Day: February 2, 2017

AP on Conflicting Immigration Order Decisions

The Associated Press quoted Steve Vladeck and me about some of the disorder resulting from the Airport Cases:

Q: WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF COURTS RULE INCONSISTENTLY?

A: With different challenges filed in so many courts, there is likely to be confusion going forward, legal experts said.

“You have the opportunity, frankly, for a dizzying array of judicial decisions trying to parse out how it applies to different groups of noncitizens,” Vladeck said.

The Department of Justice is likely to take a case to a court of appeal to try to make sense of the many rulings, said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.

Of course, those appellate courts could disagree, which has happened on many major issues including gay marriage and ultimately put the issue before the Supreme Court.

The high court would probably not hear the case until the fall. The orders, which could be extended, are due to expire long before that.

“This order will not be the final word on it,” Blackman said.

 

Read More

The Connection Between Judge Gorsuch, Justice Scalia’s Dissent in Morrison v. Olson, and Chevron Deference

Nearly three decades after he authored it, Justice Scalia’s dissent in Morrison v. Olson has stood the test of time. Indeed, Judge Kavanaugh’s recent decision in the CFPB case cites the dissent far more than Chief Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion. But few people may know the connection between the author of that dissent, and the person nominated to replace him.

In 1982, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives issued two subpoenas to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency concerning the enforcement of the “Superfund.” At the time, Ted Olson served as the Assistant Attorney General for the office of Legal Counsel. (A position held by both Rehnquist, who wrote the majority opinion and Scalia who dissented).

Acting on the advice of the Justice Department, the President ordered the Administrator of EPA to invoke executive privilege to withhold certain of the documents on the ground that they contained “enforcement sensitive information.”  The Administrator obeyed this order and withheld the documents. In response, the House voted to hold the Administrator in contempt, after which the Administrator and the United States together filed a lawsuit against the House. The conflict abated in March 1983, when the administration agreed to give the House Subcommittees limited access to the documents.

After the fallout of this scandal, the Administrator resigned. But that did not conclude the conflict. House Democrats continued an investigation into the Justice Department’s role concerning the EPA documents. Ted Olson testified before a House Subcommittee on March 10, 1983, the day after the Administrator resigned. Two years later, the majority staff “published a lengthy report,” which “suggested that appellee Olson had given false and misleading testimony.” The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee sent a report to the Attorney General, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 592(c), and requested the “appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the allegations against Olson.” After an internal review, the Attorney General found cause existed to proceed. He requested that the Special Division appoint an independent counsel–they chose Alexia Morrison.

Olson refuse to comply with Morrison’s investigation–arguing that it was unconstitutional–which gave rise to the famous separation of powers battle, Morrison v. Olson. By a vote of 7-1 (Justice Kennedy had recently joined the Court, but did not participate), the Court upheld the constitutionality of the independent prosecutor statute. Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion explained that independent counsel was not a principal officer, and thus did not require Senate confirmation. Because Morrison was under (at least) some supervision of the Attorney General, the Court held, there was no affront to the separation of powers.

Justice Scalia’s dissent is legendary.

That is what this suit is about. Power. The allocation of power among Congress, the President, and the courts in such fashion as to preserve the equilibrium the Constitution sought to establish — so that “a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department,” Federalist No. 51, p. 321 (J. Madison), can effectively be resisted. Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf.

Read the rest of it when you can.

So what’s the connection you ask, between Justice Scalia, and Judge Neil Gorsuch, his appointed successor: the Administrator of the EPA who resigned was Anne Gorsuch Burford. Neil’s mother. Indeed, according to Anne’s biography, her young son understood the idea of the unitary executive, implicitly:

When his mother resigned in March of 1983, an upset young Gorsuch told his mother she “never should have resigned,” his mother wrote in a memoir.

“You didn’t do anything wrong,” Anne Burford quoted her son as telling her. “You only did what the president ordered. Why are you quitting? You raised me not to be a quitter.”

But there is yet another SCOTUS connection at hand. Judge Gorsuch has made waves by stating that he would be willing to reconsider Chevron deference. Of course, Chevron arises from the famous case of Chevron v. NRDC, which was decided on June 25, 1984. That case considered whether the Court would defer to the interpretation of the Environmental Protection Agency.

But what was the case called in the D.C. Circuit? NRDC v. Gorsuch (1982). Yes–Neil’s mom! By the time the case was appealed up to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch had already resigned.

Had Gorsuch still been at the agency, and filed her petition quicker–as Lawrence Hurley pointed out–the case would have been Gorsuch v. NRDC.  We would have the Gorsuch deference. Imagine if Justice Gorsuch overruled the Gorsuch doctrine?

There is yet another more level of nerdiness, courtesy of Professor David Noll. Anne Gorsuch signed the rule at issue in Chevron.

