New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (decided March 9, 1964): The foundation of current law on freedom of speech in the media. A public figure can’t sue for libel unless “actual malice”, i.e., knowledge of falsity. Here, an ad in the New York Times from civil rights leaders protesting police brutality provoked Alabama official Sullivan (who was referred to only obliquely) to sue for libel. Court vacates $500,000 verdict.
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (decided March 9, 1987): alien can on asylum grounds oppose deportation after overstaying visa not for “clear probability” of prosecution in her home country, but just a “well-founded fear” (applicant’s brother had been tortured in their native Nicaragua by those who knew she had escaped) (in my experience, overstaying a visa is the rational thing to do: show up in Federal Plaza in New York for an extension, or for any appointment for that matter, even a citizenship interview, and they take away your cell phone — back in the pre-cell phone era when my wife applied, there weren’t any pay phones there — and won’t let anyone accompany you, and you might find yourself put in handcuffs and flown back to Mexico on false pretenses, which is what happened to my neighbor, who had an American husband and three young children born in this country)
United States v. The Amistad, 40 U.S. 518 (decided March 9, 1841): Africans who had taken over Spanish slave ship which ended up off Long Island were freemen; kidnaped into slavery illegally and therefore Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819, which required return of slaves, did not apply, and were not “property”, so the Pinckney Treaty of 1795, requiring return of property, did not apply (case argued by John Quincy Adams — as Secretary of State, the “Adams” of the Adams-Onís Treaty — who could not have been as hammy as Anthony Hopkins in the 1997 movie, nor did he have to shout over any loud, inspiring John Williams music flooding the courtroom)
Wood v. Davis, 11 U.S. 271 (decided March 9, 1812): Marshall reverses a judgment of freedom, holding that a judgment that the mother was free does not mean that her children are free. Ah, good times . . . Francis Scott Key argued for the slaveowner. Gabriel Duvall (later on the Court) argued for those seeking freedom.
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (decided March 9, 1987): statutorily permitted warrantless search was done in good faith and therefore evidence obtained is admissible even though this type of search was later found unconstitutional (search of autos in junkyard revealed that three were stolen; the next day, the local federal court in another case found the statute violated Due Process, 518 F. Supp. 582)
Department of Transportation v. Ass’n of American Railroads, 575 U.S. 43 ( decided March 9, 2015): Amtrak is a governmental entity and therefore has authority (along with Department of Transportation) to set national passenger railroad standards
Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (decided March 9, 2009): three-year wait did not violate Sixth Amendment “speedy trial” right; delays were due to defendant (who went through six court-appointed attorneys that he either fired or threatened to kill) (I was an intern in the Brooklyn D.A. office and, though I never heard of anything this extreme, I did notice that most defendants did not want a speedy trial, even though like this guy they were in jail the whole time; certainly their attorneys didn’t, delay gave them more time to prepare)
Kansas v. Colorado, 556 U.S. 98 (decided March 9, 2009): Original jurisdiction cases are so “sui generis” that the Court hates to make up special rules for them. Here, after a dispute over Arkansas River rights was resolved, the Court falls back on the “American rule” as to each side bearing its own attorney’s fees, and adopts the standard modest exception for attendance costs, 18 U.S.C. §1821.
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (decided March 9, 1998): Confession of a nontestifying defendant is inadmissible if it also implicates the co-defendant (Bruton v. United States, 1968), even if a limiting instruction is given. Here the Court holds this is true even if the co-defendant’s name is redacted. (Evidence has to be adduced, as we trial lawyers say, “subject to connection”, and after the confession was read to the jury with Gray’s name redacted, the police officer testified that after getting the confession, he arrested Gray.)
Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155 (decided March 9, 1998): crimes on Army bases are not subject under the “assimilation” statute (18 U.S.C. §13) to local state law where a federal law specifically applies to same conduct (here, murder of a child, first-degree murder under Louisiana statute but second-degree under parallel federal statute)
United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (decided March 9, 1953): established the “state secrets” privilege; suit brought by widows of civilians on ground killed in crash of B-29 bomber in Georgia; Air Force claimed its investigative report would reveal state secrets, so ordered not produced; remanded to District Court where case settled at a discount (years later the report was declassified and showed nothing more than that the crash was caused by a fire in an engine, so relief was sought via coram nobis, which the Court denied (sub nom In re Herring, 539 U.S. 940 (2003)) and the Court also refused to hear the appeal of the Circuit Court decision holding that there was no “fraud on the court” (cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1123 (2006)) (even though, to me, the government’s assertion that this was a secret mission was irrelevant to the cause of the crash)
コメント