Today in Supreme Court History: May 16

California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (decided May 16, 1988): police can search garbage left out by the curb without a warrant

Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (decided May 16, 1892): The famous case which introduced a new rule of evidence, the hearsay exception for future intention. Sallie Hillmon tried to collect on life insurance policies, claiming that her husband had died by accidental gunshot at Crooked Creek, Kansas in 1879. Was the deceased John Hillmon or one Fred Walters? These were suspiciously large policies, and there had been recent scams, so the insurers did some snooping for mentions of Hillmon, and found Walters’s fiancée, in possession of a letter written from Wichita stating that he intended to go to Colorado with his new buddy Hillmon; this might show that it was really Walters who was shot because Crooked Creek was along the way and Walters, an assiduous letter writer, was never heard from again. The Court holds that the statement in the letter, though hearsay, should have been admitted into evidence. My Evidence professor did his usual excellent job recounting this story, ending with, “To this day, nobody knows who was shot at Crooked Creek”, but an exhumation done in 2006 concluded that it probably was indeed Hillmon. Anyway, the case dragged on for 24 years, Sallie was paid off, and after one final 1903 decision remanding for a seventh trial the remaining insurers settled with each other

United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (decided May 16, 1905): State of Washington must respect fishing rights granted to Native Americans under treaty made with federal government when Washington was a territory

Lawrence v. State Tax Comm’n of Mississippi, 286 U.S. 276 (decided May 16, 1932): a state supreme court can’t evade United States Supreme Court review by basing its decision on state law grounds that are insubstantial and illusory after a party has properly raised a federal issue (the issue was whether state taxation on income from activities out of state is consistent with Equal Protection)

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (decided May 16, 2016): Fair Credit Reporting Act suit citing incorrect information as to plaintiff on “people search engine” web site (where you punch in a person’s name and get all kinds of past and present relevant and irrelevant address information, etc.) did not allege “concrete injury” and therefore was not a “case or controversy” for Article III jurisdiction

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (decided May 16, 2011): “exigent circumstances to prevent destruction of evidence” exception to warrant requirement applied when police officers, having knocked on door, broke it down after hearing noises of frantic movement as if to hide things

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (decided May 16, 1983): attorney in civil rights case (involving treatment during involuntary hospitalization) prevailing on most but not all claims is entitled to recoup fees spent in pursing related though unsuccessful claims but not fees as to factually unrelated claims

Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368 (decided May 16, 1994): ex-felon still bound by federal post-conviction restriction on ownership of firearm even though restriction due to state law conviction had been lifted

Hill v. United States, 50 U.S. 386 (decided May 16, 1850): judgment debtors in suit brought by the United States (for failure to pay a promissory note) are barred by sovereign immunity from moving to enjoin enforcement

Amis v. Myers, 57 U.S. 492 (decided May 16, 1854): error for slaves to be sold as part of satisfying judgment (they had been bought by debtor’s son, not by debtor, though debtor’s name had been on original contract of sale)

Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. 447 (decided May 16, 2024): alien can be removed in abstentia if she cannot disprove getting required notice of hearing, even if preliminary notice to appear failed to give time and place (8 U.S.C. §1229(a)) (5 - 4 decision; in dissent Jackson points out that gov’t has disregarded prior Court rulings requiring adequate notices of appearances and does so again)

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services, 601 U.S. 416 (decided May 16, 2024): CFPB’s funding does not violate Appropriations Clause (art. I, §9, cl. 7) even though Congress allows CFPB to decide on how much it draws from the Treasury instead of requiring annual Congressional authorization (suit brought by payday lenders challenging CFPB rules on how they can access borrowers’ funds); 7 - 2 decision by Thomas