Today in Supreme Court History: February 22

Joshua DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (decided February 22, 1989): Due Process protection does not apply to actions of private actors and state has no duty to provide for citizen’s safety absent a “special relationship” such as when he is in custody (here, child injured by father’s abuse even after state welfare officials repeatedly told of abusive incidents but made no attempt to remove him from home) (as Blackmun memorably wrote in dissent, “Poor Joshua!”)

Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (decided February 22, 1977): right to privacy not invaded by state statute requiring state to receive copies of all prescriptions of narcotics; valid use of police power, security procedures in place, and no showing that information will be misused such that patients become stigmatized as addicts

Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (decided February 22, 2017): ineffective assistance of counsel when during penalty phase of capital murder trial counsel presented expert whose report said that being black was a plus factor for future violence (the expert’s general opinion was that defendant himself was unlikely to be a future danger, but the damage had been done, with the prosecution hitting on this in summation)

Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (decided February 22, 2012): police searching for any and all firearms, and for gang paraphernalia, during warrant to search for sawed-off shotgun were entitled to qualified immunity (warrant not overbroad because these were reasonable things to search for in connection with suspected crime of past shooting of girlfriend in retaliation for her calling police)

Helix Energy Solutions Group v. Hewitt, 598 U.S. 39 (decided February 22, 2023): highly paid oil rig supervisor entitled to overtime under Fair Labor Standards Act because though a “bona fide executive” he was paid by the day (Court harmonizes two FLSA definitions)

Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 (decided February 22, 2006): defendant can present alibi evidence at sentencing but not if it’s inconsistent with conviction (here, testimony of mother which the jury had necessarily rejected in coming to its guilty verdict)