Today in Supreme Court History: April 26

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (decided April 26, 1995): federal statute prohibiting guns in school zones exceeds Commerce Clause power; gun possession is not economic activity; 5 - 4 decision

Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (decided April 26, 2005): 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) (prohibiting gun possession by anyone “convicted in any court” of crime punishable by more than one year) does not apply to foreign convictions (here, in Japan for smuggling guns)

Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (decided April 26, 1977): invalidating on Equal Protection grounds Illinois statute allowing non-marital children to inherit from intestate mothers but not from intestate fathers

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, N.J., 578 U.S. 266 (decided April 26, 2016): valid §1983 claim even though superiors’ belief that plaintiff (a policeman) was participating in political activity (not a permissible reason for demotion) was mistaken (he was at campaign headquarters for mayor’s opponent not to help with campaign but to pick up yard sign as favor to his bedridden mother)

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (decided April 26, 2006): one suing federal officials for malicious prosecution (an example of a Bivens suit, the federal analog of a §1983 suit against state officials) must show absence of probable cause for prosecution

Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (decided April 26, 2000): former CEO could not sue under RICO after being fired on trumped-up charges after discovering and punishing corruption among subordinates because termination was not part of their racketeering

Pasquantinov v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (decided April 26, 2005): Canada liquor taxes are “property” under Wire Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1343, so scheme to defraud can be prosecuted despite rule at common law that courts can’t enforce tax laws of foreign sovereigns (I’m almost quoting from Thomas’s elegant 3-sentence introduction) (defendants smuggled liquor in from Canada without paying Canadian excise taxes) (so if the Court, as allowed by the statute, imposes a fine instead of a sentence, does the money go to the Canadian government?)

New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (decided April 26, 1995): ERISA did not preempt New York statute placing surcharges on benefits from hospital insurance plans governed by ERISA

Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (decided April 26, 1993): First Amendment violated by statute banning unwanted telephone call solicitations by CPA (he’s probably blocked by do-not-call laws now)

Long Island Water-Supply Co. v. City of Brooklyn, N.Y., 166 U.S. 685 (decided April 26, 1897): In 1886 the town of New Lots was annexed by the City of Brooklyn, which condemned a water supply system operated by a private company.  The Court holds that this did not violate Contracts Clause, art. I, §10, because it was a “taking” of property for public use for which the company was compensated.