Today in Supreme Court History: April 3

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (decided April 3, 1944): political party (here, Texas Democratic Party) is a “state actor” and liable under the Fifteenth Amendment and §1983 (actually its predecessor statute) for refusing to let black man vote in primary election

United States v. “Old Settlers”, 148 U.S. 427 (decided April 3, 1893): 1889 Act of Congress revived Cherokee claim under 1846 Treaty for reimbursement for taking their land; Court affirms calculation of amount

Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (decided April 3, 1978): trial judge improperly refused request by attorney for three rape defendants for separate counsel due to conflict of interest between defendants; convictions vacated

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (decided April 3, 1972): unwed father of three children entitled to hearing as to his suitability as a parent after mother died; statute automatically making children wards of the state violated Equal Protection

Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (decided April 3, 1961): consent of owner (who smelled mash) in tenant’s absence was not sufficient for warrantless search for illegal still (police found 1300 gallons of mash)

Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175 (decided April 3, 1995): state sales tax on bus ticket to out of state did not violate Dormant Commerce Clause

Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200 (decided April 3, 1950): must exhaust state court remedies before applying for habeas corpus (overruled by Fay v. Noia, 1963, which itself was overruled by Wainwright v. Sykes, 1977)

Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (decided April 3, 1871): federal government can’t tax income of state officials (here, a state judge) (overruled by Graves v. New York, 1939; state can tax federal official)

Vilas v. City of Manila, 220 U.S. 345 (decided April 3, 1911): City of Manila is liable for debts incurred during Spanish colonial era

City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19 (decided April 3, 1989): “teen disco” (limited to kids ages 14 - 18) did not violate teenagers’ right to associate (what? you mean I can’t bring in my 37-year-old boyfriend to meet my best buds??)