In November, 2013, Robert Miller was driving through Wyoming on his way to his home in Illinois. During a traffic stop, a state trooper discovered $470,040 in cash in his car. And took it. Just last week, the Wyoming State Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the State of Wyoming had to return the cash it had taken from Mr. Miller during the stop. Criminal charges were never filed against Mr. Miller, yet the state intended to keep the cash it had confiscated pursuant to the Orwellian Newspeak term “civil asset forfeiture.”
This is the U.S. Supreme Court case that ended the Lochner era of jurisprudence. It is allegedly the “switch in time that saved nine,” a reference to the Court abruptly changing course shortly after FDR announced his court packing plan. Justice Owen Roberts, in a span of a few months, changed his vote from a similar case and allowed the State of Washington, in this case, to implement a minimum wage law for women. It was another step in the direction of the intrusive, bureaucratic, centrally planned regulatory state that now exists.
Just this week, a unanimous D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a lawsuit filed by over 200 members of Congress alleging Donald Trump is in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. The court held the members of Congress did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. So this week, we discuss the Emoluments Clause itself and the concept of judicial “standing.” What does they mean? Check out this week’s edition of The Law for the answer.
This 5-4 Supreme Court decision—which struck down a state regulation that made it a crime to allow an employee to work more than 60 hours a week as a violation of an individual’s liberty to contract—is largely ridiculed in law schools today and by modern central planners. Find out why.