Cases - 1944 term

Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corporation

Thu, 05 Apr 1945 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

656

Petitioner

Sinclair & Carroll Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Interchemical Corporation

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Decided By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Opinion

325 U.S. 327

Argued

Thursday, April 5, 1945

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1945

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

Thomas v. Collins

Wed, 11 Oct 1944 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Thomas

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Collins

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Decided By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Opinion

323 U.S. 516 (1945)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1944

Decided

Monday, January 8, 1945

Facts of the Case

A Texas law required union officials to obtain an organizer's card before soliciting possible members. A judge convicted a labor organizer of contempt for speaking at a union rally without a permit.

Question

Does the Texas law requiring labor organizers to secure permission to solicit members violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Yes, the law was unconstitutional. It interfered with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly which possesses "a sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious intrusions."

Korematsu v. United States

Wed, 11 Oct 1944 13:00:00 +0000

Location

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave Washington DC 20500

Washington, DC 20500

United States

38° 53' 51.7056" N, 77° 2' 11.4684" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Korematsu

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Decided By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Opinion

323 U.S. 214 (1944)

Argued

Wednesday, October 11, 1944

Decided

Monday, December 18, 1944

Facts of the Case

During World War II, Presidential Executive Order 9066 and congressional statutes gave the military authority to exclude citizens of Japanese ancestry from areas deemed critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable to espionage. Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California and violated Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army.

Question

Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Executive Order 9066; U.S. Const. amend. 5

The Court sided with the government and held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights. Justice Black argued that compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, is justified during circumstances of "emergency and peril."

Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan

Mon, 26 Mar 1945 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Southern Pacific Co. headquarters

1 Market Street San Francisco CA 94117

San Francisco, CA 94117

United States

37° 47' 38.7636" N, 122° 23' 42.396" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Southern Pacific Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Arizona ex rel. Sullivan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Decided By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Opinion

325 U.S. 761 (1945)

Argued

Monday, March 26, 1945

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1945

Facts of the Case

Arizona banned operation of trains more than 14 passenger cars of 70 freight cars long.

Question

Was the Arizona law an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Southern Pacific Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: US Const. Art 1, Section 8, Clause 3; Arizona Train Limit Law of 1912

Yes it was such a burden. The Arizona law imposed a stiff burden on the railroad. It had to operate 30 percent more trains in the state, and it had to break up and remake trains passing through the state. The total cost was several million dollars a year. Moreover, more trains would produce more accidents and the state's safety argument was empirically weak. The innovation in this decision was Stone's use of an "interest-balancing" standard of review, which proved more demanding than the earlier "rational basis" test.

Associated Press v. U. S.

Tue, 05 Dec 1944 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Associated Press

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U. S.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

Tribune Co. and McComick v. United States, No. 58

Heard By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Decided By

Stone Court (1943-1945)

Opinion

326 U.S. 1 (1945)

Argued

December 5-6, 1944

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1945

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None