top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: November 24

  • Writer: captcrisis
    captcrisis
  • Nov 24, 2023
  • 1 min read

Hotel Employees Local 255 v. Leedom, 358 U.S. 99 (decided November 24, 1958): Court here ends the NLRB’s longstanding hands-off policy as to hotels keeping unions out


Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church, 344 U.S. 94 (decided November 24, 1952): striking down on Free Exercise grounds New York statute requiring Russian Orthodox churches to have separate in-state corporate status (as opposed to being administratively subject to Patriarch of Moscow); the opinion contains a history of the disruption caused by the Bolshevik Revolution and Patriarch’s eventual accommodation with the Soviets (the American branch had the right to disassociate when that happened, but it couldn’t be written into law)


Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74 (decided November 24, 1958): conviction under Mann Act (transporting woman across state boundaries for prostitution) overturned; issue was over the purpose of the trip, and error to allow defendant’s wife to testify against him (violated common law rule as to spousal testimony, and wife was also a prostitute and had conflict of interest) (Stewart, concurring, calls the rule against spousal testimony “a sentimental relic”)

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: December 24

Missouri Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. of Texas v. Ferris , 179 U.S. 602 (decided December 24, 1900): no federal question presented by Texas statute providing that refusal to answer at deposition is not an a

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: December 23

International News Service v. Associated Press , 248 U.S. 215 (decided December 23, 1918): wire services can’t steal stories from one another (the Court, creating pre- Erie  “federal common law”, held

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: December 22

Memphis & L. R.R. Co. v. Berry , 112 U.S. 609 (decided December 22, 1884): tax break given to railroad company formed by act of legislature does not extend to company which purchased it Blumenthal v.

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page