DOCSLIB.ORG

The Constitution in the Supreme Court: 1921-1930

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Constitution in the Supreme Court: 1921-1930 THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SUPREME COURT: 1921-1930 DAVID P. CURRIE* The selection of William Howard Taft to succeed Edward D. White as Chief Justice in 1921 was followed by three additional appointments in the next two years: George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, and Edward T. Sanford replaced William R. Day, Mahlon Pitney, and John H. Clarke. The upshot was something of a reign of terror for state and federal legislation.' White himself had been no great supporter of progressive legislation, and neither Day nor Pitney was in later terms a flaming liberal. The last two, however, had frequently voted with Holmes, Brandeis, and Clarke to sustain social legislation against due process attacks. Sutherland, But- ler, and Sanford, like Taft, tended to cast their lot with Van Devanter, McReynolds, and McKenna, who had been frequent dissenters in sub- stantive due process cases before 1921; thus a vocal minority became a solid majority within a two-year period. The replacement of McKenna by Harlan F. Stone in 1925 merely increased the number of regular dis- senters from two to three.2 * Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law, University of Chicago. Thanks to Mary Beth Gose for managing the computer; to Nelson Lund, David Vandermeulen, Steve Rowland, and Richard Cray Donaldson for useful seminar papers; and to Albert Alschuler, Frank Easterbrook, Richard Helm- holz, Richard Posner, Carol Rose, Geoffrey Stone, Cass Sunstein, and William Van Alstyne for helpful criticism. 1. See Brown, Due Process of Law, Police Power, and the Supreme Court, 40 HARv. L. REV. 943, 944 (1927) ("[I]n the six years since 1920 the Supreme Court has declared social and economic legislation unconstitutional under the due process clauses of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment in more cases than in the entire fifty-two previous years .... "). 2. JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT DURING THE CHIEF JUSTICESHIP OF WILLIAM How- ARD TAFT 1920 * 1922 * 1924 * 1926 * 1928 * 1930 Joseph R. MeKenna (1898-1925) Oliver Wendell Holmes (1903-1932) William R. Day (1903-1922) Willis Van Devanter (1910-1937) Mahlon Pitney (1912-1922) -A James C. McReynolds (1914-1941) Louis D. Brandeis (1916-1939) John H. Clarke (1916-1922) - William H. Taft (1921-1930) I George Sutherland (1922-1938) I Pierce Butler (1922-1939) Edward T. Sanford (1923-1930) Harlan F. Stone (1925-1941) SOURCE: Adapted from G. GUNTHER, CASES AND MATERIALS ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1717 app. A (10th ed. 1980). DUKE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 1986:65 During the Taft years, the Court not only wielded due process with unprecedented ferocity to annihilate social measures but extended it to new fields as well, forbidding the outlawing of foreign languages and of 4 private schools in Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters. The Court assumed in Gitlow v. New York 5 and in Whitney v. California,6 and may have held in Fiske v. Kansas,7 that due process protected free- dom of expression or assembly as well, but continued to construe those freedoms narrowly over famous objections by Holmes and Brandeis. The taking clause of the fifth amendment-which the Court had long held applicable to the states by virtue of the fourteenth amendment-was given new content by none other than the normally restrained Holmes in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon.8 And federal cases arising largely out of Prohibition began to develop the contours of fourth amendment search and seizure law. In matters of federalism, the record of the Taft period is mixed. One of the Chief Justice's first opinions departed strikingly from the direction of earlier tax cases by invalidating a federal tax on goods made by child labor, and in another decision the Court held that baseball was not inter- state commerce under the Sherman Act. At the same time, however, the Court not only gave a broad reading to congressional authority to en- force the prohibition amendment, but reaffirmed Holmes's conclusion that stockyards were part of the current of commerce, and seemed to recede from Hammer v. Dagenhart9 by permitting Congress to forbid interstate transportation of stolen cars. Justice McReynolds's pet doc- trine limiting the maritime application of state laws underwent an inter- esting modification, while Justice Stone contributed new insights into the recurring problems of commercial and governmental immunities. Biographies of Justices of this period include M. HOWE, JUSTICE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES: THE SHAPING YEARS, 1841-1870 (1957); M. HOWE, JUSTICE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES: THE PROVING YEARS, 1870-1882 (1963); A. MASON, BRANDEIS: A FREE MAN'S LIFE (1946) [hereinaf- ter cited as A. MASON, BRANDEIS]; A. MASON, HARLAN FISKE STONE: PILLAR OF THE LAW (1956) [hereinafter cited as A. MASON, HARLAN FISKE STONE]; A. MASON, WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT: CHIEF JUSTICE (1964) [hereinafter cited as A. MASON, WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT]; M. MC- DEVrT, JOSEPH MCKENNA, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES (1946); J. MCLEAN, WILLIAM RUFUS DAY (1946); J. PASCHAL, MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND: A MAN AGAINST THE STATE (1951); H. PRINGLE, THE LIFE AND TIMES OF WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT (1939); H. WARNER, THE LIFE OF MR. IUSTICE CLARKE (1959). 3. 262 U.S. 390 (1923). 4. 268 U.S. 510 (1925). 5. 268 U.S. 652 (1925). 6. 274 U.S. 357 (1927). 7. 274 U.S. 380 (1927). 8. 260 U.S. 393 (1922). 9. 247 U.S. 251 (1918). Vol. 1986-.65] THE SUPREME COURT: 1921-1930 With the possible exception of the due process revolution, the most interesting product of the Taft years was a series of major decisions re- specting the separation of federal powers. The case-or-controversy limi- tation that had been applied in Muskrat v. United States 10 was elaborated in Tutun v. United States," Massachusetts v. Mellon,12 Keller v. Potomac Electric Co., 13 and a variety of decisions respecting ripeness and declara- tory judgments. Judicial independence received a setback when Exparte Bakelite Corp.1 4 concluded that the Court of Customs Appeals had been established without regard to article III. The great case of Myers v. United States 15 resolved an ancient controversy in upholding the Presi- dent's authority to fire a subordinate despite a statutory requirement of Senate consent. Springer v. Philippine Islands,1 6 construing the act set- ting up a local government, implied important constitutional limitations on legislative powers of appointment. J. W. Hampton Co. v. United States 17 upheld yet another broad delegation of discretion to the Presi- dent. The Pocket Veto Case'8 gave a liberal interpretation to the Presi- dent's power to avoid the overriding of a veto, and McGrain v. Daugherty1 9 legitimatized the legislative investigation. 20 It was an exciting time. Let us get directly to the particulars. I. LIBERTY, PROPERTY, AND EQUALITY A. Constrictingthe Social State. 1. Equal Protection. The equal protection clause had played little part in controlling state action before 1921. Not only had the separate- but-equal doctrine-which the Taft Court unanimously reaffirmed-lim- ited the reach of the clause even in the racial field,21 but in other areas the 10. 219 U.S. 346 (1911). 11. 270 U.S. 568 (1926). 12. 262 U.S. 447 (1923). 13. 261 U.S. 428 (1923). 14. 279 U.S. 438 (1929). 15. 272 U.S. 52 (1926). 16. 277 U.S. 189 (1928). 17. 276 U.S. 394 (1928). 18. 279 U.S. 655 (1929). 19. 273 U.S. 135 (1927). 20. This article is the continuation of a series that traces the Court's constitutional decisions from its establishment in 1789. See D. CURRIE, THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SUPREME COURT: THE FIRST HUNDRED YEARS, 1789-1888 (1985); Currie, The Constitutionin the Supreme Court: The Protectionof Economic Interests, 1889-1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REv. 324 (1985) [hereinafter cited as Fuller I]; Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: Full Faith and the Bill of Rights, 1889- 1910, 52 U. CHI. L. REv. 867 (1985) [hereinafter cited as Fuller II]; Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: 1910-1921, 1985 DUKE L.J. 1111 [hereinafter cited as White]. 21. See Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 (1927) (Taft, C.J.) (upholding state authority to exclude child of Chinese extraction from "white" school because "equal" facilities were provided for non- DUKE LAW JOURN4L [Vol. 1986:65 Court had made clear that equality required only that persons similarly situated be treated alike. Reasonable classifications were permissible; only when the Court could find no justification beyond what Cass Sun- 23 stein has called a "naked preference" 22 would the clause be invoked. The test, moreover, was a deferential one. An ordinance excluding loco- motives from a single street, for example, was upheld on the ground that other streets might have lesser problems, without any proof that they had.24 Given such an attitude, it was not surprising that the Court had found very few unreasonable classifications. Before he had been in office three months, however, Chief Justice Taft, in Truax v. Corrigan,25 found another. Arizona had forbidden in- junctions against picketing by striking workers. Similar conduct by a competitor, the Court observed, could have been enjoined, and there was 26 no reasonable basis for the distinction. Pitney, Holmes, Clarke, and Brandeis vainly protested that the em- ployment relationship had often been singled out for special treatment. 27 Those cases had concerned work-related injuries, Taft retorted, without saying why that was significant.28 No matter; the question was whether the Arizona injunction law was reasonable. The dissenters argued that in the labor field problems had been encountered with the use of the injunc- whites); cf D. CURRIE, supranote 20, at 387-90 (discussing Pace v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Takings Jurisprudence of the Warren Court: a Constitutional Siesta
