Most Important USSC Cases You've Never Heard Of

[Admiral Yi]

From an Atlantic article, in which prominent American lawyers were asked to name the most important case no one has heard of. A fun little test of esoteric knowledge for our shysters, shyster wannabes, and aspiring shysters.  Tell me what the following cases were about.

1. Schenck v. United States (1919)
2. Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
3. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)
4. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
5. United States v. Munsingwear (1950)
6. Michael H. vs. Gerald D. (1989)
7. Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

The last one is a non-case; Theodore Olson proposed the John Jay court's decision to not grant Jefferson an advisory opinion on the legality of France commissioning privateers in the US.

[The Minsky Moment]

Shenck, Wickard, Belloti and Buckley all relate to recent "hot" matters and appear to be chosen more with regard to recent news.  I would also not consider either Buckley or Wickard to be remotely esoteric.  Munsingwear IS esoteric but not exactly of staggering importance except for the most dedicated watchers of the appellate court.

Michael H v. Gerald D I had to look up. 

[dps]

Shenck, Wickard, Belloti and Buckley all relate to recent "hot" matters and appear to be chosen more with regard to recent news.  I would also not consider either Buckley or Wickard to be remotely esoteric.  Munsingwear IS esoteric but not exactly of staggering importance except for the most dedicated watchers of the appellate court.

Michael H v. Gerald D I had to look up. 

Yeah, Munsingwear and Micheal H v. Gerald D are the only ones that I'd say are obscure (though Wickard would be if it hadn't been brought up in the debate over Obamacare) and I really don't see where there's any great importance to Munsingwear.  Micheal H v. Gerald D is really obscure, but it is a pretty broad ruling, and it might be important in the debate over gay marriage.

[garbon]

Micheal H v. Gerald D is really obscure, but it is a pretty broad ruling, and it might be important in the debate over gay marriage.

Ooh that one looks kinda dreadful. /those people sound like they were in a soap opera.

[Scipio]

I recognized all of them by name, although I'm hazy on Munsingwear without searching for it.

But then again, I teach two courses a year on constitutional law, so I'm not a typical shyster.

[Barrister]

I'm vaguely tempted to come up with a list of the 10 most important SCC cases you've never heard of, but I suspect only malthus and CC would recognize any of them...

[Barrister]

Here's a link to the original article by the way:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/the-big-question/309290/

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm reluctant to challenge Ted Olson on a constitutional matter, but I think he may have misunderstood the import of John Jay's refusal in 1793.  It was not a blanket refusal to provide advisory opinions, and indeed a later Chief Justice (Ellsworth) did provide advisory opinions on a couple of significant occasions.  If one reads Jay's response carefully, it is really more of a polite way of saying that the President cannot compel the Court to give advisory opinions, and not a renunciation of any authority to do so.  (A delicate thing since it essentially involved a rebuke to George Washington who Jay and every one else greatly respected).  The actual reason for the refusal is more complicated, and relates to the fact that Washington's cabinet never properly formulated the questions to be asked, and also Jay's political support for Hamilton's position that such foreign policy matters should be resolved by the cabinet.

[Barrister]

I'm reluctant to challenge Ted Olson on a constitutional matter, but I think he may have misunderstood the import of John Jay's refusal in 1793.  It was not a blanket refusal to provide advisory opinions, and indeed a later Chief Justice (Ellsworth) did provide advisory opinions on a couple of significant occasions.  If one reads Jay's response carefully, it is really more of a polite way of saying that the President cannot compel the Court to give advisory opinions, and not a renunciation of any authority to do so.  (A delicate thing since it essentially involved a rebuke to George Washington who Jay and every one else greatly respected).  The actual reason for the refusal is more complicated, and relates to the fact that Washington's cabinet never properly formulated the questions to be asked, and also Jay's political support for Hamilton's position that such foreign policy matters should be resolved by the cabinet.

Yeah, I was a little surprised to see that supposedly the USSC doesn't do opinions.  The SCC does them from time to time, because it makes far more sense to go and ask if something is constitutional, rather than go ahead and hope.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah, I was a little surprised to see that supposedly the USSC doesn't do opinions.  The SCC does them from time to time, because it makes far more sense to go and ask if something is constitutional, rather than go ahead and hope.

The USSC stopped issuing them in 1800. The reason is that they weren't asked to issue them anymore.  Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe weren't about to invite John Marshall to give his views; Quincy Adams didn't need legal advice from anyone, and Jackson wouldn't listen to anyone anyways.  So decades went by without any requests for advisory opinions, and practices in the absences of usages tend to wither.

[dps]

Here's a link to the original article by the way:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/the-big-question/309290/

Oooh, some of those were put forward by people with axes to grind, weren't they?