Today in Supreme Court History: March 29

West Coast Hotels v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (decided March 29, 1937): The Big Switch by Roberts, breaking with the “Four Horsemen” and voting to uphold a state minimum wage law.  From now on he would vote against them and uphold economic regulation despite Contract Clause and Commerce Clause objections.  Was his vote coerced by FDR’s threat to “pack” the Court?  This decision came out shortly after the court-packing plan was announced, but Roberts had already declared his vote at the December 19, 1936 conference, after Chief Justice Hughes spoke with him about FDR’s 1936 landslide victory.  I don’t know if there were noises at that time to pack the court, but maybe they saw it coming.  In the 75th Congress the Democrats had a 79 - 16 edge in the Senate, and were 345 - 89 in the House.

Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (decided March 29, 2011): D.A. can’t be liable under §1983 for failure to train A.D.A.’s based on one screwup (failure to turn over evidence helpful to defendant as required by Brady v. Maryland which led to conviction for armed robbery, based on which defendant decided not to testify in later murder trial which led to murder conviction; both convictions then vacated due to the Brady violation); opinion by Thomas, 5 - 4 decision

Mays v. Hines, 592 U.S. 385 (decided March 29, 2021): habeas for ineffective assistance of counsel should not have been granted; defense counsel did not ask witness who found body in motel why he was there (he was having an affair and counsel wanted to spare him public embarrassment) but evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming

Astra USA v. Santa Clara County, California, 563 U.S. 110 (decided March 29, 2011): medical facilities are not third-party beneficiaries of contracts between drug manufacturers and federal government under which manufacturers get Medicare reimbursements; if facilities are overcharged, they can’t sue the federal government but have to alert the Secretary of Health who will order restitution

City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (decided March 29, 2000): Upholds local ordinance prohibiting nude dancing, which required the “girls” to put on pasties and G-string; protected by First Amendment but ordinance is content-neutral.  O’Connor, who wrote the plurality opinion, has a dry sense of humor: “Even if Erie’s public nudity ban has some minimal effect on the erotic message by muting that portion of the expression that occurs when the last stitch is dropped, the dancers at Kandyland and other such establishments are free to perform wearing pasties and G-strings.  Any effect on the overall expression is de minimis.”  (But -- the Court is unaware, or maybe pretends to be, that the girls make more $ when they dance completely nude.)

Illinois v. Abbott & Assocs., 460 U.S. 557 (decided March 29, 1983): Clayton Act allows Attorney General to hand over federal antitrust grand jury materials in state antitrust suit but state A.G. still has to show particularized need (bid-rigging in Illinois construction contracts)

United States v. Topco Assocs., 405 U.S. 596 (decided March 29, 1972): purchasing association for local supermarkets which had virtual veto power in their own region was violation of Sherman Act even though prices achieved allowed them to compete with national chains

Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532 (decided March 29, 1971): Equal Protection not violated by Louisiana statute precluding inheritance by “illegitimate” children even if acknowledged (I learned a new word, “tutrix”, a female guardian) (statute later declared unconstitutional by Louisiana Supreme Court, 388 So.2d 1151, 1980)

Moore v. New York, 333 U.S. 565 (decided March 29, 1948): record did not support contention that having black men tried for murder by special jury violated fair trial right (no evidence that blacks were excluded from special juries or that conviction rates were higher for black defendants) (special juries, screened for education and good morals, were abolished in New York in 1965)

Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507 (decided March 29, 1948): striking New York obscenity statute which on its face was impermissibly broad even though construed narrowly along First Amendment lines by New York courts (defendant magazine with lurid/lascivious crime stories)