Today in Supreme Court History: June 27

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (decided June 27, 2016): strikes down Texas requirement that doctors performing abortions have privileges at local hospitals (a pretext for making it hard to obtain doctors to perform abortions) and requiring abortion clinics to meet standards of ambulatory surgery centers (irrelevant) as placing an “undue burden” on women inconsistent with Roe (probably no longer good law after Dobbs)

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (decided June 27, 2022): violation of Free Exercise Clause to terminate football coach for kneeling after games “to offer a quiet prayer of thanks” at a time when students and players were free to go elsewhere (Sotomayor’s dissent calls this impermissible “official-led prayer” and attaches photo of what looks like forty players kneeling around praying coach) (I wonder what Jesus would say about this, Matt 6:5-6)

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 600 U.S. 122 (decided June 27, 2023): The Court continues to limit the reach of its surprise holding in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 2014, that suing a corporation that is merely “doing business” in a state violates Due Process. First it relied on an obscure venue provision to allow suit against an out of state railroad (BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 2017). Here it holds that registering to do business in a state implies consent to be sued in it. It’s risky not to register, of course, if you want to set up an office there. This reminds me of the Court’s gradual escape from its decision in Pennoyer v. Neff, 1878, that you can’t be sued unless you’re served with papers within state lines. (Suit was for exposure to carcinogens.)

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (decided June 27, 1977): strikes down on First Amendment grounds prohibition on attorney advertising (thus subjecting us to decades of angry-looking TV actors pretending to be lawyers -- grrr!! snarl!! woof!! woof!!)

Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. 450 (decided June 27, 2022): In his last majority opinion, Breyer holds that doctors accused of running a narcotics racket could not be convicted under the Controlled Substances Act if they were legally authorized to prescribe those substances, and it was up to the Government to show beyond a reasonable doubt that they were acting in unauthorized manner (21 U.S.C. §841).

NCAA v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (decided June 27, 1984): NCAA’s exclusive control of television broadcasts violates Sherman Act as “unreasonable restraint of trade”; in dissent White (a former NCAA star) argues that unrestricted broadcasts would prioritize profits over physical education (he was certainly right about that)

Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (decided June 27, 2023): First Amendment does not protect what speaker knows are recklessly stated physical threats (stalker of female singer kept sending Facebook messages saying, e.g., “Staying in cyber life is going to kill you” and “You’re not being good for human relations, Die.”; she kept blocking him but he kept opening new accounts)

McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (decided June 27, 2005): Ten Commandments posted on walls of county courthouse violated Establishment Clause: county executive had stated in public that the Decalogue was the basis of the civil code ( -- what? I thought statements of purpose by heads of government were irrelevant -- see Trump v. Hawaii, 2018)

Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (decided June 27, 2005): Ten Commandments display outside state capitol did not violate Establishment Clause (you can look up the photo; it’s a small monument, easily passed by)

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (decided June 27, 1997): Brady Law provision requiring local sheriffs to perform background checks violated the Tenth Amendment (no, not the Ten Commandments)

Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (decided June 27, 1977): upholds regulation prohibiting women from “contact” positions in male prisons because sex offenders would be more likely to assault them (hiring only men was “bona fide occupational qualification”, or “bfoq” -- did the Justices really say “b-fock” at conference?)

Republican Party v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (decided June 27, 2002): First Amendment violated by Minnesota law forbidding candidates for judicial office from giving views on issues

Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (decided June 27, 1960): ends the “silver platter” doctrine (wherein evidence illegally seized by state police could be used in federal prosecutions)

Securities and Exchange Comm'n v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (decided June 27, 2024): Seventh Amendment (right to jury trial in “suits at common law”, e.g., not suits “in equity”) applies to SEC civil proceeding seeking monetary penalty (“at law”) for conduct similar to fraud (“at law”); must be brought in federal court instead of heard by SEC Administrative Law Judge; in dissent Sotomayor points out that the Court has long approved of the ALJ process and Congress has drafted its enabling statutes accordingly