For background on this fanciful case, please see https://www.sdjewishworld.com/2017/04/19/just-kidding-he-wont-return-my-chametz/
By Joel H. Cohen
NEW YORK — In sharply contested decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled in the celebrated Moe v Donald case (“he won’t return my chametz”) and several related matters, dating back to Pesach a year ago.
By a 5-4 vote, the Justices decreed that (Donald) the non-Jewish purchaser of chametz from a Jewish Pesach-observer (Moe) may not retain ownership of the contraband, although the purchase agreement did not stipulate its return.
The Court held that “the right of return “ — “more accurately, the rite of return” said Justice Ginsburg– was implicit in the agreement, although it hadn’t been spelled out. Writing for the majority, Justice Sotomayor pointed to “ages of precedent in Jewish practice” that legal possession of the chametz return to its original owner after the holiday.
In a minority opinion, newly appointed Justice Gorsuch warned that “basing decisions on other people’s legal systems was a dangerous precedent and slippery slope.”
Meanwhile, Justice Thomas, citing the writings of the late, strict constructionist Justice Antonin Scalia, said the religious freedom clause of the first amendment “does not extend to protection of so-called chametz.”
The minority opinion further stated that, historically, business deals almost always trump religious freedom issues.
(Donald, the loser in the case, cited his history of building a fortune on good deals and had based his refusal to return possession of the chametz on the fact that its one-dollar purchase price was an “outstanding”deal. He lashed out at the ”pathetic” justices who constituted the majority.)
Those majority jurists said the purchaser should have been aware of the age-old warning: “Caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware) and lawyers cited the principle, “Possession is nine-tenths of the law.”
The Court ruled that Donald must compensate Moe for some of the chametz items he had sold, including pasta and beer, which Moe claimed had gone bad in the year of controversy.
Crucial in the matter was the failure by the rabbi who brokered the transaction to specify that the dollar paid for the not-kosher-for Passover food items was only a deposit on a much larger sum, and, that if the purchaser failed to pay the balance, possession would return to the original owner
Moe sued the clergyman (identified only as Rabbi X) for this omission, and the rabbi has counter-sued for defamation, although the rabbi said that in countless Passover transactions he arranged, the purchaser had always agreed to return title to the chametz to its owner. Until now.
The Court, in another 5-4 vote, this one hailed by Donald, threw out the defamation suit. The majority commented that, unless malice can be proven on the part of the defamers, “rabbis, like rock stars, athletes and elected officials, have to expect criticism and yes, even defamation, as part of the price of their celebrity.”
“Celebrity, shmelebrity,” said Rabbi X, who claimed that, since being called a “so-called” rabbi, he hasn’t been called to preside at weddings, funerals, unveilings, bar and bat mitzvahs, or other events, and thus has suffered considerable financial loss. “Worse is the loss of my good name.” He predicted he’d be vindicated in “the Highest Court of All.”
The Supreme Court’s rulings — including dismissing Moe’s suit against the rabbi — have left some unhappy litigants. But Chief Justice Roberts commented that “decisions that leave everyone a little unhappy are probably good decisions.”
The case has attracted international attention, and there were reports that Woody Allen, Ron Howard, Martin Scorsese and the Coen brothers, among others, were planning to seek rights to produce a film about the precedent-setting case.
One report said Donald would like to play himself, which he predicted, “would make any film about the case a blockbuster hit.”
*
This column is satire. Cohen is a freelance writer based in New York. He may be contacted via joel.cohen@sdjewishworld.com