,
10 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Error in J. Thomas's dissent in Flowers. Strauder *did not* declare the West Virginia jury segregation law unconstitutional. This is a common myth about the case. Rather, #SCOTUS held that removal provision in Civil Rights Act was constitutional, and case should have been removed 
Here is discussion of Strauder in Introduction to Constitutional Law w/ @RandyEBarnett - J. Thomas should correct this error. #SCOTUS
Thanks @michaelmorley11 for the note
Most casebooks teach Strauder as an equal protection case. It is, only indirectly. If the WV law violated equal protection, then Cong has the Section 5 powers to enact removal provision
Thomas is wrong to say #scotus "invalidated" the WV law. There was no declaration or an injunction. The discussion of the Equal Protection Clause only informed Section 5 analysis. Thomas should have used a different way to describe Strauder
I'll offer a functional test: after Strauder did WV stop enforcing the segregated jury law? Were any other precautions overturned on this basis? I think the answer is no. The law retained all force after Strauder. I do not know if other removals were successful
To make the point more diretly, this case presented an as-applied challenge to congress's section 5 powers. In this case, the wv law violated EPC. Therefore removal was appropriate. In other cases, w/o EPC violation, removal would not be appropriate
The majority opinion in Flowers also misstates the holding of Strauder. Scotus did not declare the WV statute unconstitutional. Rather, bc the law violated the EPC, Cong then had the Section 5 powers to remove Strauder's case
This passage from J. Kavanaugh's majority opinion in Strauder really should have cited J. Souter in McCreary County: "the world is not made brand new every morning."
I had not noticed till now that Thomas did not respectfully dissent in Flowers. "I dissent." As of 2015, CT only had one disrespectful dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart joshblackman.com/blog/2015/03/2…