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1996 The Takings Jurisprudence of the Warren Court: A Constitutional Siesta Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "The Takings Jurisprudence of the Warren Court: A Constitutional Siesta," 31 Tulsa Law Journal 643 (1996). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TULSA LAW JOURNAL Volume 31 Summer 1996 Number 4 THE TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE OF THE WARREN COURT: A CONSTITUTIONAL SIESTA* Richard A. Epsteint I. EBB TIDE FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS ...................... 644 II. A CRITIQUE OF THE WARREN COURT DECISIONS ...... 650 A. The Prima Facie Case: A Taking of Private Property ............................................ 651 1. Water ........................................... 651 2. Overflight Easements ........................... 656 3. Lien Rights ..................................... 658 B. General Regulations................................. 660 1. Prohibition on Use ............................. 660 2. Contract Regulation ............................ 662 3. Rate of Return Regulation ..................... 664 4. Civil Rights Cases .............................. 666 III. POLICE POWER JUSTIFICATIONS
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants, Or Uneasy Allies? Joseph P
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2010 Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants, or Uneasy Allies? Joseph P. Bauer Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Joseph P. Bauer, Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants, or Uneasy Allies?, 67 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 831 (2010). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/375 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants, or Uneasy Allies? Joseph P. Bauer* Abstract The copyright regime and the First Amendment seek to promote the same goals. Both seek the creation and dissemination of more, better, and more diverse literary, pictorial, musical and other works. But, they use significantly different means to achieve those goals. The copyright laws afford to the creator of a work the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, transform, andperform that work for an extended period of time. The First Amendment, on the other hand, proclaims that Congress "shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press," thus at least nominally indicating that limitations on the reproduction and distribution of works-including the works of others-areforbidden. Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashicroft, have stated that these two regimes can be reconciled in large part by some mechanisms internal to the copyright system, and in particularthe fair use doctrine and the denial of copyright protection to facts and ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on the 25Th Anniversary of Feist Publications, Inc. V. Rural Telephone Service Co
    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2017 Reach Out and Touch Someone: Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Tyler T. Ochoa Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Craig Joyce University of Houston Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Automated Citation Tyler T. Ochoa and Craig Joyce, Reach Out and Touch Someone: Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. , 54 HOUS. L. REV. 257 (2017), Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/961 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Do Not Delete 11/22/2016 5:54 PM HISTORICAL ESSAY REACH OUT AND TOUCH SOMEONE: REFLECTIONS ON THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. V. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO. **Craig Joyce & Tyler T. Ochoa*** ABSTRACT 2016 marks the 25th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., one of the Court’s landmark opinions in copyright law, and one that continues to define the standard of originality for copyrighted works in general and compilations of data in particular. The Feist case, however, was an unlikely candidate for landmark status.
