Today in Supreme Court History: May 8
- donnylaja
- May 8
- 1 min read
United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (decided May 8, 1905): person of Chinese descent contesting deportation not entitled to judicial trial (under Chinese Exclusion Act)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (decided May 8, 1967): sets up a procedure (including what is now called an “Anders brief”) for a criminal defense attorney who wishes to withdraw from a case because he doesn’t believe there’s meritorious ground for appeal; purpose is to protect the rights of the defendant
Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (decided May 8, 1967): First and Fourteenth Amendment precluded convictions for sale of dirty books, because no claim that they harmed juveniles, were “obtrusive” on the newsstand, or were “pandering” (i.e., “purveying of publications openly advertised to appeal to the customers’ erotic interest”). If anyone can tell me what this means in today’s terms, let me know.
Teamsters Union v. Hanke, 339 U.S. 470 (decided May 8, 1950): State could forbid union picketing of car dealership run by owner with no employees (the dealer’s main business was in after-hours sales and the union was trying to get him to restrict to union hours)
Mintz v. Baldwin, 289 U.S. 346 (decided May 8, 1933): a State, despite the interstate commerce clause, may require any cattle being transported into the state to be accompanied by a certificate showing free of disease; also not preempted by federal regulation
American Communications Ass’n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (decided May 8, 1950): upholds statute requiring any union going to the NLRB to certify that their officers are not Communists and don’t advocate overthrowing gov’t
United States v. Ju Toy regarded entry & it still assumes some minimal due process was required. Plus, a few justices dissented even then.
Shaughnessy v. United States, in part citing a 1903 case, later held: "It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law."
Redrup provided a sensible, if still sometimes problematic (especially if "pandering" was used too broadly), way to limit obscenity. Not letting unattended minors go to porn films, for instance, seems to be acceptable as a matter of public policy.
At the very least, it is better than allowing obscenity prosecutions in effect…
this is a test