Landmark Supreme Court Case Assignment
Each of you has been assignment a Supreme Court Case that is important for one reason or another. Your task is to provide the basic details about the case to your peers to help them prepare. You need to include the following about your case:
1. BRIEF background details to the case.
2. What part of the Constitution relevant in case
3. What was the Supreme Court's ruling
For Example
Mapp v Ohio 1961
A lady (Mapp) was at home when police arrived. She refused to let them in to search for a fugitive b/c they didn't have warrant. A short time later, the police arrived again, waved a piece of paper claiming it to be a warrant, and forced their way into Mapp's house. She resisted, was handcuffed and arrested. The subsequent search turned up no fugitive but a cache of lewd materials was found and Mapp was charged with violating an Ohio law regarding possession of obscene material.
The 4th Amendment is in question dealing with searches and seizures.
Prior to this case, the Exclusionary rule had only been applied in federal cases. Since this was a state case, Mapp was convicted using the evidence found in the search. The Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule could be applied in state cases and overturned the convistion on the grounds that the search was warrantless and thus any evidence obtained inadmissable in court.
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 10:00 AM
50 comments
50 Comments:
Tinker vs. Des Moines School District
In 1965, high school students John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt wore black armbands to school to protest against Vietnam and supporting Sen. Robert Kennedy's Christmas Truce. The principles of the district set down a policy forbidding the armbands, with the punishment of suspension until the students would comply. The three aforementioned students violated this policy, and were suspended. The ACLU offered to take the case, and it was argued in the Supreme Court in November of 1968.
The Court sided with Tinker, saying that the First Amendment's right to free speech didn't end "at the schoolhouse gate." The Court said that symbolic speech such as the armbands was perfectly within the rights of students unless it would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."
McCulloch vs. Maryland
1. James W. McCulloch, a Federal cashier at the Baltimore branch of the U.S. bank, refused to pay the taxes imposed by the state. Maryland filed a suit against McCulloch in an effort to collect the taxes.
2. Expansion of federal power: Congress chartered bank, can it be taxed by the state?
3. John Marshall said, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." and that taxing banks fell under the elastic clause.
United States v. Eichman (1990)
1. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 made the burning or desecrating of an American flag illegal. In response to disagreements with U.S. policies, Eichman and some buddies were burning U.S. flags on the capitol steps, and were charged under this act.
2. The first amendment was in conflict with the Flag Protection Act. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, and flag-burning is arguably a form of that speech.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that the Flag Protection Act was indeed unconstitutional. Prohibiting a show of opinion, even if desecrating a flag is offensive to most people, is not within the power of the government.
The case of Gitlow vs. New York:
Background: Benjamin Gitlow was a socialist who was convicted in the state of New York for attempted anarchy after he was caught sending out left wing propaganda.
Part of Constitution: 14th amendment and first amendment Right to freedom of speech
Ruling: Because the propaganda did not result in any action against the government the original conviction was wrong because Gitlow was protected by the due process clause in the 14th amendment that says that the first amendment is protected in all states.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union
In 1997, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union on the grounds that it violated the freedom of speech provisions in the First Amendment. The Communications Decency Act was an attempt to protect minors on the Internet from "explicit material" (anything "that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs"). All nine members of the Supreme Court voted against Reno stating that the criminalization of certain material on the Internet would violate free speech rights. This was the first Supreme Court case that involved Internet regulation.
Feiner vs. New York 1951
Irving Feiner was arrested for making inflammatory comments to 80 African Americans and white people. He insulted President Truman, the American Legion, the Mayor of Syracuse, and local political officials. The crowd became restless and threatened to become violent if the police didn't act. Feiner was arrested after not listening to the three police requests to leave the area. Feiner claimed that the policemen violated his right to free speech under the 1st amendment of the constitution, and the police used their position to suppress his views.
The Supreme court upheld Feiner's arrest 6-3. They came to the conclusion that Feiner's 1st Amendment rights were not suppressed because he wasn't arrested for the content of his speech, but to suppress the reaction of the crowd. The court also explained again that a speaker may not be arrested for the content of his speech, and the police may not use their job silence unpopular views.
I had Rhodes vs. Chapman (1981).
