Maul v. United States, 274 U.S. 501 (decided May 31, 1927): vessel without proper registration properly seized by Coast Guard 34 miles offshore because statute restricting jurisdiction to 4 leagues (about 14 miles) applied only to searches, not seizures (does this mean the Coast Guard can seize a ship off the coast of Zanzibar as well as Connecticut?)
United States v. Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1 (decided May 31, 1960): United States sued the Gulf states under the Court’s original jurisdiction claiming ownership of (and oil rights to) offshore submerged lands. The opinion is one hell of a long and complicated treatise dealing with three miles v. three leagues offshore, boundaries of the states as specified when admitted to the Union, and the Submerged Lands Act of 1953. Also long are the dissents by Black and Douglas. The decision: Texas was allowed three leagues, the other states three miles; and the U.S. owned everything past that up to the edge of the continental shelf.
Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (decided May 31, 1977): union’s seniority system in allocating jobs did not violate Title VII in discriminating against blacks and Hispanics even though it had that effect (§703(h) of Title VII protects “bona fide seniority systems”)
Edwards v. United States, 286 U.S. 482 (decided May 31, 1932): signature of President on private bill was valid to make it law even though Congressional session had ended because it was still within ten days of presentation (art. I, §7); no one disputed this (no case or controversy?) but Court wanted to correct “views strongly held in the past”
Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (decided May 31, 1994): though Government can control speech of its employees far more than it can of its citizens (Connick v. Myers, 1983), issue of fact as to whether nurse at public hospital really did bad-mouth her boss (even if true, hard to see why this would be a firing offense)
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (decided May 31, 2005): conviction for obstruction of justice (destroying Enron documents) overturned because jury not instructed (per language of applicable statute) that destruction must have corrupt intent, even though while following normal procedures as to purging old documents they were aware of being investigated
New Energy Co. v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269 (decided May 31, 1988): Ohio sales tax on ethanol produced out of state regulated interstate commerce in violation of Dormant Commerce Clause despite exception for states offering reciprocity
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (decided May 31, 2011): While boarding a plane to Saudi Arabia, al-Kidd was detained per a “material witness” warrant (18 U.S.C. §1344) issued after judge was told his testimony was “crucial” in connection with a terrorism trial. He was held for 16 days, but never called to testify. Was this just a pretext for detaining and investigating him? The Court recognizes this new type of Bivens claim, but affirms dismissal because here there was “objectively reasonable” suspicion. (Suspicion of what? As Ginsburg points out in her limited concurrence, Scalia’s majority opinion refuses to say.)
Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (decided May 31, 1977): zoning ordinance limiting occupancy to immediate family (and not allowing, here, grandmother to live with grandchildren) was violation of Due Process as to liberty
McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27 (decided May 31, 1904): tax on margarine artificially colored to look like butter was not deprivation of property without due process (and even though Congress was being irrational because butter often was also artificially colored) (one could call this an offbeat application of Plessy)
Comments