top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: March 8

  • 1 day ago
  • 2 min read

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (decided March 8, 1971): the first case holding that facially neutral policies which had a “disparate impact” were racially discriminatory under Civil Rights Act of 1964 (here, requiring intelligence tests which those with high school diplomas were far more likely to pass, where whites were more likely to be high school graduates and tests were not related to job ability)


Choctaw Nation of Indians v. United States, 318 U.S. 423 (decided March 8, 1943): resolving a dispute as to lands allotted to the Choctaws and Chickasaws in 1866, under an agreement where they agreed to free their slaves and provide them with an allotment; it looks like only with this decision were the freedmen finally given their allotments, after being in a legal limbo for 77 years


Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (decided March 8, 2004): Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause overrides state evidence law; wife’s out-of-court statement as to defendant stabbing her rapist, taped and played to the jury without opportunity for cross-examination, held inadmissible no matter how “reliable” (restricting Ohio v. Roberts, 1980, which had led to admitting statements made under “the equivalent of cross-examination”)


Building & Constr. Trades Council v. Associated Builders & Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, 507 U.S. 218 (decided March 8, 1993): National Labor Relations Act does not preempt Massachusetts regulations as to what a collective bargaining agreement has to contain before state awards contract


Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197 (decided March 8, 1993): Antarctica was “foreign country” (even though there’s no government there) so outside purview of Federal Tort Claims Act; widow of federal contractor employee who fell into crevasse in snow field can’t sue


Danforth’s Lessee v. Thomas, 14 U.S. 155 (decided March 8, 1816): can’t enter Indian lands to survey for possible partition; strict construction of state statute, leaving aside whether treaties gave Indians right of property or merely use and enjoyment


Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239 (decided March 8, 1920): upholds guilty verdict in Espionage Act/conspiracy case; handing out leaflets protesting war (“The Price We Pay”) could be said to impede war effort and encourage insubordination; the dissent by Brandeis, joined by Holmes, goes through the facts of the case and is pretty convincing, I think


Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234 (decided March 8, 1993): Court of Appeals should not have dismissed appeal of narcotics conviction due to defendant’s escaping custody; recaptured before appeal went forward and it was up to the trial court to impose any sanctions


Bread Political Action Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 455 U.S. 577 (decided March 8, 1982): trade association and political action committee did not have standing to invoke expedited review of issue of constitutionality of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (currently codified at 52 U.S.C. §30110); statute affords expedited review only to “The Commission, the national committee of any political party, or any individual eligible to vote for President” (plaintiffs, ironically or maybe obviously, were objecting to the part of the Act which limited solicitations by trade associations and political action committees) (the Court has since eviscerated the Act anyway)

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
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’ convictio

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: March 6

Dred Scott v. Sandford , 60 U.S. 393 (decided March 6, 1857): once-free slave had no claim to freedom in slave state because he was black (probably history’s most-abrogated case, by the Civil War, the

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: March 5

Nebbia v. New York , 291 U.S. 502 (decided March 5, 1934): a pre-“switch” case where Roberts, writing the opinion, sides against the “Four Horsemen”, upholding the New York Milk Board’s setting of max

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page