Today in Supreme Court History: May 3

May 3

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (decided May 3, 1948): the first case invalidating “restrictive covenants” prohibiting black people from buying houses in white neighborhoods; though covenant was between private parties, judicial enforcement of covenant was “state action” implicating Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause (there’s something odd about this argument -- it seems to swallow up everything -- any agreement at all between private parties turns into “state action” once anyone takes it to court)

Lee v. Lee, 33 U.S. 44 (decided May 3, 1834): A freedom suit brought by slaves who had formerly lived in Virginia with their owner, appealing from a verdict in his favor. When Maryland and Virginia ceded parts of their land to the new D.C. in 1801, Congress provided that all former laws of Maryland would remain in force. This would have included a 1796 law freeing any slave brought into the state. But in D.C. as a whole, slavery was legal. The part of Maryland ceded included “Washington County”; the part of Virginia ceded was “Alexandria County” (more or less modern-day Arlington County, later given back to Virginia). Here, the owner moved to Washington County, but assigned his slaves to owners in Alexandria county, and after a year brought them to him in Washington County. Was this an attempt to circumvent the 1796 law? The Court here holds that this question should have been heard by the jury and sends back for a new trial. Unknown what happened later. (With slaves being the appellants, the Court also refuses to entertain whether their market value was less or more than $1,000, the jurisdictional limit; “the value of their freedom is not susceptible of a pecuniary valuation”, although oddly mentions that it would have been relevant if it was the owner appealing.)

Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (decided May 3, 1993): courts are bound by the commentaries of the Sentencing Commission (which unlike the guidelines, are not approved by Congress) which say that gun possession is not a “crime of violence” so as to make defendant a “career offender” for aggravated sentencing

Hui v. Castaneda, 559 U.S. 799 (decided May 3, 2010): can’t bring Bivens action (violation of Constitutional rights by federal personnel) against Public Health Service officers for failure to diagnose cancer while in federal custody; 42 U.S.C. §233 provides immunity to PHS officers and suit can be brought only against the United States (I don’t understand why this is important if the United States is already in the case -- §233 also says the United States can be sued, waiving sovereign immunity)

Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons, 541 U.S. 369 (decided May 3, 2004): statute of limitations for claim under 1991 amendment to 42 U.S.C. §1981 (class action for racial discrimination) is four years under the federal catch-call statute for newly created causes of action (28 U.S.C. §1658) instead of statute for analogous state law action

El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473 (decided May 3, 1999): The Price-Anderson Act of 1957 got the nuclear power industry going by limiting liability for nuclear accidents. It also provided for federal court (removal) jurisdiction at defendant's request. Here the Court holds that this includes removal from tribal courts despite the federal courts’ usual rule of comity requiring exhaustion of tribal court remedies before filing in federal court.

United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77 (decided May 3, 1993): co-conspirator has no expectation of privacy in conspirator’s place or property (no standing to contest consented-to search of car in which cocaine was found)

Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (decided May 3, 1971): this is the leading case on defensive non-mutual collateral estoppel: patent case dismissed because in another case defendant had established that its patent was valid

United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363 (decided May 3, 1971): Censoring for obscenity, per the Court's prior rulings, required a time limit for the censor to approve/disapprove, and prompt judicial review, Freedman v. Maryland, 1968. Here, to save the Constitutionality of a federal statute (prohibiting importation of “immoral articles”, 19 U.S.C. §1305) the Court feels free to invent a deadline of 14 days for decision and 60 days for completion of judicial review. At issue were pictures from Europe found by customs inspectors which publisher Milton Luros was intending to use to illustrate an edition of the Kama Sutra. (See Wallach, I., “Kama Sutra Sexual Positions (and How to Get Out of Them Without Injury)”), 1976.)

Martin v. City of Struthers, O., 319 U.S. 141 (decided May 3, 1943): ordinance against doorbell-ringing violated First Amendment (plaintiff was a Jehovah's Witness) (I don’t agree with this decision -- the Court admits that Struthers is a steel town where many work nights and need their sleep)