The issue was brought up by Kelly Chapman, an armed robber held at a Ohio maximum security prison. He claimed that the "double celling" he was subjected to (sharing a cell with another prisoner, giving him only 32 square feet of personal space) was cruel and unusual, violating the eighth and fourteenth amendment policies on cruel and unusual punishment.
The Supreme Court ruled that the "double celling" is not unconstitutional, overruling a previous ruling that said it was.
Since representation in the House is based on states' population, people were upset in the 1950s that some states had not been reapportioned to make up for the growing urban population for many years. For example Tennessee and Alabama had not redrawn their lines since 1901. At first the supreme court deemed that this problem should be solved by political branches, not the courts.
However, in 1960 the court struck down a reapportionment scheme by Alabama to prevent African American voters from affecting the ballot by basing their decision on the Fifteenth Amendment (denies the government from preventing people to vote based on their race). After that reapportioning for urban white voters sake was seen as in issue to be solved in the supreme court.
This would lead to a much more accurate representation of a state's population, and congress members would truly be elected based on what the majority of people wanted. Now a census is taken every ten years to in order to determine what reapportioning needs to be done.
Brown vs. Board of Education
This case was during a time of high racial discrimination. Many states, including Kansas where the case originated, had law requiring separate schools for african americans. This law followed the Suprem Court case Plessy vs. Ferguson that said as long as separate facilities were equal segregation did not exist. The case had 13 plantifs trying to enrole their children in the school closest to their house instead of the segregated school.
This deals with the 14th amendment stating that all citizens are equal.
The suprem court ruled unanimously that this was in direct violation of the Constitutionl; that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
Background:
A Louisiana law entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools without it being accompanied by the teaching of creation science, ie. the Biblical belief that advanced forms of life appeared abruptly on Earth. Schools were not required to teach creation science. However, if either topic was to be addressed, evolution or creation, teachers were obligated to discuss the other as well.
Parts of the Constitution Relevant:
First Amendment: Does teaching "creation science" along with the theory of evolution, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Ruling:
Yes. The Court held that the law violated the Constitution. Justice Brennan argued that Louisiana's law failed on three terms.
First, it was not enacted to further a clear secular purpose.
Second, the primary effect of the law was to advance the viewpoint that a "supernatural being created humankind," a doctrine central to the dogmas of certain religious denominations.
Third, the law significantly entangled the interests of church and state by seeking "the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose."
Jaffee v. Redmond, 1996:
Police officer Mary Redmond found herself at the home of Ricky Allen, a wealthy Illinois man. She arrived at the scene to find Allen allegedly chasing a man with a butcher knife. Fearing that Allen was going to murder the man, Redmond shot Allen. Allen died at the scene. Allen's estate, represented by Jaffee, said that Redmond acted with excessive force during the altercation. Originally, the district court ruled in favor of Jaffee, but the decision was appealed. During that process, a testimony was given by Redmond's therapist, providing evidence in Jaffee's favor. Redmond argued that doctor-patient confidentiality should apply to psychotherapy. She took the case to the supreme court.
This case deals with the fourth amendment to the constitution, which protects citizens fom wrongful searches and seizures. Redmond was saying that the testimony her therapist gave was a wrongful piece of evidence against her. Jaffee argued that talking to a therapist is no different than talking to a family member, which is not protected by the fourth amendment. Eventually, the supreme court ruled with Redmond, saying that psycho-patients had a "evident privledge" to keep their discussions confidential.
Roe V. Wade 1973
A single pregnant woman (Roe) in Texas wanted an abortion, but she did not meet the criteria for a legal abortion (where the pregnancy is harmful to the life of the mother). So she challenged the Constitutional right to abortion. The court declared the abortion statutes infringe on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because the woman has the right to choose an abortion (9th: certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.) and is entitled to privacy (14th, Due Process: prohibits governments from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken). The decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
1.On June 7th, Homer Plessy, who was of mixed race, was jailed for sitting in the “White” passenger train car. Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act in 1892 which legally segrated the train cars between black and white passengers.
2.Plessy’s lawyer stated that the 13th (slavery/involuntary servitude,except for punishment of a crime, is not allowed) and 14th (protection of equal laws for all those born in the US) amendments were violated when Plessy was arrested. The decision from this court ruling set the precedent that separate facilities were constitutional as long as they were “equal”.
