Today in Supreme Court History: June 20

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (decided June 20, 2002): executing intellectually disabled people (I think that’s the term for it now) is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth Amendment (overruling Penry v. Lynaugh, 1989, citing “evolving standards of decency” and the trend of states outlawing the death penalty in such cases) (defendant, convicted of armed robbery and murder, had an IQ of 59)

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (decided June 20, 1979): attaching an offsite device to record calls from a house (a “pen register”) is not a “search” requiring a warrant because the person “voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company” (a stretch, I think)

American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n, 588 U.S. 29 (decided June 20, 2019): large cross in now-busy intersection originally erected to honor World War I veterans could stay where it was without violating First Amendment Establishment Clause (this is the “Bladensburg Peace Cross”, see the Wikipedia article)

McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (decided June 20, 2019): Member of board of elections (McDonough) was charged with forging absentee ballots, acquitted, then brought §1983 suit against prosecutor (Smith) for fabricating evidence.  The Court holds that the statute of limitations for the §1983 suit began to run not when the evidence was adduced at trial but when the acquittal verdict came in.  Case arose in Troy, N.Y., and from the opinion one gathers that Smith and McDonough had a “history” in local politics and Smith’s (alleged) fabrications were hardly subtle.  But the detailed trial court order finally granting summary judgment to Smith reveals a different picture, 2022 WL 3279348.

American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (decided June 20, 2011): common law nuisance suit against power plants by downwind states alleging greenhouse gas emission preempted by Clean Air Act; remanded to determine effect of preemption (don’t know what happened afterward)

Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (decided June 20, 2005): statute of limitations to sue for newly recognized right begins to run from date of court ruling recognizing new right, not from when a court declares it has retroactive effect (defendant convicted of continuing criminal enterprise cited Richardson v. United States, 1999, which declared for first time that jury must be unanimous on each criminal act, but argued that statute of limitations began with 2002 Circuit Court decision declaring Richardson retroactive; argument rejected -- seems unfair)

Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649 (decided June 20, 1980): Boxes of films of gay male sex addressed to “Leggs” (pseudonym) instead got delivered to “L’Eggs Products” (makers of pantyhose) who called the police.  When viewed these films revealed not only “bizarre” sex (would probably seem tame to us now) but also the name of the sender, who was arrested for obscenity.  The Court holds that the FBI’s viewing of the films was a Fourth Amendment violation; they should have gotten a warrant.  (What about the surprised mailroom clerk at L’Eggs?  At what point was he required to stop looking into the contents of what a United States agency had delivered to him?  Wasn’t the delivery presumptively valid? cf. the judge’s ruling in “Miracle on 34th Street”.)

National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582 (decided June 20, 1949): Congress could by statute modify the Constitution’s definition of diversity jurisdiction to include suits between D.C. residents and those of other states (instead of just between citizens of different states, which is how the Constitution reads; note that D.C. did not exist at the time) (a complicated opinion; the Court has to dance around a typically hardass ruling from John Marshall in 1804 holding that D.C. residents cannot bring diversity suits outside D.C. because the newly-created D.C. was not a “state”)

Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (decided June 20, 2016): improper search of drug dealer overlooked, and evidence found admitted, because there was a warrant for his arrest anyway, for a traffic violation

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (decided June 20, 1991): state judges can be automatically discharged at age 70 even though it’s age discrimination (federal age discrimination statute doesn’t apply) (did you know that the average age of active federal judges is 68?) (and that’s just the active judges -- the average age of the senior judges is 113)

Diaz v. United States, 602 U.S. 526 (decided June 20, 2024): Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) (prohibiting expert opinion on whether defendant intended to commit crime) not violated by expert testimony that “most drug couriers know that they’re transporting drugs” because not opining on defendant’s own state of mind (something strange about this rationale -- it might sprout tentacles)

Moore v. United States, 602 U.S. 572, (decided June 20, 2024): Mandatory Repatriation Tax (taxing American shareholders on active as well as passive income of American-controlled foreign businesses which themselves do not pay tax) is not “direct tax” that must be apportioned by state (art. I, §9, cl. 4)

Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S 653, (decided June 20, 2024): Gonzalez, who had gotten onto city council and filed petition to remove mayor, mistakenly put petition in briefcase, was then arrested for tampering with government records, spent night in jail.  She sued for retaliatory arrest.  She could show that the only people arrested for tampering in the past were doing it for an illicit purpose (e.g., altering documents or trying to sell them).  Court holds she doesn’t have to prove the inverse, that innocent mistakes like hers were never (or rarely) prosecuted.

Fuld v. PLO, 606 U.S. 1 (decided June 20, 2025): Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (allowing suit for murder/injury of Americans abroad) does not violate due process, even though allows suits only against the PLO and Palestinian Authority and even though not connected with any activities in the United States (if like some other governments we recognized these as sovereign entities, suit would have been barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act)