Blog

The lecture notes are here.

Thankfully, Texas has abolished the Rule in Shelley’s case, the Doctrine of Worthier Title, and the Rule Forbidding a Remainder in the Grantor’s Heirs. This is the Texas Rule Against Perpetuities.

RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES. The rule against perpetuities applies to trusts other than charitable trusts. Accordingly, an interest is not good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after some life in being at the time of the creation of the interest, plus a period of gestation. Any interest in a trust may, however, be reformed or construed to the extent and as provided by Section 5.043.

In case you were wondering, the youngest mother on record is five-years old. And in a bizarre case, a man adopted his girlfriend to protect his assets.

And, if you hate the Rule against Perpetuities, blame this guy. Orlando Bridgeman, whose crazy conveyances raised the possibility of perpetuity, which led to the creation of the Rule Against Perpetuities.Don’t blame me. Blame Orlando. Note: The Rule Against Perpetuities will not be tested on the final examination. In other words, this is a wrap for RAP.

The lecture notes are here.

Equal Protection and Segregation

• Citizenship Clause (768-771).
• Dred Scott v. Sandford (771-794).
• Dred Scott notes (794-800).
• Segregation Cases (1337).
• Railroad Company v. Brown (1337-1339).
• Plessy v. Ferguson (1339-1346).

Dred Sott v. Sandford

This is Chief Justice Roger Brooks Taney, the author of Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Lining the Great Hall of the Supreme Court are busts of the Chief Justices. Sandwiched between the great visages of John Marshall (the 4th Chief) and Salmon Chase (the 6th Chief) is the blank stare of Roger Brooke of Taney.

There is also a bust of Taney outside Frederick, Maryland City Hall. Vandals poured an entire bucket of red paint onto Taney’s bust. The vandalism came on the eve of a decision whether to remove the bust because some find it “offensive”:

 

I could not find a full, color photo of the Leutze painting. Here is the best version I could find.

This is Dred Scott.

This is a cover sheet by the Supreme Court, summarizing the lower court disposition from Missouri, filed on December 30, 1854.

This is the Court’s judgment in Dred Scott, dated March 7, 1857, and seems to have been signed by Chief Justice Taney.

The Dred Scott decision found unconstitutional the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which designated all new states north of 36 degrees, 30 minutes (except Missouri) to be free states.

This map illustrates the free and slaves states in America.

Plessy v. Ferguson

We actually do not have any confirmed photographs of Homer Plessy (there are some floating on the internet, but we aren’t sure if they are really him). Here is his grave.

This is  Adolph Plessy’s Birth Certificate from Orleans Parish, from 1863.

This is Judge John J. Ferguson.

This is an obituary for Judge Ferguson. It makes no reference of his role in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson.

Here is a newspaper account from the Times Pacayune, June 9, 1892, with the headline, ” snuff-colored descendant of Ham kicks agains the ‘Jim Crow’ law.”

Yesterday afternoon at 4:15 o’clock private detecting C.C. Cain arrested from the East Louisiana [Homer] Adolph Plessy, a light mulatto, and locked him up in the Fifth Precinct station on a charge of violating section 2o of act 111 of the statute of 1890 relative to separate coaches. Detective Cain made an affidavit this morning against Plessey [sic] in the Second Recorder’s Court.

Capt. Cain, speaking of the circumstances of the arrest, stated that he and the conductor had ordered both the man from the white coach into the one set apart for colored people.  The negro refused to leave the coach, saying that he had bought his ticket and was going to ride to Covington.

Capt. Cain here told him he would either have to retire to the other coach or go to jail; to which the negro responded that he would sooner go to jail than leave the car, and he was accordingly arrested.

Previous to the arrest the conductor asked, “Are you are a colored man!”” “Yes,” was the answer. “Then,” said the conductor,” you will have to retire to the colored car.” The man refusing, Capt. Cain was invoked, and entering the car, he said to Plessy, “If you are colored you should go into the car set apart for your race. The law is plain and must be obeyed.”

The set upon which the affidavit is based is known as the “Jim Crow Car” bill, and in substance as follows.

“An act to promote the comfort of passengers on railway trains,” requiring all railway companies carrying passengers on their trains in this State to provide equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races by providing separate coaches or compartments so as to secure separate accommodations, defining the duties of the offers of such railways, directing them to assign passengers to the coaches or compartments set aside for the use of the race to which such passengers belong, authorizing them to refuse to carry on their trains such passengers as may refuse to occupy the coaches or compartments to which he or she is assigned; to exonerate such railways company from blame or damage that might proceed from such refusal; to prescribe penalties for all violators of this act.”

