Articles

Stevens Wrote Key Minnesota Decisions for High Court

"Gigantic, willful, young, Chicago sits
at the northwest gates."
William Moody, An Ode in Time (1901)

By Marshall H. Tanick

The announcement last month by Justice John Paul Stevens that he will be stepping down form the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of this Term came as no surprise. When he departs the Bench as the Court adjourns this summer, he will have served 35 years, the fourth longest tenure on the High Court, only two years shy of the mark set by Justice William O. Douglas, whom he replaced.

The native of Chicago made his announcement in early April, offering President Obama, another Chicagoan, an opportunity to nominate a second member of the Tribunal.

During his three-plus decades on the Tribunal, Justice Stevens wrote a number of decisions involving important cases from Minnesota. Here's a half dozen of them, mostly high-profile Constitutional cases.

Search & Seizure

Justice Stevens upheld a warrantless search and seizure of illegal drugs truck in Minnesota in U.S. v. Jacobsen¸ 466 U.S. 109 (1984). The case arose after Federal Express employees at the Twin Cities Airport called an agent from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), who removed a suspicious white powder from a package, tested it, and determined that it was cocaine. A criminal conviction in U.S. District Court of the recipients of the package was upheld by Justice Stevens.

There was no impermissible "search" under the Fourth Amendment because the examination of the item did not infringe any rights of privacy. The "seizure" was not unreasonable and, therefore, did not require a warrant.

No warning was required before testing the substance to determine if it was cocaine. A test that merely discloses whether a particular item is contraband does not intrude on any "legitimate expectation of privacy."

Welfare Woes

A requirement that applicants for a Federal welfare program be informed about eligibility requirements and obligations was deemed inapplicable to certain recipients in Minnesota in Gardebring v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415 (1988).

Justice Stevens, writing for the court, reversed two lower court rulings by the U.S. District Court and 8th Circuit, and held that the notice provision did not require individual notification. It was sufficient for the state "to publish a general description of the basic structure of the AFDC program as an availability." Any more "precise mandate ... [would] interfere with the workings of government benefits programs by ordering the taking of certain affirmative steps."

As a result, the State agency was allowed to recoup payments made to recipients. His ruling brushed aside the criticism that the outcome was "unfair," noting that the "harshness of the result is somewhat mitigated" because recipient families may be immediately eligible for another, less generous form of public assistance.

Abortion Appeal

A challenge to Minnesota's parental notification requirement for abortion for minors was partially invalidated in a decision by Justice Stevens in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990). The appeal followed a 5-week trial before U.S. District Court Judge Donald Alsop concerning a law requiring that both parents be notified of a minor's decision to have an abortion, subject to a judicial bypass if the minor is deemed by a court to be "mature and capable of giving informed consent."

Justice Stevens, for a slim majority of the Court, ruled that the dual-parent notification was unconstitutional because it "unquestionably places obstacles in the pertinent minor's path to an abortion ... [and] the obstacles it imposes are not reasonably related to legitimate state interest.

But the measure was salvaged by another group of justices, upholding a 48-hour waiting period because the mechanism for court approval without dual parental consent was a reasonable restriction and that did not impose an "undue burden" on abortion rights, rendering the statute, as a whole, constitutional.

Deploying Decision

Another ruling by Judge Alsop rejecting a challenge to deploying members of the state National Guard in Central America was affirmed by Justice Stevens in Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990). Justice Stevens concurred with both Judge Alsop and the 8th Circuit, rebuffing a gubernatorial challenge to deployment of the state National Guard to Central America for training.

The "plain language" of Article I of the U.S. Constitution establishes that Congress may authorize members of the National Guard to active Federal duty for purposes of training outside the United States. The deployment can be done without the consent of the governor or a declaration of a national emergency, as argued by the state.

Spicing his decision with quotations ranging from the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton in the early days of the nation, to the views of President Theodore Roosevelt more than a century ago, he reasoned that allowing the Federal authorities to direct deployment of state National Guard members "merely recognizes the supremacy of Federal power in the area of military affairs."

Immunity Issue

Another issue involving a Minnesota elected official, former Senator Mark Dayton, was resolved unfavorably to the Minnesota office holder in Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson, 550 U.S. 511 (2007). The Senator sought to dismiss a wrongful discharge clause by an ex-employee of his staff, asserting immunity under the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court decision by Justice Stevens did not disturb, upholding a pair of lower court rulings refusing to dismiss the case. The decisions below were not appealable because there had been no "ruling upon the constitutionality" of any provision of the Federal law under which the suit had been brought, which barred the Court from having jurisdiction. No "special circumstances" warranted exercising discretion to hear the case and no conflict in lower court rulings.

Confrontation Case

One case that Justice Stevens decided for the High Court arose directly from the Minnesota Supreme Court. In Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008), the Court examined retroactivity of its ruling in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 236 (2004), which held that "testimonial statements" cannot be used against a criminal defendant unless the person making the statement is available as a witness at trial under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Subsequently, in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (2007), the Court announced a general rule against non-retroactivity of its decisions.

The Danforth case arose after a defendant was convicted in Hennepin County District Court for first degree criminal sexual conduct and challenged that determination on grounds that the use of the victim's taped interview, without testimony from the victim, violated the Confrontation standard under Crawford, even though the case predated Crawford. The Hennepin County District Court denied the Motion under Teague on grounds that Crawford did not apply retroactively, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals and State Supreme Court both affirmed.

The High Court decision by Justice Stevens reversed and remanded. The "somewhat confused and confusing" retroactivity cases in the past reflected that the general proscription does not bar state courts from giving broader effect to new rules of criminal procedure than might be accorded a Federal Court. Because the Teague restriction on retroactivity is "binding only [on] Federal habeas courts, not state courts," state courts are free to grant broader retroactivity. On remand, the State Supreme Court refused to do so, and rejected the claimant's post-conviction action. 761 N.W.2d 493 (Minn. 2009).

These cases reflect the diversity of litigations stemming from Minnesota, mostly of a constitutional nature, which have reached the Supreme Court in the past 3-1/2 decades, and how Justice Stevens has helped resolve them.