Today in Supreme Court History: January 17

Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California, 493 U.S. 378 (decided January 17, 1990): generally applicable sales and use tax (i.e., goods, property) does not violate Free Exercise clause when imposed on religious organization

Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250 (decided January 17, 2001): commitment of convicted sexual offender who was about to finish serving his sentence is a civil proceeding (i.e., not punitive) and did not implicate Double Jeopardy or Ex Post Facto prohibitions (does this sound right to you?)

Gonzalez v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (decided January 17, 2007): conviction of permanent resident alien for “unlawful driving or taking of vehicle” as defined by California statute was a “theft offense” under Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(G)) and therefore predicate for deportation (not mentioned exactly what this guy did -- the statute seems to cover some innocuous situations)

McGrain v. Daughtery, 273 U.S. 135 (decided January 17, 1927): Senate has power to jail subpoenaed witness who fails to appear (it was investigating the Department of Justice and the witness was the brother of the former Attorney General); irrelevant that during habeas process a new Congress was sworn in (committee work presumably uninterrupted because it was a Republican Congress replacing a Republican Congress)

Gonzalez v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (decided January 17, 2006): Attorney General did not have authority to issue “interpretive rule” stating that physicians assisting suicide as permitted by Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act would be violating the federal Controlled Substances Act

TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, 604 U.S. 56 (decided January 17, 2025): Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversaries Controlled Applications Act, requiring TikTok entities to separate from Chinese control, was content neutral and did not violate First Amendment.  The unanimous opinion, issued two days before the Act was to go into effect, notes that nobody in Congress doubted its national security necessity (TikTok’s parent is required to cooperate with Chinese intelligence).  (Trump had issued orders against TikTok and supported the Act, but when he got into office again for some reason he put enforcement of it on “hold”, a use of Presidential power sure to lead to followup litigation.)