On the 25th of May last, the Supreme Court rendered an opinion in a suit entitled “State of Louisiana Ex Rel W.C. Abbott v. A.W. Hicks, Judge et al, construed the law as not applying to interstate passengers and applying only to domestic passengers.

Plessy was arraigned before Judge Moulin this morning. He was represented by J.C. Walker, Esq. who waived examination on the part of his client, and the judge committed Plessy to the Criminal District Court under a bond of $500, which was signed and Plessy released.

Plessy boarded the East Louisiana Railroad Co. train at Press and Royal streets.

Here is a photograph of the nearby West End station.

This is the order noting that Plessy’s counsel waved examination, and he was held on $500 bond. As the article suggests, Plessy posted bond, and was released.


Here is an affidavit Plessy signed.

Judge Ferguson found that Louisiana could regulate railroad companies if they only operated in state boundaries. Plessy was ordered to pay a $300 fine.

Albion Tourgee´ represented Homer Plessy before the Supreme Court. He asked the Justices to imagine if they were black.

Here is the Supreme Court’s order affirming the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court, noting the dissent of Justice Harlan.

And in a story almost too good to be true, descendants of Homer Plessy and John Ferguson have started a non-profit known as the Plessy and Ferguson Foundation. Here are Keith Plessy and Phoebe Ferguson. I’ve spoken on the phone to Keith Plessy.

Here is Plessy’s grand-nephew, Keith Plessy, standing at the site where his ancestor was arrested, Press and Royal streets.

 

During the Democratic debate, Univision host Jorge Ramos pressed both Sec. Clinton and Sen. Sanders about whether they would promise not to deport any children. Clinton tried to wriggle out of it, but Ramos got her to admit, point blank, that she would not deport any children, at all.

RAMOS: OK. So I want to be very specific. So you are telling us tonight that if you become president you won’t deport children who are already here?

CLINTON: I will not.

Ramos also asked her if she would promise to only deport people with criminal records. Clinton evaded of the question.

RAMOS: … and those who don’t have a criminal record.

CLINTON: Of the people, the undocumented people living in our country, I do not want to see them deported. I want to see them on a path to citizenship. That is exactly what I will do.

Ramos posed the same question to Sanders, who promised to not deport children, and not deport immigrants without a criminal record.

SANDERS: So to answer your question, no, I will not deport children from the United States of America.

RAMOS: And can you promise not to deport immigrants who don’t have a criminal record?

SANDERS: I can make that promise.

Legally, these positions are indefensible. As nuanced as the Obama administration has been concerning deferred action and lawful presence–insisting that these policies do not amount to a policy of non-deportation–both Clinton and Sanders have announced, categorically, that they will not deport entire classes of aliens subject to removal. There is no way this can be justified under the Office of Legal Counsel’s memorandum. Clinton and Sanders have already promised to expand deferred action to the parents of the dreamers–which OLC said could not be done. But this new blanket policy of non-deportation in no sense can be described as a prioritization of resources–it is a wholesale suspension of the law.

Perhaps this is another reason why the Court should not be in such a hurry to resolve U.S. v. Texas this year. If a Republican wins the White House, DAPA is rescinded. If a Democrat wins the White House, Texas may seek to amend its complaint.

Disclosure: I am supporting Sen. Cruz’s campaign.

Today we will continue covering future interests.

The lecture notes are here.

This is Henry VIII, who abolished the Statute of Uses.

He is most famous for breaking England away from the Roman Catholic Church so he could obtain a divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon. She did not bear him a son, and he blamed her. Now we know that the Man provides the Y-chromosome, and is responsible for determining the gender of the offspring).

 Henry would go on to be married a total of 6 times, in his pursuit of a male heir.  Not all of his wives faired so well

Here is the rhyme we use to remember their fates: Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Beheaded, Survived.

This helpful graphic summarizes the fate of Henry’s wives. Henry’s most famous offspring was Elizabeth, who became Queen Elizabeth I (remember Shakespeare in Love?).

 

The lecture notes are here.

The Enforcement Powers of the 14th Amendment

• Note on 11th Amendment (1262-1263).
• Sovereign Immunity (557-558).
• 11th Amendment (558).
• Chisolm v. Georgia (558-566).
• Hans v. Louisiana (566-570).
• City of Boerne v. Flores (1327-1337).
• United States v. Morrison (1322-1327).

United States v. Morrison

This is Christy Brzonkala, the plaintiff in what would become United States v. Morrison. I could not find a photograph of Antonio J. Morrison and James Crawford.

City of Boerne v. Flores

Here are photographs of St. Peter the Apostle Church in Boerne, Texas, the subject of City of Boerne v. Flores. I suppose this church makes an exception to the “Though Shalt Not Kill” Commandment for the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, which met its constitutional demise within the hallowed walls of this house of worship.

These photographs are courtesy of Hanah Volokh.