top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: November 9

  • Writer: captcrisis
    captcrisis
  • 2 days ago
  • 1 min read

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (decided November 9, 1993): Title VII claimant (“abusive work environment”) need not show that her psychological well-being was “seriously affected”; totality of circumstances but still must be “objectively” abusive (ALJ found supervisor made frequent gender insults, sexual innuendos, “You’re a woman, what do you know”, “We need a man as the rental manager”, “you’re a dumb ass woman”, suggested “we go to the Holiday Inn”, asked her to get coins from his front pocket, etc., etc.)


Wickard v. Fillburn, 317 U.S. 111 (decided November 9, 1942): Congress can regulate amount of wheat farmer grows for his own consumption because it takes away from what he might sell in interstate commerce (my Con Law professor said this case was “the final nail in the coffin” of the Restricted Commerce Clause era, but he was saying this in 1991; the coffin has since popped open)


Ex Parte U.S. Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (decided November 9, 1903): the Court has no power to annul decisions of “Citizenship Court” set up by Congress to (against the wishes of Oklahoma tribes) break up their communal land and sell to individuals; the court had already ceased to exist, having performed its only legislated function

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: November 10

Ex Parte Crouch , 112 U.S. 178 (decided November 10, 1884): federal courts cannot via habeas vacate state court convictions except on jurisdictional grounds (gradually overruled, most specifically by

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: November 8

Greene v. Fisher , 565 U.S. 34 (decided November 8, 2011): “clearly established federal law” required for habeas does not include law established by Court in decision announced after state appeals on

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: November 7

Cleveland v. United States , 531 U.S. 12 (decided November 7, 2000): video poker licenses were not “property” so as to be predicate for prosecution under mail fraud statute (defendants had obtained li

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page