    [Show full text]
  • <I>United States V. Morrison</I>
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2015 Bait and Switch: Why United States v. Morrison is Wrong about Section Five Kermit Roosevelt III University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Fourteenth Amendment Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Repository Citation Roosevelt, Kermit III, "Bait and Switch: Why United States v. Morrison is Wrong about Section Five" (2015). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 748. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/748 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\C\CRN\100-3\CRN302.txt unknown Seq: 1 18-MAR-15 8:28 BAIT AND SWITCH: WHY UNITED STATES V. MORRISON IS WRONG ABOUT SECTION 5 Kermit Roosevelt III† In United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court announced the rule that the Section 5 power cannot be used to regulate private individuals. This is one of the most meaningful and, thus far, durable constraints that the Court has placed on federal power. It is the more surprising, then, that it turns out to be based on essentially nothing at all. The Morrison Court asserted that its rule was derived by—indeed, “controlled by”—precedent, but a closer reading of the Reconstruction-era decisions it cites shows that this is simply not the case.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump V. Mazars USA, LLP, --- F.3D ---, 2019 WL 5991603 (D.C
    No. In the Supreme Court of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP; THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; TRUMP ORGANIZATION LLC; THE TRUMP CORPORATION; DJT HOLDINGS LLC; THE DONALD J. TRUMP REVOCABLE TRUST; AND TRUMP OLD POST OFFICE LLC, Applicants, v. MAZARS USA, LLP; COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents. On Application for Stay EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF MANDATE PENDING THE FILING AND DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Jay Alan Sekulow William S. Consovoy Stuart J. Roth Counsel of Record Jordan Sekulow Jordan M. Call CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC AND ADVOCACY GROUP, P.C. 1600 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 700 1701 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22209 Washington, DC 20006 (703) 243-9423 (202) 546-8890 [email protected] [email protected] Patrick Strawbridge Stefan C. Passantino CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP Ten Post Office Square 1000 Maine Ave. SW, Ste. 400 8th Floor South PMB #706 Washington, D.C. 20024 Boston, MA 02109 (202) 747-9582 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Applicants PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS The parties to the proceeding below are as follows: Applicants are Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America; Trump Organization, Inc.; Trump Organization; LLC, Trump Corporation; DJT Holdings, LLC; Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust; and Trump Old Post Office LLC. They were the plaintiffs in the district court and appellants in the court of appeals. Respondents are Mazars USA, LLP and Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University Of
    Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University of Texas at Austin 727 E. 26th St., Austin, Texas 78705-3224 512/471-7263 SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES, 1823-1955, Bulk 1860-1939 Inventory Date printed: SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES Inventory Extent: 1.25 linear ft. (3 boxes). Frank, John P., 1917-2002- John P. Frank, a noted attorney and constitutional scholar, was born in 1917. He received his LL.B. at the University of Wisconsin, and his J.S.D. from Yale University. He was law clerk to Justice Hugo L. Black at the October, 1942 term, among other prominent positions. He taught law from 1946 to 1954 at Indiana and Yale Universities. He has authored 12 books on the Supreme Court, the Constitution and constitutional law. A senior partner with the Phoenix firm of Lewis and Roca, which he joined in 1954, Frank was lead counsel on the ground-breaking Miranda v. Arizona case, and served as counsel to Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. While serving on the Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, Frank led a group that worked on drafting revisions to Rule 11 attorney sanctions. Frank also served from 1960 to 1970 on the Advisory Committee of Civil Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Scope and Content: The collection consists of research into U.S. Supreme Court nominations of the 19th and 20th centuries, and includes 8 inches of printed materials and 7 microfilm reels (35mm), 1823-1939 (bulk 1860-1939), collected by Frank, for a research project concerning Supreme Court nominations.
