top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: February 20

  • Feb 20, 2025
  • 1 min read

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (decided February 20, 1905): upholding state statute allowing local boards of health to require vaccinations (plaintiff contested Cambridge’s 1902 attempt to stem smallpox epidemic)


Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (decided February 20, 2019): Excessive Fines Clause of Eighth Amendment is enforceable against states under Fourteenth Amendment; remands on issue of whether civil forfeiture statute violates Clause (here, vehicle seized worth four times the heroin defendant transported in it) (Indiana Supreme Court later held the statute unconstitutional, 169 N.E.3d 361)


Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (decided February 20, 2013): federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of patent cases but not legal malpractice claim alleging mishandling of patent case


United States v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707 (decided February 20, 1980): IRS doesn’t need a court order to make you go to their office to write a handwriting sample


Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (decided February 20, 1974): housing discrimination action brought under Civil Rights Law of 1968 carries right to a jury trial, even though it didn’t exist in 1791 when the Seventh Amendment was adopted and even though it allows injunctive relief (an “equitable” remedy; the 7A applies on its face only to actions “at law”)

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: April 6

Ashe v. Swenson , 397 U.S. 436 (decided April 6, 1970): Double Jeopardy Clause bars trial for break-in and robbery of second poker player after acquittal as to robbery of first based on failure to ide

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: April 5

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. , 593 U.S. 1 (decided April 5, 2021): Google wins copyright lawsuit; its partial copying of Java SE to operate Android platform was “fair use” (and not only that, th

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: April 4

Thompson v. Clark , 596 U.S. 36 (decided April 4, 2022): To sue under §1983 in relation to a criminal proceeding (malicious prosecution), you first have to show that the case against you ended with a

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page