3. The consequence for Plessy was that he was found guilty of not leaving the train car after being ordered to. Plessy appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana which stuck by Judge Ferguson’s previous ruling; he was found guilty once again.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Bakke, a successful white student, applied to University of California, Davis School of Medicine and was rejected two years in a row while minority students with less impressive qualifications were accepted into the program. In 1974, the special commisions committee stated that they would only consider students from certain minority groups.
The Supreme Court was split on their decision, but ultimately said that although race could be considered a “plus” for an applicant, quotas for minority groups insulated minority applicants from competition with regular applicants. This case was ruled unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and was in violation of section VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as the college’s decision process discriminated against non-minority applicants.
Furman v. Georgia 1972
A man awoke in the night to find Fruman in his house. While trying to escape, Fruman tripped the weapon he was carrying and accidently killed the man. Because the shootin occurred durring a felony, Furman would've been guilty of the murder and recieved the death penalty.
This case pertains to the 8th Amendment of the constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Only 2 justices believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instance. Others focused on the racial bias against black defendants of death sentences. The death penalty was overturned and the decision forced states and the legislature to assure that there would be no discrimination in the death sentence.
Baker Vs. Carr 1962
A suit filed by Charles Baker(Tennessee citizen) against Joe Carr(Secretary of State of Tennessee), stating apportionment denied voters of urban areas or equal protection of the 14th admendment. He was filing for an injunction to stop voting unitl a reapportion was made. His claim was that they were diluting his vote and were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth admendment. The district court refused to hear his case, so it was appealed to the supreme court.
The court decided that federal courts have the power to determine teh constituionality of a States' voting districts.
Dred Scott v. Sandford 1853
Dred Scott, a slave, sued his owner for his freedom after failing to purchase it, but failed again. His case was appealed, and the Chief Justice (Roger B. Taney), a strong supporter of slavery, declared that all blacks were free – including slaves – but were not considered citizens. This issue was not expressly stated in the Constitution, but was later clarified by the 14th ammendment in 1868 (all people born here are citizens).
Woodson v. North Carolina 1976
North Carolina passed legislation making the death penalty mandatory for all convicted first-degree murderers. When James Woodson was found guilty of first-degree murder, he was automatically sentenced to death. Woodson challenged the law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
The 8th and 14th Amendments concern the mandatory death penalty law. The 8th Amendment concerns Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
The Supreme Court held that the North Carolina law was unconstitutional. The Court decided that the death penalty is not indecent. However the death penalty cannot be automatic.
1. Billy Greenwood was suspected of dealing drugs so after Greenwood placed his garbage on the curb, which is "public property," the police searched his trash bags and found evidence of drug use. They then received a warrant to search Greenwood's home where they found narcotics and arrested him.
2. Greenwood stated that the search of his trash violated his rights stated in the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
3. The Supreme Court reversed the California Court of Appeal decision and ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage placed on the curb for collection
In 1972, five men broke into the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate complex. Nixon was connected to the break-in and forced to release his taped conversations. President Nixon argued that he had the executive privilege to protect communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in carrying out their duties. This dispute was settled by the interpretation of the second article of the constitution; the judicial branch had to make a decision on how far the president's powers go. The Supreme court voted 8-0 against Nixon. Thus, Nixon resigned his presidency.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 1988
A school-sponsored newspaper at Hazelwood East High School put together an issue written and edited by students. The school principal deemed two of the articles to be inappropriate and ordered the pages withheld from publication. The adivisor involved, as well as two students, brought the case to court.
This case dealt with the First Amendment, determining whether the principal's deletion of the articles violated the students' rights to free speech and expression.
The Court determined that the First Amendment did not require schools to promote types of student speech, that schools must be able to set high standards for student speech, and that schools retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech viewed as inconsistent with shared social values. The Court ruled that the principal's actions did not overstep any of these bounds and that he did not violate any rights held by the students.
Schenk v. United States (1919)
1. Background:During World War I, Schenck mailed letters to draftees that said that the war was wrong. Schenk advised that they should only petition the draft. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military.
2. Constitution: Schenck said that the army inflicted the first ammendment, the right to free speech.
3. Ruling: The court concluded unanimously, that Schenck wasn't protected in this situation, because the US was in a time of war, so the Military's punishment stood.
