Cases - 1950 term

Dean Milk Company v. Madison

Thu, 07 Dec 1950 13:00:00 +0000

Location

City of Madison: City Hall

"210 Martin Luther King**** Jr. Blvd. " Madison WI 53703

Madison, WI 53703

United States

43° 4' 21.5976" N, 89° 22' 55.8696" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

258

Appellant

Dean Milk Company

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Madison

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Opinion

340 U.S. 349 (1951)

Argued

Thursday, December 7, 1950

Decided

Monday, January 15, 1951

Advocates

George S. Geffs (argued the cause for the appellant)

Jacob Geffs (argued the cause for the appellant)

Walter P. Ela (argued the cause for the appellee)

Harold E. Hanson (argued the cause for the appellee)

Facts of the Case

A Madison, Wisconsin ordinance prohibited the sale of milk within city limits unless it came from a local farm or was pasteurized at an approved plant within five miles of the center of Madison. When the Dean Milk Company, located in Illinois, was denied a permit to sell milk, it filed suit against the city.

Question

Did the Madison ordinance unconstitutionally interfere with interstate commerce?

Conclusion

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Wisconsin ordinance imposed an "undue burden" on interstate commerce. The Court argued that general discrimination against non-local producers was not narrowly tailored to serve the city's interests. Reasonable, nondiscriminatory alternatives were available to ensure milk sold in the city was wholesome and properly pasteurized. "To permit Madison to adopt a regulation not essential for the protection of local health interest and placing a discriminatory burden on interstate commerce would invite a multiplication of preferential trade areas destructive of the very purpose of the Commerce Clause."

Dennis v. United States

Fri, 01 Dec 1950 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Communist Party USA New York, NY

United States

40° 42' 51.6708" N, 74° 0' 21.5028" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

336

Petitioner

Dennis

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Opinion

341 U.S. 494 (1951)

Argued

Friday, December 1, 1950

Decided

Monday, June 4, 1951

Advocates

George W. Crockett, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Abraham J. Isserman (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Philip H. Perlman (Argued the cause for the United States)

Irving S. Shapiro (Argued the cause for the United States)

Harry Sacher (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

In 1948, the leaders of the Communist Part of America were arrested and charged with violating provisions of the Smith Act. The Act made it unlawful to knowingly conspire to teach and advocate the overthrow or destruction of the United States government. Party leaders were found guilty and lower courts upheld the conviction.

Question

Did the Smith Act's restrictions on speech violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: US Const Amend 1; 18 U.S.C. §§ 10, 11

In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court upheld the convictions of the Communist Party leaders and found that the Smith Act did not "inherently" violate the First Amendment. In the plurality opinion, the Court held that there was a distinction between the mere teaching of communist philosophies and active advocacy of those ideas. Such advocacy created a "clear and present danger" that threatened the government. Given the gravity of the consequences of an attempted putsch, the Court held that success or probability of success was not necessary to justify restrictions on the freedom of speech.

Feiner v. New York

jgoldman — Tue, 17 Oct 1950 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Where Feiner made his speech

South McBride and Harrison St Syracuse NY 13202

Syracuse, NY 13202

United States

43° 2' 39.12" N, 76° 8' 38.04" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Irving Feiner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Opinion

340 U.S. 315 (1951)

Argued

Tuesday, October 17, 1950

Decided

Monday, January 15, 1951

Advocates

Sidney Greenberg (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Emanuel Redfield (argued the cause for the petitioner)

Dan J. Kelly (argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

On March 8, 1949, Irving Feiner, a white student at Syracuse University, made an inflammatory speech on a street corner in Syracuse, New York. During the speech, which was intended to encourage listeners to attend a leftist rally, Feiner made several disparaging remarks about local politicians, organizations, and President Truman. A crowd gathered, and several listeners began "muttering" and "shoving." One listener threatened Feiner. Two officers on the scene, fearing violence, asked Feiner twice to end his speech. After he refused, the officers arrested Feiner for inciting a breach of the peace. A trial court found Feiner guilty and sentenced him to thirty days in prison. On appeal, Feiner argued his arrest violated his right to free speech under the First Amendment. The Onondaga County Court and the New York Court of Appeals each denied his claim.

Question

Did Feiner's arrest for inciting a breach of the peace violate his right to free speech under the First Amendment?

Conclusion

No. In a 6-3 opinion authored by Chief Justice Fred Vinson, the Court applied the "clear and present danger" principle it originally articulated in Schenck v. United States (1919). According to the Court, Feiner's arrest was a valid exercise of "the interest of the community in maintaining peace and order on its streets." The Chief Justice dismissed the notion that the arrest amounted to the suppression of free communication. "It is one thing to say that the police cannot be used as an instrument for the suppression of unpopular views, and another to say that, when as here the speaker passes the bounds of argument or persuasion and undertakes incitement to riot, they are powerless to prevent a breach of the peace."

McGrath v. Kristensen

jgoldman — Thu, 19 Oct 1950 13:00:00 +0000

Location

US Department of Justice

633 Indiana Ave NW Washington DC 20004

Washington, DC 20004

United States

38° 53' 39.8976" N, 77° 1' 15.8808" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

J. Howard McGrath, Attorney General

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kristensen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Opinion

340 U.S. 162 (1950)

Argued

Thursday, October 19, 1950

Decided

Monday, December 11, 1950

Advocates

Robert W. Ginnane (argued the cause for the petitioner)

David W. Louisell (argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Kristensen was a Danish citizen who entered the United States on a sixty-day visitor's visa in August 1939 to visit the World's Fair and his relatives. World War II began in September, and Kristensen was forced to remain in the United States. He obtained two six-month extensions of his visa. During his second extension, he became gainfully employed in violation of the terms of his visa, and was ordered to be deported in 1941. Since World War II continued during this period, he was not deported. Kristensen successfully sought to be exempted from military service. Under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, however, this exemption caused him to be ineligible for naturalization as a citizen. He married an American citizen, and after the conclusion of the war, sought to have his deportation suspended under Section 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917. Since only foreign citizens who were eligible for naturalization could have their deportations suspended, the Attorney General denied Kristensen's request. Though he was never arrested, he challenged his deportation in United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which dismissed his case. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed this decision, holding that the Selective Training and Service Act applied only to aliens "residing in the United States" and Kristensen was not "residing in the United States" at the time of his exemption.

Question

(1)Was Kristensen entitled to challenge his deportation in federal court even though he was never arrested?

(2)Was Kristensen "residing in the United States" at the time of his exemption from military service and therefore ineligible for naturalization?

Conclusion

Yes and no. In an 8-1 decision, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held that Kristensen was not only entitled to challenge his deportation, but that he was eligible for naturalization. Writing for the majority, Justice Stanley F. Reed established that Kristensen's case resulted from a federal law, and "as such a controversy over federal laws, it is within the jurisdiction of the federal courts." While the Court noted in the ambiguity in the Selective Training and Serivce Act, a regulation stating that all foreign citizens were "residents" was issued in May 1942. Since Kristensen "never declared an intention to become a citizen of the United States" and sought his exemption before the date he became a "resident," he was still a nonresident when he applied for exemption. As a nonresident, he was not barred from seeking naturalization under the Selective Training and Service Act. Justice Robert H. Jackson authored a concurring opinion. Justice Hugo L. Black concurred in the judgment. Justice Tom C. Clark did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case.