top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: May 8

  • May 8, 2023
  • 1 min read

United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (decided May 8, 1905): Chinese national applying for admission to U.S. not entitled to judicial trial.


Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (decided May 8, 1967): set up a procedure (including an “Anders brief”) for a criminal defense attorney who wishes to withdraw from a case because he doesn’t believe there’s meritorious ground for appeal; purpose is to protect the rights of the defendant


Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 787 (decided May 8, 1967): First and Fourteenth Amendment precluded convictions for sale of dirty books, because no claim that they harmed juveniles, were “obtrusive” on the newsstand, or were “pandering” (i.e., “purveying of publications openly advertised to appeal to the customers’ erotic interest”). If anyone can tell me what this means in today's terms, let me know!


Teamsters Union v. Hanke, 339 U.S. 470 (decided May 8, 1950): State could forbid union picketing of car dealership run by owner with no employees (the dealer’s main business was in after-hours sales and the union was trying to get him to restrict to union hours).


Mintz v. Baldwin, 289 U.S. 346 (decided May 8, 1933): a State, despite the interstate commerce clause, may require any cattle being transported into the state to be accompanied by a certificate showing free of disease; also not preempted by federal regulation


American Communications Ass’n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (decided May 8, 1950): upholds statute requiring any union going to the NLRB to certify that their officers are not Communists

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: May 15

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (decided May 15, 1939): Second Amendment guarantees only right to keep and bear arms in “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regu

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: May 14

Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (decided May 14, 1973): gender is a “suspect class” so any discrimination is subject to “strict scrutiny” (Air Force treated married males and married females dif

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: May 13

Apple v. Pepper, 587 U.S. 273 (decided May 13, 2019): purchasers of apps at App Store are direct purchasers and therefore can sue Apple as a monopoly under Clayton Act (as of this writing litigation i

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page