Today in Supreme Court History: March 7

Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (decided March 7, 1983): testimony in court is not “acting under color of law” so no §1983 liability for police officers whose perjury resulted in plaintiffs’ conviction

Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678 (decided March 7, 1887): federal statute, not treaty with China guaranteeing safety of Chinese nationals, governed charges of beating and driving out of Chinese nationals from town of Nicolaus, California, and outside reach of Congress because interstate commerce not involved; (typically dreary) opinion by Waite; Harlan dissents (and as he often did, correctly)

Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (decided March 7, 1960): striking down on Fourteenth Amendment grounds (incorporating First Amendment) city ordinance prohibiting handbills which did not indicate who prepared or distributed them (handbills urged boycott of businesses which would not hire nonwhites)

Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360 (decided March 7, 2022): burgling ten different units in storage facility on same night counted as only one prior offense for purposes of aggravation provision of Armed Career Criminal Act

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (decided March 7, 1966): Voting Rights Act of 1965 is within Congress’s powers to enforce Fifteenth Amendment (elimination of poll tests, presence of federal inspectors, etc.)

Federal Power Comm’n v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (decided March 7, 1960): Indian lands were owned in fee simple and were not “reservations” excluded from eminent domain; New York could condemn and flood land for hydroelectric project (with just compensation)

ICC v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R.R. Co., 216 U.S. 531 (decided March 7, 1910): ICC can order main line to install switch connection upon request of shipper but not on request of lateral line carrying only passengers within state

Wearry v. Cain, 577 U.S. 385 (decided March 7, 2016): prosecution’s duty to disclose evidence helpful to defendant, Brady v. Maryland, 1963, includes statements from witnesses casting doubt on credibility of prosecution’s main witness