Today in Supreme Court History: November 1

Graham v. Fulton County Special Purpose Grand Jury, 143 S.Ct. 397 (decided November 1, 2022): According to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Sen. Lindsey Graham leaned on him after the 2020 election to discard some absentee ballots.  Does the Speech and Debate Clause (art. I, §6, cl. 1) prohibit questioning of Graham about this in front of a Georgia grand jury investigating Trump’s interference with the election results?  Court holds that Clause applies to Graham’s “informal investigation” (arguably legislative activity); doesn’t mention that Graham could still be questioned about his contacts with the Trump campaign.  Graham testified as to those on November 22, 2022, so contempt proceeding was then dismissed as moot by the Eleventh Circuit.  Trump and 18 others were indicted on conspiracy charges on August 14, 2023; the criminal case is ongoing.

Manila Investment Co. v. Park Trammell, 239 U.S. 31 (decided November 1, 1915): suit alleging breach of trust as to property was mere contract dispute and not Equal Protection violation, so no federal court jurisdiction

Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 (decided November 1, 1982): another case holding that you can’t seek habeas in federal court until the issue (here, a faulty jury instruction on how to find malice) has been argued in state court and the appellate process there has been exhausted

Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. of Virginia, 464 U.S. 30 (decided November 1, 1983): telephone company forced to relocate lines due to street realignment wasn’t “displaced person” entitled to benefits under federal relocation assistance statute; statute did not displace common law rule that public utilities forced to relocate from right-of-way must do so at own expense (we all hated the telephone company, but couldn’t a Fifth Amendment “takings” argument have been made?)

Republican National Committee v. Genser, 145 S.Ct. 9 (Mem.) (decided November 1, 2024): Alito refuses to stay Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling that allowed counting of voters’ provisional ballots after their mail-in ballots were invalidated; too few votes were at issue and it was in the primary election which was long ago