Skip to main content

The Supreme Court, completing a list

Image result for second amendment pictures

As regular readers will have noticed, I've been creating a multi-entry list of Supreme Court decisions, naming just one stand-out decision per year. Here is my final entry on that theme, bringing us up to date.

Supreme Court cases, 2010 to the present


2010: McDonald v. Chicago -- second amendment
2011: Snyder v. Phelps -- limit on tort liability for emotional distress (Westboro Baptists and the first amendment)
2012: NFIB v. Sebelius -- the big Obamacare decision
2013: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics -- genes and patents
2014: Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund -- class certification and securities fraud
2015: Obergefell v. Hodges -- marriage equality
2016: Merrill Lynch v. Manning -- state courts have concurrent jurisdiction on certain securities fraud civil liability issues with the federal courts.

I've now listed a total of 47 SCOTUS decisions in this very subjective way. There should be some broader generalizations here as to which SCOTUS decisions catch my eye. Though perhaps that doesn't strike even my sympathetic readers as the world's most pressing question.

Still, on looking over the whole list, my first impression is that criminal procedure issues are very thoroughly represented. The first such case on this list is U.S. v. Nixon, which at its base is about the extent of a claimed evidentiary privilege. My death penalty case, Gregg, comes under this heading, as does Ybarra and several others.

Also, two of the clauses of the first amendment are well represented. There are at least four free speech cases on this list: Pacifica, Pruneyard, Liquormart, Snyder. One might also include Harper & Row, making the number five. The other clause from that amendment? the establishment clause. My list includes Edwards, Kiryas Joel, The Good News Club, and Zelma. For no good reason the other clauses of the same amendment, as represented for example by such landmarks within this period as Gertz v. Welch  (free press)  or Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (freedom of religion) didn't get onto my list.

One might of course chose to see the Pentagon Papers case, which did get onto this list, as a free press case. But if I understand it rightly it actually turned on the court's view of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches, not on the first amendment's limits to the power of either and/or both of them.

Constitutional structure, especially the relations among the branches, is another recurring theme of this list.  The Pentagon Papers case starts off that theme, and of course we could double-count U.S. v. Nixon to include it here. That is also a factor in the inclusion of Chadha, Chevron, Morrison.

Fourteen, or roughly 30%, of these cases aren't constitutional, they are wholly or chiefly matters of statutory interpretation. This includes three antitrust law cases, three on securities fraud, and four on intellectual property issues.

But enough! you cry, so I comply.

Comments

  1. Christopher, I am unfamiliar with the case you chose for 2013, but I wonder whether it is more significant than Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, leading Republican states to adopt new bans on African-American voting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Henry,

    Until MYRIAD GENETICS, the US Patent Office was accepting patent applications on isolated DNA sequences. This meant that the nature of human beings, and of other organisms too, was being privatized -- divided into various gene sequences and turned into property, lot by fenced-off lot.

    I think James Watson (who submitted an amicus brief to SCOTUS effectively defending his life's work) stated the issue well: http://patentdocs.typepad.com/files/watson-amicus-brief.pdf "Life's instructions ought not to be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts."

    You can find historical echoes of slavery in SHELBY, but you can find philosophical echoes of slavery in the (thankfully defeated) position of the respondent in MYRIAD GENETICS.

    I suppose the two cases together have a glass-half-empty-or-half-full quality to them. I'm enough of an optimist to have included the decision in which the side of human freedom prevailed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you need your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend to come crawling back to you on their knees (even if they're dating somebody else now) you must watch this video
    right away...

    (VIDEO) Why your ex will NEVER come back...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

https://sites.google.com/site/francescoorsi1/

https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/3

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …