exist Grant Move v. Johnsonthe Supreme Court docket upheld a neighborhood legislation banning tenting on public property. Through the course of, the courtroom refused to increase California v. Robinson (1962). I’m like this descriptive Robinson:
Robinson v. California (1962) was most likely the head of Warren Court docket radicalism. California criminalizes drug dependancy — not simply drug use use Medication, however hooked on utilizing them. Robinson argued that the legislation violated some substantive due course of rights. This occurred three years in the past Griswoldso courts stay trapped in New Deal settlements that deny substantive due course of. So what does the Warren Court docket do? It units a brand new commonplace from complete material below the Eighth Modification. Form of like a penumbra. (Griswold quote favorably Robinson.) this Robinson The courtroom held that punishing somebody due to their “standing” as a drug addict would violate the Eighth Modification. The courtroom dominated that in punishing “‘id,'”[e]Even someday in jail. . . Merciless and weird.
Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion almost dominated Robinson was wrongly determined. In fact, the courtroom declined to increase that precedent to the next details: grant move.
Now, Nat Lewin is at wall street journal How did this “sudden ruling” come about? Lewin clerked for Decide Harlan throughout that time period. Lewin and his colleagues recognized Robinson’s petition from a pile of “weak” petitions (which proved unimportant). Ought to be placed on the “Talk about” listing.
On the convention, the courtroom is predicted to rule below the Due Course of Clause:
After the justices mentioned the case at Friday’s assembly, Harlan instructed his clerks with nice satisfaction that almost all voted to vacate Robinson’s conviction. Feedback are often given the next week. To our shock, Chief Justice Earl Warren assigned Justice Stewart to Robinson. Normally no clarification is given for these assignments, however Harlan and I had hoped he would get it, however had been upset that we couldn’t formulate a call that might clarify the “severe constitutional points” that might justify shifting it from the trash Choosing it out of the bucket is cheap. Nonetheless, we consider that Stewart’s opinion will declare that due course of doesn’t enable criminalizing “the standing of a drug addict” relatively than the defendant’s conduct.
However, to Harlan’s shock, the circulating majority opinion relied as a substitute on the Eighth Modification — and the difficulty was not temporary and was barely talked about throughout oral argument.
Justice Douglas appeared to have influenced Justice Stewart:
Then, as now, the tip of each Supreme Court docket time period is chaotic. Confronted with looming deadlines, justices are writing, sending, receiving and becoming a member of majority opinions, concurrences and dissents. I bear in mind receiving this from Stuart Robinson The bulk opinion got here simply days earlier than the tip of his time period and was alarmed by its reliance on the Eighth Modification. Decide William O. Douglas, typically an outlier, issued a prolonged concurrence explaining why he believed “treating drug addicts as criminals” violated the merciless and weird punishment clause . I speculate that Douglass or his legislation clerks influenced Stewart in selecting this uncommon motive.
As I identified in my earlier article, 1962 was Griswoldwhereas the justices are nonetheless struggling below New Deal settlements. Decide Stewart continued to dissent Griswold. He was dissatisfied with substantive due course of. So, in hindsight, the choice most likely should not have been so stunning.
Harlan himself wrote a two-paragraph concurrence rejecting the Eighth Modification evaluation:
As a result of time constraints, Harlan personally wrote two paragraphs of consent expressing his disagreement with Stewart. He denied counting on the Eighth Modification, however famous that Robinson was convicted “with out extra proof than that he was in California when he was hooked on medicine.”
The Court docket will rule on 15 opinions on June 25, 1962. ) one of many circumstances is Engel v. Vitale! Robinson v. California Much less observed.
Lastly, Lewin supplies some attention-grabbing and disturbing insights into the details of the case. Robinson ended up lifeless, arguably from a drug overdose.
Neither Decide Harlan nor I knew Lawrence Robinson was black (as did the opposite three passengers within the automobile). If his case reached the Supreme Court docket at this time, he would doubtless be celebrated by the media. Reporters might uncover that Robinson died of a drug overdose on August 5, 1961, a number of months after the courtroom agreed to listen to his case.
Because it turned out, even the state’s legal professionals apparently did not know. It was not till mid-July (after I had accomplished my clerkship) that the California Legal professional Basic filed a petition to rehear or dismiss the case as a result of the petitioner had died whereas the case was pending. When the courtroom reconvened in October 1962, it denied the movement. Justices Tom Clark, Harlan and Stewart famous their dissent.
To make issues worse, Robinson’s attorneys had been doubtless conscious of his demise however did not disclose these details to the courtroom!
Robinson’s legal professional was Samuel Carter McMorris, who would later change into notorious for representing the Black Panther Celebration. Throughout McMorris’ oral arguments, he instructed the decide, who represented Robinson at trial, that he had “dealt with numerous drug circumstances” in Los Angeles courthouses and that Robinson’s case was the “third such case” during which he had personally been concerned.
Did McMorris know his consumer was lifeless? A California Supreme Court docket disciplinary choice report factors to the reply. Between 1977 and 1981, the state Superior Court docket revoked McMorris’ legislation license 4 occasions for failing to speak with purchasers. In 1983, he was disbarred.
Not solely did the courtroom fully fabricate a typical out of skinny air, it did so whereas the defendant was already lifeless! A Ninth Circuit decide as soon as signed an opinion from afar, however the final time I checked, the legal proceedings had been terminated because of demise.
Lewin ended with this query:
Do judges at this time perceive this historical past after they think about and determine whether or not to protect it? Robinson v. California As a binding precedent?
Jurisdiction could be asserted at any time, even after demise. The courtroom lacks jurisdiction to determine Robinson v. California As a result of there are not any precise circumstances or disputes. The state is prosecuting a physique. Robinson Giving new that means to habeas corpus firmus. The choice has no precedential weight. I believe the California Legal professional Basic may, a minimum of in idea, petition to vacate Robinson Based mostly on these causes. That most likely will not occur. however subsequent time Robinson When this occurs, the federal government ought to flag the difficulty.
renew: I love Olin’s postal It states that the state filed a movement to rethink after studying of Robinson’s demise. The petition was dismissed by dissent from Justices Clark, Harlan, and Stewart. That is particularly curious as a result of Justice Stewart wrote the bulk opinion! He voted to reverse his choice. I am completely satisfied to be corrected.