Ready for a final mindblower: Who replaced Anne Gorsuch? William D. Ruckelshaus. Does that name sound familiar? Ruckelshaus was the Deputy Assistant General under President Richard Nixon. Recall that on Saturday, October 20, 1973, Nixon ordered Attorney General Richardson to remove Archibald Cox as Special Prosecutor. Richardson refused, and resigned. Who was next in line? Ruckelshaus. He too resigned. Ultimately the task fell to Solicitor General Bork. Bork indeed fired Cox. But the “Saturday Night Massacre” gave rise to the Independent Prosecutor statute, which gave rise to the investigation of Ted Olson over his role in the Gorsuch debacle, which gave rise to Justice Scalia’s dissent. Everything is connected.

“And now you know the rest of the story.”

Read More

ConLaw Class 7 – Scope of Federal Powers II

Scope of Federal Powers II

  • Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (203 – 207)
  • The New Deal Court (207 – 209)
  • NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (209 – 212)
  • United States v. Darby (213 – 215)
  • Wickard v. Filburn (216 – 220).
  • The Warren Court (229 – 230)
  • Hearts of Atlanta Motel (230 – 238).
  • Katzenbach v. McClung (239 – 242)

The lecture notes are here.

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States

In Schechter Poultry, often referred to as the Sick Chicken Case, the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated the National Recovery Act, which was a centrla plank of President Roosevelt’s New Deal program.

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel

Here are some photographs of the Jones & Laughlin Steel corporation, which was located outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvnaia.

 

United States v. Darby Lumber Co.

The Darby Lumber Company was located in Bulloch County, Georgia. A historical marker commemorates the business.

 

Wickard v. Filburn

This is farmer Roscoe Filburn.

filburn

This is Secretary of the Agriculture Claude Wickard.

wickard

This is Wickard, flanked by New Dealers, in front of various charts and projections about the price of agriculture.

Wickard

Hearts of Atlanta Motel v. United States

The Hearts of Atlanta Motel, located at 255 Courtland Street NE in Atlanta, was owned by Atlanta lawyer Moreton Rolleston Jr. This was a segregate hotel. Rolleston represented himself all the way to the Supreme Court. The location is currently a Hilton.

hotel-pic

1960-aerial

moreton rolleston

pool

motel

brochure

During the Jim Crow era, “The Negro Motorist Green-Book” provided African Americans with a listing of hotels they could stay while traveling.

The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

These cabins in South Carolina were advertised “For Colored.”

Cabins_for_Colored

Katzenbach v. McClung

This is Ollie’s Bar-B-Q, the site of Katzenbach v. McClung in Birmingham, Alabama.

Many restaurants only served only white patrons, such as this restaurant in Lancaster, Ohio.

WhiteTradeOnlyLancasterOhio

And because I am insane, I purchased an entire case of Ollie’s Bar-B-Q sauce.

And who says trolling eBay for worthless mementos from Supreme Court cases is useless. Recently, for the princely sum of $3.99 plus shipping, I purchased a matchbook from Ollie’s Barbecue–the Birmingham, Alabama establishment of Katzenbach v. McClung fame that refused to serve black customers, insisting that it did not engage in interstate commerce. Though, as the Court found, it purchase most of its meat from a butcher who had procured it from out of state.

In the 12 months preceding the passage of the Act, the restaurant purchased locally approximately $150,000 worth of food, $69,683 or 46% of which was meat that it bought from a local supplier who had procured it from outside the State. The District Court expressly found that a substantial portion of the food served in the restaurant297*297 had moved in interstate commerce.

Now, thanks to the magic of eBay, I submit to the world additional proof that Ollie’s engaged in interstate commerce! Their matchbooks were manufactured by the Universal Match Corporation in Atlanta–across state lines! Read it and weep.

ollies-1

It is impossible to tell exactly when the matchbook was manufactured, but based on the zip code it would have been at least 1963, as that is when zip codes were introduced. The seller on ebay–an expert in matchbooks–told me “I’m guessing late 50’s to early 60’s. The paper from that time was a bit lighter on the back, but not bright white or smooth like later on.” So this is squarely in the time period in which Ollie’s would have run right into Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Address for “Ollie’s World’s Best Barbecue” was 515 8th Ave., So. Birmingham, Alabama 35205. Nothing is there now. They were in that location until 1999.

So here we have it. Further proof that Ollie’s did engage in interstate commerce!

The McClung’s were apparently quite religious, as their matchbook struck a Christian spark. (Oh that pun was awesome).

On the front, the Matchbook says:

“If you never know me, you’ll miss nothing, If you never know Jesus Christ, you’ll miss everything.”

