Five Hilarious Supreme Court Cases

Five Hilarious Supreme Court Cases

These are the silliest cases to ever be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court
9373
views

Since 1789 the United States Supreme Court has seen a surplus of cases; some more controversial than others. Cases like Roe v. Wade or Miranda v. Arizona have made a major impact in the present. However, this article is going to put the spotlight on five hilarious cases that have made its way to the highest federal court in the United States.

5. United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar

The first case on this list is very special in its own unique way. This Supreme Court case is one of those rare instances when an inanimate object, instead of an actual individual or a group of people. In U.S. v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar manufacturer, Douglas Packing Company's secret to their apple cider vinegar was dehydrating fresh apples, the manufacturer would then re-hydrate those same apples with pure water, thus producing their vinegar.

The Supreme Court held that apple cider vinegar can be misleading to consumers. What exactly do I mean by this? Well, the label that was issued on said product indicated that the vinegar was made from "selected" apples.

4. Coates v. Cincinnati

In this strange case, the Supreme Court Justices were asked to define the word "annoying." Fast forward to 1956 the city of Cincinnati, Ohio passed local legislation, which states that "It shall be unlawful for three or more persons to assemble, except at a public meeting of citizens, on any of the sidewalks, street corners, vacant lots or mouths of alleys, and there conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by, or occupants of adjacent buildings "

Many students including the Plaintiff, Mr. Coates found it impossible for the city to determine what one individual might constitute as "annoying," which would make this law extremely broad and unconstitutional as it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

The court in Coates stroke down the law and held that “The ordinance before us makes a crime out of what under the Constitution cannot be a crime. It is aimed directly at activity protected by the Constitution. We need not lament that we do not have before us the details of the conduct found to be annoying.”

3. United States v. Causby

Up until 1946 American property owners would live by the phrase, Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelumet ad inferos, which is Latin for “whoever owns the soil, it’s theirs, all the way to heaven and hell." Yup, back then old English common law gave property owners the big thumbs up to do numerous things to their property such as mining or drilling for oil.

In U.S. v. Causby Thomas Lee Causby owned a chicken farm near a North Carolina military airstrip. Unfortunately, due to the sound of low-flying planes, many of Causby's chickens were startled, causing many chickens their untimely deaths. After losing 150 of his chickens, Causby was forced to give up his farm, he then turned around and sued the federal government, seeking compensation under the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment’s.

The court held that property does not extend indefinitely upward, thus eliminating "ad coelum," holding that "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere."

Without this ruling, your favorite airline(s) would have to apply for thousands upon thousands of permits just to make those long distance flights. So thank you, Mr. Causby, (sorry about your chickens though).

2. Rowan v. United States Post Office Department

Don't you just hate that pesky junk mail? Don't you just wish you could just remove your name from the recipient list? Well, legally YOU CAN!

In 1967, the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act required all businesses to stop sending erotic material to individual households, so long as the recipient requested it. The appellants claimed that this act was a restriction on a businesses freedom of speech. Unfortunately for them, the court thought otherwise.

In Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. the court held (1.) the statute allows the addressee unreviewable discretion to decide whether he wishes to receive any further material from a particular sender; (2.) a vendor does not have a constitutional right to send unwanted material into someone's home, and a mailer's right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee; (3.) the statute comports with the Due Process Clause, as it provides for an administrative hearing if the sender violates the Postmaster General's prohibitory order, and a judicial hearing prior to issuance of any compliance order by a district court; and (4.) the statute does not violate due process by requiring that the sender removed the complaining addressee' name from his mailing lists, nor is the statute unconstitutionally vague, as the sender knows precisely what he must do when he receives a prohibitory order.

1. Nix v. Hedden

Ah, the million dollar question - "tomato: fruit? or a vegetable?" Now you can hear good reasons as to why a tomato is one and not the other, but according to this 1893 case tomatoes legally are considered "vegetables" under the Tariff Act of 1883.

Back during the 1880s, the Port of New York placed a tax on tomatoes as vegetables. The Nix family, who were known to import a surplus of tomatoes, sued to reclaim all the money they lost from the taxes they’d paid. The Nix family argued that a tomato was in fact, a fruit, with the textbook definition of fruit as one of the many pieces of evidence to prove their argument.

The court held that "the passages cited from the dictionaries define the word 'fruit' as the seed of plants, or that part of plants which contains the seed, and especially the juicy, pulpy products of certain plants, covering and containing the seed. These definitions have no tendency to show that tomatoes are 'fruit,' as distinguished from 'vegetables,' in common speech."