    [Show full text]
  • Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: a Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, but a Step Toward Tax Integrity Gordon T
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 49 | Issue 1 Article 1 1-1997 Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity Gordon T. Butler Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gordon T. Butler, Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity, 49 Hastings L.J. 1 (1997). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol49/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity by GORDON T. BUTLER* Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................... 2 I. The Problem of the Deficit and the Budget Process ............... 4 II. The Line Item Veto ...................................................... 21 A. 1995 Congressional Proposals ................................. 21 (1) House Bill 2 and "Enhanced Rescission" ................ 22 (2) Senate Bill 4 and "Separate Enrollment". ............... 24 B. The Line Item Veto of 1996 ...................................... 26 (1) The Act ....................................................... 26 (2) Constitutionality of the Line Item Veto .................. 31 (a) Separate Enrollment Form ............................... 41 (b) Enhanced Rescission Form ............................ 43 (3) Comparison with State Item Veto Authority ............... 52 (4) Critique of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 ............. 56 m. Are "Tax Expenditures" Expenditures? .........
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution and Expansion of Eleventh Amendment Immunity: Legal Implications for Public Institutions of Higher Education Krista Michele Mooney
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2005 The Evolution and Expansion of Eleventh Amendment Immunity: Legal Implications for Public Institutions of Higher Education Krista Michele Mooney Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION THE EVOLUTION AND EXPANSION OF ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY: LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION By KRISTA MICHELE MOONEY A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Semester Approved Fall Semester, 2005 Copyright © 2005 Krista Michele Mooney All Rights Reserved The members of the committee approved the dissertation of Krista Michele Mooney defended on October 7, 2005. ______________________________ Joseph C. Beckham Professor Directing Dissertation ______________________________ Michael J. Mondello Outside Committee Member ______________________________ Dale W. Lick Committee Member ______________________________ Robert A. Schwartz Committee Member Approved: ____________________________________________________________________________ Joseph C. Beckham, Interim Chair, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii For my mother and father: my sounding boards, my cheerleaders, my
    [Show full text]
  • Congress's Power to Promote the Progress of Science: Eldred V. Ashcroft
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2002 Congress's Power to Promote the Progress of Science: Eldred v. Ashcroft Lawrence B. Solum Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/879 http://ssrn.com/abstract=337182 36 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1-82 (2002) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons CONGRESS'S POWER TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE: ELDRED V. ASHCROFT* Lawrence B. Solum** I. INTRODUCTION: ELDRED V. ASHCROFT ................................... 3 A. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act ................. 4 B. ProceduralHistory ............................................................ 7 II. A TEXTUAL AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COPYRIGHT C LA U SE .......................................................................................... 10 A. The Structure of the Clause .................................................... 11 1. The parallel construction of the copyright and patent powers in the Intellectual Property Clause .................... 11 2. The structure of the Copyright Clause ........................... 12 * © 2002 by the Author. Permission is hereby granted to duplicate this Essay for classroom use and for the inclusion of excerpts of any length in edu- cational materials of any kind, so long as the author and original publication is clearly identified and this notice is included. Permission for other uses may be obtained from the Author. ** Visiting Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law and Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow, Loyola Law School, Loyola Marymount University.
