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: October 23

INS v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5 (decided October 23, 1973): denies application for citizenship by Philippines-born veteran who fought there and was imprisoned there by the Japanese because the Nationality Act

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: October 22

Maney v. United States, 278 U.S. 17 (decided October 22, 1928): District Court award of citizenship could be re-opened by United States; award could be attacked on basis that necessary Certificate of

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: October 21

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (decided October 21, 1991): judicial immunity for judge who ordered public defender seized and brought into courtroom when he failed to appear for a calendar call; ordering

 
 
 

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