Content area
Full Text
Every first-year law student learns that the United States Supreme Court only presides over real "cases" and "controversies," according to the Constitution in Article III, Section 2. No matter how pressing the concern, the Supreme Court must wait for a properly litigated case involving adverse parties disputing a live issue to wind its way through the lower courts up to what is the highest court in the land.
Because Supreme Court decisions are binding throughout the nation, it's important that the cases involve competing camps with a bona fide stake in winning, a scenario that helps ensure all points are properly argued. Also, given the extraordinary powers granted to this unelected branch of government, it's important that the Supreme Court adheres to protocol by not proactively inserting itself into the legislative or executive processes.
But sometimes funny business happens. This article explores two historical cases: Barbier v. Connolly, which rigged the proceedings, and Lochner v. New York, which launched a notorious preemptive strike against a law.
Barbier v. Connolly
Measures are firmly in place to impose significant burdens on anyone attempting to manipulate the judicial process by bringing a phony case to the Supreme Court in which the parties, rather than clash, collude to persuade the justices to reach a particular decision. Nevertheless, at least one such case, Barbier v. Connolly, from 1885, slipped through. It involved legislation meant to curb laundries owned by Chinese immigrants.
Tens of thousands of Chinese immigrants, the vast majority of them men, settled in the American West after the California Gold Rush that began in 1848. Driven out of mining and other vocations by violence and harassment stemming from prejudice, many arrivals wound up owning laundries. Pretty soon, the Chinese dominated the industry throughout the West.
But anti-Chinese forces refused to leave them in peace. The hatemongers charged that the Chinese crowded out American widows and other single women from working as laundresses, thereby forcing the fair sex to resort to prostitution. The objectors also claimed Chinese laundries were a fire hazard and used unsanitary methods, plus lowered property values.
Calls for boycotts, however, largely failed because Chinese laundries provided a useful service that relieved homeowners of physical drudgery. Opponents of the Chinese then turned to legislation.
San Francisco,...