top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: January 19

  • Jan 18
  • 1 min read

Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138 (decided January 19, 1914): state can prohibit foreign born non-citizens from killing wild game except in defense of person or property (this case has never been overruled)


NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134 (decided January 19, 2011): upholding NASA regulation requiring even long-term employees to submit to background checks and answer questions about illegal drug use (“if there is a right to private information, it is not violated here”)


United States v. Mueller, 113 U.S. 153 (decided January 19, 1885): builder of new customs house in Chicago entitled to delay costs incurred due to government dithering as to building design


Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 (decided January 19, 1948): leaves in place California statute which in effect prohibited those of Japanese ancestry from owning land, so father’s gift to son invalidated and land went to the state (majority opinion relies on father’s failure to make some formal filings, but c’mon . . .) (statute soon struck down by California Supreme Court, Sei Fujii v. State, 1952)


Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (decided January 19, 2010): Sixth Amendment right to public trial includes access to jury selection

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: August 27

In re Disbarment of N. Deday LaRene, 518 U.S. 1046 (decided August 27, 1996): criminal defense attorney disbarred after he got in with his gangster clients and was indicted for embezzlement and tax ev

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: August 26

Beltran v. Smith, 458 U.S. 1303 (decided August 26, 1982): imprisoned gangster, cooperating with prosecutors and in the Witness Protection Program, claims he will be killed if transferred to another p

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: August 25

Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson, 404 U.S. 1215 (decided August 25, 1971): Douglas denies stay of San Francisco desegregation order as to Chinese-ancestry children; holds that Brown v. Board of Education did

 
 
 

2 Comments


Syd Henderson
Jan 19

Do you think Patsone should be overruled? It doesn't seem to apply to naturalized citizens, but to legal and illegal aliens, and states do have a stake in protecting their wildlife.

Like
captcrisis
Jan 19
Replying to

I think it's never been overruled because the issue never came up again.


It should be overruled though. I don't see any danger to wildlife posed by aliens (though before my wife was naturalized she did make comments about the potential for ducks in the city pond for tasty dinners). At least as to legal aliens, Equal Protection applies. For example, notaries (who as part of our legal system would be a more direct "threat") don't have to be citizens. Bernal v. Fainter, 1984, see May 30.

Like

Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page