The back of the matchbook quotes from 2 Chronicles 7:14 (King James Version):

 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

ollies-2

The Universal Match Corporation, as evidenced by this 1950-era promotional matchbook was located at 317 Buckhead Ave, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia.

universal-match

 

Read More

Video: Lecture at “Bioethics After the Holocaust” on “Bioethics and the Constitution”

On January 23, I spoke at a conference on Bioethics after the Holocaust, sponsored by the Center for Medicine after the Holocaust. My lecture focused on Bioethics and the Constitution, starting with the 3/5 Clause, moving onto Prigg v. Pennsylvania and Dred Scott, onto Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Buck v. Bell, followed by Roe v. Wade and Washington v. Glucksberg. I’ve included video, audio, and my slide deck.

Read More

Prop1 Class 7 – Acquisition by Find – Finders Keepers?

Class 7 – 2/2/17

Acquisition by Find – Finders Keepers?

  • Armory v. Delamirie, 125-126 (shortest case of the semester!)
  • Notes, 126-129
  • Hannah v. Peel, 129-134
  • Notes, 134-135
  • McAvoy v. Medina, 135-136
  • Notes, 136-144 (Skim)

The lecture notes are here.

When you think of a Chimney Sweep, this image may come to mind.

burt-2

But this image is probably a lot closer to young Master Armory.

victorian style chimney sweep, a child chimney sweep, hulton pi

Studio_portrait_of_young_chimney_sweeps,_by_Havens,_O._Pierre_1838-1912_(crop)

This diagram shows the different ways a sweep can get stuck in a flue.

A seven-flue stack, showing how it would be cleaned by Climbing boys, or with little modification by a human cleaning machine (a brush). In the diagram: A- is a hearth served by vertical flue, a horizontal flue, and then a vertical rise having two right-angled bends that were difficult for brushes. B- is a long straight flue (14in by 9in) being climbed by a boy using back elbows and knees. C- is a short flue from a second floor hearth. The climbing boy has reached the chimney pot, which has a diametre too small for him to exit that way D (omitted) is a short flue from the third floor E shows a disaster. The climbing boy is stuck in the flue, his knees jammed against his chin. The master sweep will have to cut away the chimney to remove him. First he will try to persuade him to move: sticking pins in the feet, lighting a small fire under him. Another boy could climb up behind him and try to pull him out with a rope tied round the legs- it would be hours before he suffocated. F (omitted) G How a flue could be straighten to make it sweepable by mechanical means H A dead climbing boy, suffocated in a fall of soot that accumulated at the cant of the flue.

A seven-flue stack, showing how it would be cleaned by Climbing boys, or with little modification by a human cleaning machine (a brush). In the diagram:
A- is a hearth served by vertical flue, a horizontal flue, and then a vertical rise having two right-angled bends that were difficult for brushes.
B- is a long straight flue (14in by 9in) being climbed by a boy using back elbows and knees.
C- is a short flue from a second floor hearth. The climbing boy has reached the chimney pot, which has a diametre too small for him to exit that way
D (omitted) is a short flue from the third floor
E shows a disaster. The climbing boy is stuck in the flue, his knees jammed against his chin. The master sweep will have to cut away the chimney to remove him. First he will try to persuade him to move: sticking pins in the feet, lighting a small fire under him. Another boy could climb up behind him and try to pull him out with a rope tied round the legs- it would be hours before he suffocated.
F (omitted)
G How a flue could be straighten to make it sweepable by mechanical means
H A dead climbing boy, suffocated in a fall of soot that accumulated at the cant of the flue.

Frequently the boys would get stuck (the image on the right).

410px-Climbing_boys_in_chimneys

Here are some examples of de Lamerie’s work (courtesy of the Dukeminier property web site).

Source: Mfa.org. This was created in 1736 and is currently housed at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, Massachusetts.

Source: Mfa.org. This was created in 1736 and is currently housed at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, Massachusetts.

This work was created in 1745 and is housed at the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, Massachusetts.

This work was created in 1745 and is housed at the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, Massachusetts.

There are many different de Lamerie works in this photograph of the interior of the Marks Antique Silver gallery in London, England. Marks frequently sends travelling galleries of antique silver to the United States in places such as Palm Beach, L.A., and New York City.

There are many different de Lamerie works in this photograph of the interior of the Marks Antique Silver gallery in London, England. Marks frequently sends travelling galleries of antique silver to the United States in places such as Palm Beach, L.A., and New York City.

This is one of the less common gold pieces of art created by de Lamerie. This is housed at the Gilbert Collection in London, England.

This is one of the less common gold pieces of art created by de Lamerie. This is housed at the Gilbert Collection in London, England.

Here are a number of stories about finding abandoned stuff:

This is a lithograph of Gwernaylod House in Overton-on-Dee, Wales (1829)

Gwernhaylod

Here is a trailer for a fascinating documentary about the legal fight between two men who claim to have caught Barry Bonds’s record-breaking 73 homerun in 2004.


And here is the moment it hits the crowd.

bondsball

Read More

Books

Final-Unraveled-Cover

YouTube

Subscribe to YouTube Channel

[powr-youtube-gallery id=158059bf_1477783431]

Upcoming Events

Loading...

@JoshMBlackman

Archives

February 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728