top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: January 1

  • Dec 27, 2025
  • 1 min read

Blake v. United States, 103 U.S. 227 (decided January 1, 1880): (Wikipedia has this being decided on January 1 though all Westlaw says is “October Term”.)  In those days the President evidently had to appoint every army or navy officer, and an 1862 statute gave him the power to dismiss, but an 1866 statute said the officer could be removed only via court-martial.  Here, an army “post-chaplain”‘s resignation was accepted by the President but the man later said he was “insane” at the time.  His claim for back pay was held to be time-barred, even taking into account a toll for insanity.  This case wins some points for strangeness.

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: March 26

Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186 (decided March 26, 1962): federal courts have jurisdiction over suits alleging disproportionate redistricting in violation of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection (on rem

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: March 25

United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. , 572 U.S. 141 (decided March 25, 2014): must withhold FICA from severance pay because it’s “wages” (?) Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society , 503 U.S. 429 (decid

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: March 24

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections,  383 U.S. 663 (decided March 24, 1966): poll tax violates Equal Protection (though literacy tests are o.k. if not used for discriminatory purpose) Ramirez v. Col

 
 
 

2 Comments


captcrisis
Jan 03

The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't something the Court did, so I didn't list it. But yes, it did play a part in some Supreme Court cases. The Court wasn't going to touch whether the EP itself was legal, but it did rule on contract and inheritance cases arising pre-1863 where the EP played a part, upholding the contract or inheritance but valuing the plantation as if worked (or still worked) by slaves without including the value of the slaves themselves (Clay v. Field, 1891, summarized here on December 1). Then there's Osborn v. Nicholson, 1871, where it held that the seller of slaves who were later emancipated was still entitled to the sale price.

Like

Syd Henderson
Dec 31, 2025

Perhaps part of the strangeness was deciding it on January 1. The most important thing to happen on this date was the Emancipation Proclamation, which I think did result in a few cases.

Like

Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page