Today in Supreme Court History: June 5

Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (decided June 5, 1939): there is no time limit on states ratifying proposed Constitutional Amendments (here, a Child Labor Amendment) unless Congress has set a deadline

Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 (decided June 5, 1950): segregated dining cars in trains (different tables, with partition) violated Interstate Commerce Act (plaintiff had been told to take dinner in his cabin because “reserved for blacks” tables partly occupied by whites)

Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (decided June 5, 1989): payments to Church of Scientology for training sessions not deductible “charitable contributions” because services received (“quid pro quo”)

Honeycutt v. United States, 581 U.S. 443 (decided June 5, 2017): brother who was co-conspirator in selling huge quantities of iodine crystals which they should have known were used to make meth not jointly liable for forfeiture of profits gained from sales because he had no ownership interest in the hardware store and received no direct income from them

Castillo v. United States, 530 U.S. 120 (decided June 5, 2000): additional “machine gun” language in statute re: use of firearm while committing violent crime was an element of the crime, not sentencing factor (same holding on similar facts in O’Brien, 2010, see May 24)

United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394 (decided June 5, 1916): statute imposing registration and tax requirements on prescription of opium did not apply if not among class of persons required to register

Cubbins v. Mississippi River Comm’n, 241 U.S. 351 (decided June 5, 1916): suit against commission for damages as to flooding of riverside property caused by construction of levees barred by sovereign immunity (of the United States) which had created the commission

Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (decided June 5, 2006): bank fraud defendant not bound by permanent waiver of right to speedy trial which judge encouraged him to sign early on

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (decided June 5, 1978): dismissing suit against judge who granted mother’s petition to have her daughter’s tubes tied and she underwent procedure being told it was an appendectomy; “grave procedural error” but judge is immune from suit because he did have jurisdiction over the petition

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (decided June 5, 2000): State of Washington statute allowing “any person” to petition for visitation rights “at any time” without showing of parental malfeasance interfered with parent’s Due Process right to raise child; grandparents wanted to visit their deceased son’s children (he had died by suicide) but mother wanted only “one short visit” per month -- there’s more to this story!

Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Comm’n, 605 U.S. 238 (decided June 5, 2025): Catholic doctrine forbids using charitable works to proselytize, and other religions might not, so Wisconsin’s unemployment system exemption for religious employers discriminates between religions and is too broad under Establishment Clause (state court had held that Catholic Charities’ lack of religious purpose meant no exemption) (hard to get my head around this one, but unanimous decision; no compelling State interest for statute because organization has own unemployment comp system)

Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280 (decided June 5, 2025): Mexico’s suit against U.S. gun manufacturers for selling to rogue dealers involved in across-border trafficking is too vague to state a claim under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (must cite a specific “aiding and abetting” statute and no specific acts alleged) (from Kagan’s unanimous opinion we learn that “Mexico has a severe gun violence problem” yet has “only a single gun store” -- guess where the guns are coming from?)

CC/Devas (Mauritus) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., 605 U.S. --- (decided June 5, 2025): Indian company obtained arbitration award against company owned by Republic of India and moved to confirm the award, making it collectible here.  Court holds that the statutory exemption for foreign state immunity does not depend on Due Process analysis of “minimum contacts” (which were lacking) but on in-country activities listed in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (too complicated to list here); sends back to Ninth Circuit to reanalyze