Today in Supreme Court History: May 11

Smith v. Texas, 233 U.S. 630 (decided May 11, 1914): Texas statute restricting employment as a conductor to those who have already been conductors or brakemen for two years violates equal protection because it arbitrarily (and admittedly) excluded qualified applicants

Reeves v. Beardall, 316 U.S. 283 (decided May 11, 1942): claim as to promissory note arose from different transaction from claim for breach of contract; dismissal acted as appealable final judgment despite survival of contract claim (abrogated by 1946 amendment to FRCP 54(b), no final judgment until all claims are adjudicated)

Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604 (decided May 11, 1914): contempt proceeding against union for disobeying order to not boycott or urge boycott of stove making business dismissed because brought after 3-year limitations period

Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 371 (decided May 11, 1891): ambiguities in language of federal grants of land are to be construed according to the law of the state where the land (here actually, a lake) is located

National Pork Producers v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (decided May 11, 2023): no Dormant Commerce Clause problem with California rule prohibiting sale of whole pork from animals not raised according to California rules preventing animal cruelty; rule did not discriminate against out-of-state producers and no substantial burden on interstate commerce (unlike, say, the truck-mud-flap case, see May 25)

Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Co., 140 U.S. 344 (decided May 11, 1891): no federal court Patent Power jurisdiction as to agreement over transfer and use of prospective patent; issue of state contract law only

Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 316 U.S. 317 (decided May 11, 1942): tribe not entitled to compensation when federal government took back lands it had given to the tribe 16 years before

Delo v. Stokes, 495 U.S. 320 (decided May 11, 1990): stay of execution on successive habeas petition granted only if “substantial grounds” (this was fourth, arguments that could have been made before, stay denied)

Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (decided May 11, 1988): Confrontation Clause violated (despite state “Rape Shield Law”) by prohibiting cross-examination of alleged sexual assault victim; defendant wanted to show she had live in boyfriend whose wrath she feared if she admitted that sex with defendant was consensual