User:Lethargilistic/sandbox: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

47 / 606 = 7.7558

500 cases: October 7, 2025

Other tasks

Cases

General summaries

• United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978) – Where a defendant himself seeks to have his trial terminated without any submission to either judge or jury as to his guilt or innocence, an appeal by the Government from his successful effort to do so does not offend the Double Jeopardy Clause, and hence is not barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3731. United States v. Jerkins, overruled.
• Glenwood, 239 U.S. 121 (1915) – A claim for non-monetary relief such as an injunction can meet the amount in controversy requirement if the value of the relief sought by the Plaintiff exceeds the jurisdictional amount requirement. (close quote secondary) Coleman et al., Learning Civil Procedure 51 (3rd Ed. 2018).
• Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 – Strict scrutiny applies to the analysis of whether a state prison system may segregate by race even when the state claims that the segregation reduces violence. Remanded to allow the state to try to meet its burden under SS. “Prisons are dangerous places, and the special circumstances they present may justify racial classifications in some contexts.”
• Ballard v. United States – A jury panel is unconstitutional when women are systematically excluded. “But, if the shoe were on the other foot, who would claim that a jury was truly representative of the community if all men were intentionally and systematically excluded from the panel? The truth is that the two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one is different from a community composed of both; the subtle interplay of influence one on the other is among the imponderables.”
• West R.B. Co. v. Dix – The constitution cannot be construed to prohibit eminent domain.
• Brown v. Ohio (“the Double Jeopardy Clause generally forbids successive prosecution and cumulative punishment for a greater and lesser included offense. Pp. 432 U.S. 166-169.”)
• [1]
  • United States v. Marigold, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 560, 569 (1850).
  • Moore v. Illinois, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 13, 20 (1852).
  • Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 196 (1959); Bartkus v. Illinois , 359 U.S. 121, 136 (1959). Unlike Lanza and Abbate, Bartkus involved a state prosecution after a federal. Id. at 124. Because the Fifth Amendment did not then bind the states, the case was decided on due process grounds. Id.
    • State and feds could have different interests. States responsible for general prosecution of crimes. Feds responsible for federal government interests. With counterfeiting, for instance, the federal government soon identified an interest “in protecting the purity of its currency”; the states, an interest “in protecting their citizens against fraud.” Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 123–24 (1959) (holding the state was not “a tool of the federal authorities,” id. at 123); see also Braun, supra note 77, at 60–65. Though lower courts have read such an exception into this language, they have not actually applied it to bar successive prosecutions. Id. at 60.
  • This would in effect constitutionalize the federal government’s policy to pursue a second prosecution only when a state’s has “left [a] substantial federal interest demonstrably unvindicated.” U.S. DEP’T. OF JUSTICE, JUSTICE MANUAL § 9-2.031(D) (2018); see also Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529, 530–31 (1960) (per curiam) (first recognizing the policy).

Rights of Prisoners

• Mushlin, Michael B. (2024). “13:3”. Rights of Prisoners. Vol. 3 (5th ed.).
  • Kentucky Dep’t of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (1989) – The Kentucky regulations do not give state inmates a liberty interest in receiving visitors that is entitled to the protections of the Due Process Clause. (Section 13:5)

E&A Con Law Federal Powers

May, Christopher N.; Ides, Allan (2012). Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism (6th ed.). p. 308.

• Lauf v. E. G. Shinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323 (1938) – Upholds Norris-LaGuardia Act’s jurisdiction stripping. District Courts do not have jurx to issue injunctions in (peaceful) labor disputes. Needed finding of facts. See also Boys Market. “The statute was designed to keep conservative judges from stopping strikes by workers and their unions. While the Court had held other New Deal statutes unconstitutional, it accepted this restriction on federal court jurisdiction.” Charles A. Shanor, American Constl. Law: Structure and Reconstruction 84-85 (5th ed, 2012). (82)

Lieberman

• Aetna Ins. Co. v. Hyde, 275 U.S. 440 (1928) (Affected with the public interest, 15)
• Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937) (19: 81a, 139b) – The Declaratory Judgment Act is constitutional.
• Hopkins v. Reeves, 524 U.S. 88 (1998) (Death penalty, x: 557) – Beck v. Alabama does not require state trial courts to instruct juries on offenses that are not lesser included offenses of the charged crime under state law.

Redish 2018

Allen 2016

• Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. (1972) – Criminal defendant cannot be forced to testify before all other witnesses. Violates right to be silent (by forcing a choice of whether to testify at an inopportune time) and right to counsel (by forcing a decision of whether to testify without full understanding of the evidence against him. The prosecution is not required by the constitution to disclose witness statements to the defense (per another case, I think). (1377)
• Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. – A prosecutor’s mention that a defendant testified after all other witnesses during their closing does not violate a defendant’s constitutional rights.

Sources for old cases

Wild SCOTUS stories