The case of In re Gault (1967) extended Miranda rights to juveniles. However, recent studies show that approximately 90% of juveniles waive their Miranda rights during custodial interrogations, despite serious concerns that many are not capable of knowingly waiving those rights. The Supreme Court declined to review the case of H. v. California in 2016, which involved the question of whether a 10 year-old murder suspect could voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive his Miranda rights during custodial interrogation.
Intellectual Property fans will rejoice in knowing that one of the two longest English words with no repeating letters is ‘uncopyrightable‘. The other, also 15 letters long, is ‘dermatoglyphics‘ (the study of skin patterns). This also has a legal connection, since the study includes fingerprints, used in forensic science.
The Child Labor Amendment is an unratified amendment proposed in 1924, which would grant Congress the authority to regulate the labor of children under the age of 18. It was ratified by 28 states, the last in 1937, and is still pending as no deadline for ratification was specified. The proposed amendment was the subject of the landmark case of Coleman v. Miller (1939), which held that if an amendment did not contain a ratification deadline, it did not expire.
The text reads:
Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.
Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress.
The last amendment sent to the states for ratification was the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, a failed amendment that would have given D.C. full representation in Congress, in the Electoral College, and in the Constitutional amendment process. It was proposed by Congress in August 1978, and was ratified by only 16 states at the time of its expiration in August 1985. It would also have repealed the Twenty-Third Amendment, which grants citizens living in D.C. the right to vote in presidential elections by giving it Electoral College votes as if it were a state, provided it not exceed the electoral votes of the least populous state.
It stated:
Section 1. For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State.
Section 2. The exercise of the rights and powers conferred under this article shall be by the people of the District constituting the seat of government, and as shall be provided by the Congress.
Section 3. The twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 4. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
The President is given the pardon power under Article II, section 2 of the Constitution, which states that the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment”. Presidential pardons are therefore only applicable to federal offenses, and cannot be granted for state crimes. Pardon petitions are addressed to the President but usually referred further to the Office of the Pardon Attorney for a non-binding recommendation. A symbolic use of this power is the annual pardoning of a turkey as part of the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation.
As the Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, Congress has the authority to do so. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at 6 justices, although it has ranged from a low of 5 (in 1801) to a high of 10 (in 1863). The current number of justices, 9, was established by the Judiciary Act of 1869.
The 19th amendment to the Constitution, which granted women the right to vote, was originally introduced in Congress in 1878 but was rejected by the Senate. It was reintroduced in 1918 but failed. It was approved by both houses of Congress in 1919 and submitted to the states, with Tennessee being the 36th and final state which voted for its ratification in 1920. It effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett (1875), in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the 14th Amendment did not give women the right to vote. Twelve more states have ratified it since, with Mississippi being the last in 1984 (after having originally rejected its ratification in 1920). The Amendment was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922).
In 1971 a plaintiff filed a pauper’s suit in U.S. District Court, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, against Satan and his servants. Plaintiff alleged that Satan had “threatened him, caused him misery, impeded his course in life, and generally precipitated his downfall”. His suit was unsuccessful, the court denying him relief on the grounds that (a) it had “serious doubts that the complaint reveals a cause of action upon which relief can be granted”; (b) there were no allegations of defendant’s residence in the district; and (c) if allowed, the Court could not determine if the plaintiff would “fairly protect the interests of the class”. The Court also noted that plaintiff had not provided instructions as to how to serve process upon the defendant. The case may be found at U.S. ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan And His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (1971).
Two of America’s most famous “founding fathers” are not signatories to the Constitution: Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as ambassador to France; and John Adams, who was serving as ambassador to Great Britain.
In June of this year the Supreme Court altered the online retail landscape in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018). In a 5-4 decision, the Court overruled Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992), which held that the Dormant Commerce Clause prevented states from requiring sellers without a ‘physical presence’ in the state to collect sales or use taxes, ruling that the decision was “unsound and incorrect” given the “Internet’s prevalence and power have changed the dynamics of the national economy.” In his dissent, Justice Roberts agreed that previous precedent had been “wrongly decided” but believed stare decisis weighed heavily against overruling Quill and that it was the job of Congress rather than the Supreme Court to change law in this area. As a result of this ruling, many states have passed or are drafting laws requiring remote sellers to collect sales tax, so online buyers will soon have to start paying state and local sales tax on many of their purchases.
While common in European countries, only 3 US states have ‘duty to rescue’ laws, otherwise known colloquially as ‘bad Samaritan laws’, on the books. These laws, which exist in Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont, make it a crime to not provide reasonable assistance to a stranger in distress. These laws have proven to be very controversial, with critics pointing to issues such as unenforceability, government overreach, and the risk that it will lead to more unintended deaths among would-be rescuers. Indeed, a 2006 article in the Texas Law Review by Professor David Hyman argues that would-be rescuers are at least 65 times more likely to die than are victims of non- rescue.
Earlier this year California became the first state to eliminate cash bail, replacing it with a system based on assessment of a defendant’s risk to public safety. Critics of the cash bail system had long argued that cash bail perpetuates economic inequality. Under The California Money Bail Reform Act, which takes effect in October 2019, the court or a public agency would assess defendants to ascertain the risk of recidivism or pretrial flight before making recommendations for conditions for release. Defendants deemed high risk, including those arrested for violent felonies, would be deemed ineligible for bail. The ACLU has expressed opposition to the Act on the grounds that it does not sufficiently prevent racial bias from affecting the pretrial release process.