    [Show full text]
  • Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2
    TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Bill of Rights 66 Birth Control and Contraception 71 Abington School District v. Schempp 1 Hugo L. Black 73 Ableman v. Booth 1 Harry A. Blackmun 75 Abortion 2 John Blair, Jr. 77 Adamson v. California 8 Samuel Blatchford 78 Adarand Constructors v. Peña 8 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell 79 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 10 Bob Jones University v. United States 80 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 13 Boerne v. Flores 81 Advisory Opinions 15 Bolling v. Sharpe 81 Affirmative Action 15 Bond v. United States 82 Afroyim v. Rusk 21 Boumediene v. Bush 83 Age Discrimination 22 Bowers v. Hardwick 84 Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 24 Boyd v. United States 86 Allgeyer v. Louisiana 26 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 86 Americans with Disabilities Act 27 Joseph P. Bradley 87 Antitrust Law 29 Bradwell v. Illinois 89 Appellate Jurisdiction 33 Louis D. Brandeis 90 Argersinger v. Hamlin 36 Brandenburg v. Ohio 92 Arizona v. United States 36 William J. Brennan, Jr. 92 Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing David J. Brewer 96 Development Corporation 37 Stephen G. Breyer 97 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 38 Briefs 99 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority 38 Bronson v. Kinzie 101 Assembly and Association, Freedom of 39 Henry B. Brown 101 Arizona v. Gant 42 Brown v. Board of Education 102 Atkins v. Virginia 43 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 104 Automobile Searches 45 Brown v. Maryland 106 Brown v. Mississippi 106 Bad Tendency Test 46 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 107 Bail 47 Buchanan v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins and Meaning of the Intellectual Property Clause
    THE ORIGINS AND MEANING OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CLAUSE Dotan Oliar* ABSTRACT In Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) the Supreme Court reaffirmed the primacy of historical and textual considerations in delineating Congress’ power and limitations under the Intellectual Property Clause. Nevertheless, the Court overlooked what is perhaps the most important source of information regarding these considerations: The debates in the federal Constitutional Convention that led to the adoption of the Clause. To date, several unsettled questions stood in the way of identifying fully the legislative history behind the Clause. Thus, the Article goes through a combined historical and quantitative fact-finding process that culminates in identifying eight proposals for legislative power from which the Clause originated. Having clarified the legislative history, the Article proceeds to examine the process by which various elements of these proposals were combined to produce the Clause. This process of textual putting together reveals, among other things, that the text “promote the progress of science and useful arts” serves as a limitation on Congress’ power to grant intellectual property rights. The Article offers various implications for intellectual property doctrine and policy. It offers a model to describe the power and limitations set in the Clause. It examines the way in which Courts have enforced the limitations in the Clause. It reveals a common thread of non-deferential review running through Court decisions to date, for which it supplies normative justifications. It thus concludes that courts should examine in future and pending cases whether the Progress Clause’s limitation has been overreached. Since Eldred and other cases have not developed a concept of progress for the Clause yet, the Article explores several ways in which courts could do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Justices
    The Supreme Court Justices Supreme Court Justices *asterick denotes chief justice John Jay* (1789-95) Robert C. Grier (1846-70) John Rutledge* (1790-91; 1795) Benjamin R. Curtis (1851-57) William Cushing (1790-1810) John A. Campbell (1853-61) James Wilson (1789-98) Nathan Clifford (1858-81) John Blair, Jr. (1790-96) Noah Haynes Swayne (1862-81) James Iredell (1790-99) Samuel F. Miller (1862-90) Thomas Johnson (1792-93) David Davis (1862-77) William Paterson (1793-1806) Stephen J. Field (1863-97) Samuel Chase (1796-1811) Salmon P. Chase* (1864-73) Olliver Ellsworth* (1796-1800) William Strong (1870-80) ___________________ ___________________ Bushrod Washington (1799-1829) Joseph P. Bradley (1870-92) Alfred Moore (1800-1804) Ward Hunt (1873-82) John Marshall* (1801-35) Morrison R. Waite* (1874-88) William Johnson (1804-34) John M. Harlan (1877-1911) Henry B. Livingston (1807-23) William B. Woods (1881-87) Thomas Todd (1807-26) Stanley Matthews (1881-89) Gabriel Duvall (1811-35) Horace Gray (1882-1902) Joseph Story (1812-45) Samuel Blatchford (1882-93) Smith Thompson (1823-43) Lucius Q.C. Lamar (1883-93) Robert Trimble (1826-28) Melville W. Fuller* (1888-1910) ___________________ ___________________ John McLean (1830-61) David J. Brewer (1890-1910) Henry Baldwin (1830-44) Henry B. Brown (1891-1906) James Moore Wayne (1835-67) George Shiras, Jr. (1892-1903) Roger B. Taney* (1836-64) Howell E. Jackson (1893-95) Philip P. Barbour (1836-41) Edward D. White* (1894-1921) John Catron (1837-65) Rufus W. Peckham (1896-1909) John McKinley (1838-52) Joseph McKenna (1898-1925) Peter Vivian Daniel (1842-60) Oliver W.
    [Show full text]