Gibbon vs. Ogden 1824
A law of giving a monopoly on steamship travel in New York state to a group of investors, was passed by the New York Legislature. Aron Ogden had business under this monopoly. Thomas Gibbons was a steamship trader who wanted to use the New York waterways for his business too. He was given federal permission to do so, but he was denied access to these waterways by the State of New York, which cited its law as enforcement. Gibbons sued Ogden, and the Supreme Court agreed to decided the case.
In Article I- Section 8 (Powers of Congress), Congress had exclusive national power over interstate commerce and that would result in confusing and contradictory local regulatory policies.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons. The sole argued source of Congress's power to promulgate the law at issue was the Commerce Clause.
Troy Greggs and Flyod Allen were hitchiking north in Florida when they were picked up by Fred Simmons and Bob Moore, they picked up Dennis Weaver who later got out in Atlanta. The four men interrupted their journey for a rest stop along the highway. After Simmons and Moore left the car Gregg intended to rob them so he shot them, robbed them of valuables, and then drove away with Allen. Upon reading about the murder in the paper Weaver called athourities who arrested Gregg and Allen. Gregg was found guilty of armed robbery and murder, his sectence was a death scentance for the murder. Gregg felt this violated his 8th and 14th Amendment rights.
The supreme court found that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate.
Cruzan vs. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health-1990
Nancy Cruzan was involved in an automobile accident that left her in a persistent vegetative state. Cruzan was put on life support and had been sustained for several weeks when her parents tried to have the life support terminated. The hospital refused to take Cruzan off of life support without court approval since it would result in her death.
The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment gives a competent person the right to refuse medical treatment. The question is whether or not Cruzan's parents could refuse medical treatment on their daughter's behalf.
The Supreme Court ruled that Cruzan's parents did not have the right to refuse medical treatment on her behalf. The actions taken by the hospital to preserve human life were ruled to be constitutional.
Gideon v. Wainwright- year 1963
Earl Gideon couldn't hire a lawyer in his case because he didn't have the money. Due to the fact that he was charged with breaking and entering (convicted by the jury), it's a shame he didn't just steal some. Even though the -sixth amendment guarantees the right to a legal counsel, he was not given one in his trial, left to defend himself. The Florida state court tried to explain that the reason for this was because Gideon did not even have basic necessities (he was poor, but this doesn't mean the amendment doesn't apply to him. He’s a citizen of the U.S.), and the Florida state law stated that only capital cases (one of the highest cases there is) would provide those without funding a counsel in court. Gideon, therefore, defended himself in this case. He was assigned 5 years in state prison by the court. It was later ruled that this ruling was a violation of the -Fourteenth amendment (which says no state can violate the constitution’s law) and sixth amendment (right to assistance of counsel in defense). Therefore, Mr. Gideon was retried and then aquitted.
Disregard the first post, this one is better.
1. James W. McCulloch, a Federal cashier at the Baltimore branch of the U.S. bank, refused to pay the taxes imposed by the state. Maryland filed a suit against McCulloch in an effort to collect the taxes.
2. Issues with the division of power (can the bank be taxed?) and what falls under the elastic clause as an implied power (banks are not discussed in the taxing and spending clause of the constitution)
3. Chief Justice Marshall also explained in this case that the Necessary and Proper Clause does not require that all federal laws be necessary and proper and that federal laws that are enacted directly pursuant to one of the express, enumerated powers granted by the Constitution need not comply with the Necessary and Proper Clause, holding that the clause "purport[s] to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted." The tax was voted unconstitutional.
Whren vs. United States (1996)
1. Whren & Brown were seen stopped at an intersection in a known "high drug area" for a suspicious amount of time. Police observed the truck for a while and saw when Whren turned his truck without signaling. The officers pulled over the truck because of the violation and observed Whren in possession of several bags of cocaine. The two men were arrested and taken into custody on federal drug charges. The lawyers for Whren and Brown filed a motion "to suppress the evidence" on the basis that the police had used the traffic violation to stop the truck because they had no other "reasonable suspicion or probable cause" for a traffic stop on "suspicion of drug dealing."
2. Does this violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures?
3. The Supreme Court ruled that as long as officers have a reasonable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred, they may stop any vehicle. In this case, the officers had reasonable cause to stop the men for a traffic violation since they did not use their turn signal. Because an actual traffic violation occurred, the search and seizure of the vehicle was reasonable.
