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: 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

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: March 23

Comcast Corp. v. National Ass’n of African American-Owned Media , 589 U.S. 327 (decided March 23, 2020): owner of African-American owned network must show that he was denied slot on cable TV service d

 
 
 

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