalizes “altering, destroying, mutilating, concealing, covering up, falsifying, or making a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object” with the intent to impede a federal investigation.  (So if in addition to ditching the fish Yates had written down that he had preserved them, he would have been convicted.  Lesson: it’s fine to actually destroy evidence, and even admit it, as long as they can’t tell such from the records.)  5 - 4 decision.  Kagan, in dissent, points out that a fish is a tangible object, and cites Dr. Seuss’s “One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish”.  (Yates was also convicted under 18 U.S.C. §2232(a), “Destruction or Removal of Property to Prevent Seizure”; he didn't appeal that conviction.)

Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322 (decided February 25, 1957): expanding federal bank robbery statute by including “entry of bank with intent to rob it” did not increase maximum punishment (20 years for robbery became 20 years for entry + robbery)

Hernandez v. Mesa, 589 U.S. — (decided February 25, 2020): parents of unarmed 15-year-old Mexican child shot and killed while crossing border into Mexico (agent claimed he wasn’t playing jump-over game with friends but trying to cross the border illegally but WTF??) cannot sue; one can sue federal agents for violation of Constitutional rights such as Due Process and unreasonable seizure (Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 1971) but not for cross-border incidents which are a political question between countries

Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292 (decided February 25, 2014): post-arrest consent to search apartment can be given by robbery suspect’s live-in girlfriend (she was apparent victim of domestic assault by suspect and police reasonably wanted to question her outside his intimidating presence)