Escobedo vs. Illinois
In 1964, Escobedo was arrested in connection of a murder and was taken to the police station. He asked to see his lawyer repeatedly but was never let out of the interrogation room. In addition, his lawyer even came into the police station searching for him but was denied access. While under interrogation, he confessed to firing the shot that killed the victim and was convicted. Escobedo then appealed to the Supreme Court and it overturned the conviction.
The Court extended the "exclusionary rule" to illegal confessions and ruled that Escobedo's confession should not have been allowed in as evidence. It also defined the "Escobedo Rule" which holds that individuals have the right to an attorney when an "investigation is no longer a general inquiry."The ruling went on to detail that where the suspect has been taken into custody, the suspect has requested his lawyer, and the police have not warned him of his right to remain silent,and the accused has been denied is in direct violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Anthony Schliesman
Reproductive Health Services
Conflict: 1986 | Missouri issued that abortion without probable cause (i.e. mother's life at risk) is against the law. The question is whether that unconstitutionally violates people's rights(In direct link with the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and also can be included with the 9th Amendment's "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.").
Conflicts:1. Preamble did not hold anyone to a concrete no.
2. Due Process Clause doesn't hold the state to a required medical practice in this field, so shouldn't try to fight for the rights.
3. No specific case has existed with this problem prior to this one.
4. State's protection of life is held at a higher priority than viability.
Ruling: Webste 5, RHS 4
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was charged with robbery, rape, and kidnapping in Phoenix. When he was taken into custody, the police interrogated him for two hours, without informing him of his right against self-incrimination and of an attorney. During this time, he did confess, and he was prosecuted based soley on this confession. Miranda argued that the police unconstitutionally obtained his confession. After the Arizona Supreme court kept his conviction, Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966.
The court sided with Miranda in a 5-4 decision, saying that the confession could not be used as evidence against him because he had not been informed of his rights found in the Fifth Amendment (gives the right to refuse "to be a witness against himself") and the Sixth Amendment ("right... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence"). Without these two things, the court argued the defendant is under intimidation, and no confessions resulting from a situation without those rights can be considered completely true because they are not of free choice. That is why, now, every defendant is told his "Miranda Rights" by the police: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..." as well as the right to an attorney, which will be provided by the govenment if the defendant can't afford it.
Charles Acevedo was seen by the police to enter a building known to contain marijuana and leave with a brown paper bag. He drove off with the bag and then was pulled over by the police. His car and the bag was searched. Acevedo said that the marijuana should be suppressed as evidence because the 4th amendment which protects people from "unreasonable searches and seizures" and the police did not have a warrant. Previously the Supreme Court had ruled in US vs Ross (1982) that officers could search a car if they had a probable cause, which in this case the officers did. The question at hand was did the officers have the right to search the bag. In US vs Chadwick (1977) the Supreme Court had ruled that officers needed a warrant to search a closed container (in this case the bag). In a 6 to 3 decision the court decided the searching of the bag was constitutional and that "The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained."
California vs Acevedo 1991
West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette
Background: As part of it's curriculum, West Virginia required all students and teachers to salute the flag. Any student or teacher found resisting would be found as "insubordinate" and face expulsion. A group of Jehovah's Witness students didn't salute the flag as it is against their faith to salute any objects or symbols.
Piece of Constitution Used: The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution states that students do not have to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance at school. It also goes into Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Final Ruling: Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the school district violated the students' rights by forcing them to salute the flag. They never cited the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as a reason why.
Marbury V. Madison
This case establishes the Supreme Court's power of judicial review.
The case began on March 2, 1801, when an obscure Federalist, William Marbury, was designated as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Marbury and several others were appointed to government posts created by Congress in the last days of John Adams's presidency, but these last-minute appointments were never fully finalized. The disgruntled appointees invoked an act of Congress and sued for their jobs in the Supreme Court.
Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it? And, is the Supreme Court the place for Marbury to get the relief he requests?
Yes; yes; and it depends. The justices held, through Marshall's forceful argument, that on the last issue the Constitution was "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation" and that "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." In other words, when the Constitution--the nation's highest law--conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid.
