Today in Supreme Court History: June 3

Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (decided June 3, 1918): Interstate Commerce Clause did not authorize Congress to prohibit child labor (specifically, to forbid interstate sale of goods produced by child labor) (overruled by United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 1941)

Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373 (decided June 3, 1946): (argued by Thurgood Marshall) Virginia law enforcing segregation on interstate buses violated Dormant Commerce Clause; decision was routinely ignored for years

Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (decided June 3, 2021): policeman who used his patrol car computer to find license plate information for outside income did not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act which applies to computer-accessed information “that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain” (and as a police officer he was entitled to obtain that information) (the whole case depended on that word “so”, which to me argues against this result)

Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (decided June, 3, 2013): no warrant needed for minimally invasive DNA test (swab inside mouth) during booking for serious crime (rape)

Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (decided June 3, 1957): conviction of labor union president for lying about Communist Party membership vacated because government would not submit informants’ reports to in camera inspection

Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (decided June 3, 1968): jurors can be excluded if they say they would never vote for execution but not if they merely express scruples about the death penalty

Hillman v. Maretta, 569 U.S. 483 (decided June 3, 2013): widow of second marriage not entitled to life insurance proceeds because husband never changed the name of the beneficiary; this is irrelevant under state statute but preempted by federal law on life insurance policies given to federal employees

Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541 (decided June 3, 2019): Title VII requirement to file information with EEOC prior to filing suit is not “jurisdictional” (i.e., suit can go forward if defendant doesn’t timely object) (sexual harassment suit; employer didn’t bring up filing deficiency until years into litigation)

Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (decided June 3, 1996): Burford abstention (as to challenges to state administrative agency orders) not applicable where suit is for damages and not equitable or discretionary relief (here, a breach of contract suit against Allstate brought by state insurance commissioner as trustee of bankrupt insurer)

Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (decided June 3, 1991): extended Batson holding (jurors can’t be excluded based on race) to civil suits