Popular Right Now

6 Things You Should Know About The Woman Who Can't Stand Modern Feminism

Yes, she wants to be heard too.

90282
views

2018 is sort of a trap for this woman. She believes in women with all of the fire inside of her, but it is hard for her to offer support when people are making fools of themselves and disguising it as feminism.

The fact of the matter is that women possess qualities that men don't and men possess qualities that women don't. That is natural. Plus, no one sees men parading the streets in penis costumes complaining that they don't get to carry their own fetus for nine months.

1. She really loves and values women.

She is incredibly proud to be a woman.

She knows the amount of power than a woman's presence alone can hold. She sees when a woman walks into a room and makes the whole place light up. She begs that you won't make her feel like a "lady hater" because she doesn't want to follow a trend that she doesn't agree with.

2. She wants equality, too

She has seen the fundamental issues in the corporate world, where women and men are not receiving equal pay.

She doesn't cheer on the businesses that don't see women and men as equivalents. But she does recognize that if she works her butt off, she can be as successful as she wants to.

3. She wears a bra.

While she knows the "I don't have to wear a bra for society" trend isn't a new one, but she doesn't quite get it. Like maybe she wants to wear a bra because it makes her feel better. Maybe she wears a bra because it is the normal things to do... And that's OK.

Maybe she wants to put wear a lacy bra and pretty makeup to feel girly on .a date night. She is confused by the women who claim to be "fighting for women," because sometimes they make her feel bad for expressing her ladyhood in a different way than them.

4. She hates creeps just as much as you do. .

Just because she isn't a feminist does not mean that she is cool with the gruesome reality that 1 in 5 women are sexually abused.

In fact, this makes her stomach turn inside out to think about. She knows and loves people who have been through such a tragedy and wants to put the terrible, creepy, sexually charged criminals behind bars just as bad as the next woman.

Remember that just because she isn't a feminist doesn't mean she thinks awful men can do whatever they want.

5. There is a reason she is ashamed of 2018's version of feminism.

She looks at women in history who have made a difference and is miserably blown away by modern feminism's performance.

Not only have women in the past won themselves the right to vote, but also the right to buy birth control and have credit cards in their names and EVEN saw marital rape become a criminal offense.

None of them dressed in vagina costumes to win anyone over though... Crazy, right?

6. She isn't going to dress in a lady parts costume to prove a point.

This leaves her speechless. It is like the women around her have absolutely lost their minds and their agendas, only lessening their own credibility.

"Mom, what are those ladies on TV dressed up as?"

"Ummm... it looks to me like they are pink taco's honey."

She loves who she is and she cherished what makes her different from the men around her. She doesn't want to compromise who she is as a woman just so she can be "equal with men."

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Hey Donald Trump—The Media Is A Pillar Of Democracy, Not The Enemy Of The People

An attack on the media is an attack on the people.

352
views

If you know anything about Donald Trump, you know that he can't stand being criticized or bad-mouthed. He loves anyone who supports him and despises anyone who doesn't stand by him.

Trump is known for his contempt for the media. He has repeatedly labeled them as the "enemy of the people" and has claimed that approximately 80% of the "fake news" media is "dangerous and sick."

He claims that he is providing a "great service" to the American public by discrediting the media and exposing their lies. That claim is not just divisive, but incredibly dangerous. Discrediting the free press is discrediting the people. The government is always going to be criticized and the people have a right to report what is going on in the world. Any news reported that criticizes him or disagrees with his ideas is his definition of "fake news." Silencing the news and labeling anything that hurts his reputation as "fake" is an attempt to censor what the citizens are told. Once our intake of information becomes censored, we can no longer call ourselves a free nation.

News reporters and editors are human, which means that they are naturally biased. This doesn't excuse blatant false news being spread in an attempt to trick the people, but it doesn't mean that reporters should be silenced. Doing so would be detrimental to our democracy. There is misconstrued information on both sides of the political spectrum. People should think critically about the news they hear and be hesitant to accept statements without proof. However, when there is proof, you can't just call something "fake" and pretend like everything is a media-fabricated lie. We deserve more from our nation's president than slandering reporters without explanation or facts.

The president of the United States should not condone hostility toward the press. It would be acceptable to challenge what the press is reporting or provide facts to prove otherwise, but it is unacceptable to discredit them as a whole just because they say something that makes him look bad.

Bringing up the president's past and reporting the horrible things he has said is not just bogus "fake news" trying to sabotage his campaign. If you're in a position of power, people are going to hold you accountable for your wrongdoings whether you like it or not. Instead of playing the role of the victim and discrediting the press as a whole, respond to their statements respectfully. You owe it to your country to be better.

Related Content

Facebook Comments