Powell vs. Alabama 1932
In March of 1931, nine African American men were traveling on a freight train with seven white males and two white females. A fight broke out and six of the white men were thrown from the train. The white women acused the African American men of raping them, although one later retracted her statement. In a series of one day trials, where the defendents were only given access to lawyers immediately prior to the trial, all but one of the African American men were sentenced to death.
The ruling was appealed to the Alabama State Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that the defendents were not given a fair, impartial and deliberate trial and that they were not given access to counsel.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the case did violate due process.
Grayned vs. The City Of Rockford, Illinois
A man had been accused and convicted of violating an anti-picketing ordinance and an anti-noise ordinance after his involvement in an equal rights protest for black students at West High school in Rockford, Illinois. They were picketing about 100 feet from the school, and some noise was made. Grayned challenged the ruling based on the fact that the ordinances were too vague or too broad.
The 1st amendment is taken into play here, and the right to free speech. The court ruled that the anti-picketing ordinance was indeed unconstitutional because it limited an individual’s free speech right and the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. However in the case of the anti-noise ordinance, the court decided that it was constitutional, and said that there can be time, place, and manner restrictions to a demonstration, such as making to much noise while school is in session.
Katz v. United States
In 1965, Charles Katz was suspected of discussing illegal gambling deal over a pay phone. The FBI bugged the phone booth and gathered the evidence necessary to convict Katz. Katz challenged his conviction, saying the search was illegal, referring to the wire tap.
In question was the Fourth Amendment: was the FBI invading Katz's reasonable expectation of privacy, and was the search an invasion even though there was no physical intrusion?
The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that by going into the booth with the door closed, Katz had the same reasonable expectation to privacy as he woul in his own home, and that recording the conversations was a search even though there was no physical intrusion - electronic searches were included. Katz's conviction was overturned.
Background: The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act Amendments of 1985 required states alone or in compacts with other states to dispose of such radioactive waste within their borders. New York State and Allegany and Courtland counties were frustrated in their compliance efforts by resistance from residents to proposed radioactive waste sites and a lack of cooperation from neighboring states. New York filed suit against the federal government, questioning the authority of Congress to regulate state waste management.
Part of the Constitution: The Low-Level Waste Act violate the Tenth Amendment and the "guarantee clause" of Article Four.
Ruling: In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld two of the three provisions of the Act under review, reasoning that Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to use financial rewards and access to disposal sites as incentives for state waste management. The third provision, the "take-title" qualification, stipulated that states must take legal ownership and liability for low-level waste or by the regulatory act.
New York Vs United States
Background: The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act Amendments of 1985 required states alone or in compacts with other states to dispose of such radioactive waste within their borders. New York State and Allegany and Courtland counties were frustrated in their compliance efforts by resistance from residents to proposed radioactive waste sites and a lack of cooperation from neighboring states. New York filed suit against the federal government, questioning the authority of Congress to regulate state waste management.
Part of the Constitution: The Low-Level Waste Act violate the Tenth Amendment and the "guarantee clause" of Article Four.
Ruling: In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld two of the three provisions of the Act under review, reasoning that Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to use financial rewards and access to disposal sites as incentives for state waste management. The third provision, the "take-title" qualification, stipulated that states must take legal ownership and liability for low-level waste or by the regulatory act.
New Jersey vs. TLO 1985
A teacher at a New Jersey high school found a student and her friend smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. When the assistant vice principal questioned the student, she denied that she had smoked and the asst. vice principal searched her purse. He found cigarettes, cigarette rolling papers, marihuana, a pipe, plastics bags, a large amount of money, an index card with a list of students who owed her money, and two letters that implicated her in marihuana dealing. The State brought delinquency charges against her in a Juvenile court, which allowed the evidence from the purse to be used. The New Jersey Superior court also allowed it, but the New Jersey Supreme Court suppressed the evidence.
The Amendment in question is the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The US Supreme Court had to decide if the Fourth Amendment applied in schools.
The US Supreme Court found that the Fourth Amendment does apply in schools and students have legitimate expectations of privacy, but if faculty believe that a student is breaking a law or rule, the faculty are able to conduct a search without a warrant. In the case of New Jersey vs. TLO, the search was reasonable, so the US Supreme Court allowed all of the evidence from the purse to be used.
Edwards v. Aguillard
Background:
A Louisiana law entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools without it being accompanied by the teaching of creation science, ie. the Biblical belief that advanced forms of life appeared abruptly on Earth. Schools were not required to teach creation science. However, if either topic was to be addressed, evolution or creation, teachers were obligated to discuss the other as well.
