Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (decided June 20, 2002): executing intellectually disabled people (I think that’s the term for it now) is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth Amendment (overruling Penry v. Lynaugh, 1989, citing “evolving standards of decency” and the trend of states outlawing the death penalty in such cases) (defendant, convicted of armed robbery and murder, had an IQ of 59)
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (decided June 20, 1979): attaching an offsite device to record calls from a house (a “pen register”) is not a “search” requiring a warrant because the person “voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company” (that’s a stretch, I think)
American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n, 588 U.S. 29 (decided June 20, 2019): large cross in now-busy intersection originally erected to honor World War I veterans could stay where it was without violating First Amendment Establishment Clause (this is the “Bladensburg Peace Cross”, see the Wikipedia article)
McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (decided June 20, 2019): Member of board of elections (McDonough) was charged with forging absentee ballots. He was acquitted and brought a §1983 suit against the prosecutor (Smith), who had allegedly fabricated evidence. Here the Court holds that the statute of limitations for the §1983 suit began to run not when the evidence was adduced at trial but when the verdict came in. This case arose in Troy, N.Y., and from the opinion one sees that Smith and McDonough had a “history” in local politics and Smith’s (alleged) fabrication of the case against McDonough was hardly subtle. But the detailed trial court order finally granting summary judgment to Smith reveals a different picture, 2022 WL 3279348 (Aug. 11, 2022).
American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (decided June 20, 2011): common law nuisance suit against power plants by downwind states alleging greenhouse gas emission preempted by Clean Air Act; remanded to determine effect of preemption (don’t know what happened afterward)
Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (decided June 20, 2005): statute of limitations to sue for newly recognized right begins to run from date of court ruling recognizing new right, not from when a court declares it has retroactive effect (here, defendant convicted of continuing criminal enterprise cited Richardson v. United States, 1999, which declared for first time that jury must be unanimous on each criminal act, but argued that limitations period began with a 2002 Circuit Court decision declaring Richardson to be retroactive; this argument was rejected -- seems like an unfair result)
Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649 (decided June 20, 1980): Boxes of films of gay male sex addressed to “Leggs” (pseudonym) instead got delivered to “L’Eggs Products” (makers of pantyhose) who called the police. When viewed these films revealed not only “bizarre” sex (would probably seem tame to us now) but also the name of the sender, who was arrested for obscenity. The Court holds that the FBI’s viewing of the films was a Fourth Amendment violation; they should have gotten a warrant. (What about the surprised mailroom clerk at L’Eggs? At what point was he required to stop looking into the contents of what a United States agency had delivered to him? Wasn’t the delivery presumptively valid? -- cf. the judge’s ruling in “Miracle on 34th Street”.)
National Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582 (decided June 20, 1949): Congress could by statute modify the Constitution’s definition of diversity jurisdiction to include suits between D.C. residents and those of other states (instead of just between citizens of different states, which is how the Constitution reads; note that D.C. did not exist in 1787) (a complicated opinion, because the Court has to dance around a typically hardass ruling from John Marshall in 1804 holding that D.C. residents cannot bring diversity suits outside D.C. because it is not a “state”)
Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (decided June 20, 2016): improper search of drug dealer was overlooked, and all evidence found admitted, because it turned out there was a warrant for his arrest anyway, for a traffic violation
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (decided June 20, 1991): state judges can be automatically discharged at age 70 even though it’s age discrimination (federal age discrimination statute doesn’t apply) (did you know that the average age of active federal judges is 68?) (and that’s just the active judges -- the average age of the senior judges is 113)
Opmerkingen