Parts of the Constitution Relevant:
First Amendment: Does teaching "creation science" along with the theory of evolution, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Ruling:
Yes. The Court held that the law violated the Constitution. Justice Brennan argued that Louisiana's law failed on three terms.
First, it was not enacted to further a clear secular purpose.
Second, the primary effect of the law was to advance the viewpoint that a "supernatural being created humankind," a doctrine central to the dogmas of certain religious denominations.
Third, the law significantly entangled the interests of church and state by seeking "the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose."
Engel v. Vitale [1962]
Background: families of public school children in New Hyde Park, NY complained about a prayer being said in the school. "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen."
Part of constitution: The first amendment [establishment clause] and the fourteenth amendment.
Ruling: The court sided with the families stating that government written prayers could not be required to be spoken in schools. The court explained the separation of education and religion, and stated that the recitation being a prayer causes it to be religious.
IGNORE THE LAST TWO
NEW YORK TIMES VS UNITED STATES
Background: It was known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co.
Constitution: The Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment.
Ruling: Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. vs. United States (1964)
The Heart of Atlanta Motel was a large hotel located on two major U.S. highways, and the owner refused to rent rooms to African Americans.
The owner of the motel filed a suit, saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violated his 5th ammendment right to operate his business as he wished, and that it also violated his 13th ammendment right by placing him in a position of involuntary servitude.
The court ruled that Congress was within its jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Clause when passing the Civil Rights Act, and that the case had nothing at all to do with the owner's 13th ammendment right.
Mine was Nixon vs. U.S.A.
California v.s Acevedo 1991
Charles Acevedo was seen by the police to enter a building known to contain marijuana and leave with a brown paper bag. He drove off with the bag and then was pulled over by the police. His car and the bag was searched. Acevedo said that the marijuana should be suppressed as evidence because the 4th amendment which protects people from "unreasonable searches and seizures" and the police did not have a warrant. Previously the Supreme Court had ruled in US vs Ross (1982) that officers could search a car if they had a probable cause, which in this case the officers did. The question at hand was did the officers have the right to search the bag. In US vs Chadwick (1977) the Supreme Court had ruled that officers needed a warrant to search a closed container (in this case the bag). In a 6 to 3 decision the court decided the searching of the bag was constitutional and that "The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained."
Drew Modjeski said...
The case of Gitlow vs. New York:
Background: Benjamin Gitlow was a socialist who was convicted in the state of New York for attempted anarchy after he was caught sending out left wing propaganda.
Part of Constitution: 14th amendment and first amendment Right to freedom of speech
Ruling: Because the propaganda did not result in any action against the government the original conviction was wrong because Gitlow was protected by the due process clause in the 14th amendment that says that the first amendment is protected in all states.
The court rulled that the right of free speech which is given by the first ammendment is protected in all states and no state law can get rid of this unless the action shows clear and present danger.
Cox v. New Hampshire(1941-
was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety. An ordinance in Manchester, New Hampshire required that every parade or procession on public streets had to have a license and organizers had to pay a fee. Sixty-eight Jehovah's Witnesses assembled at their church and divided into smaller groups that petitioned and marched across the sidewalk displaying signs, and handing out leaflets advertising meetings. In 1941, all 68 of the Jehovah's Witnesses were convicted in a New Hampshire municipal court for violating a state statute which prohibited parades and processions on public streets without a license. The defendants claimed that their First Amendment rights were violated including their rights to freedom of worship and freedom of assembly.
The Court unanimously upheld the convictions of the Jehovah's Witnesses for engaging in a public parade without a license. With Chief Justice Hughes writing the majority opinion, the Court declared that the ordinance was a reasonable police regulation designed to promote the safe and orderly use of public streets. The Court rejected the claim that the licensing fee infringed on anyone's right to assemble saying, "no interference with religious worship or the practice of religion in any proper sense is shown, but only the exercise of local control over the use of streets for parades and processions."
Gregg vs Georgia 1976 (capital punishment)
Troy Gregg and Flyod Allen were hitchiking north in Florida when they were picked up by Fred Simmons and Bob Moore, they picked up Dennis Weaver who later got out in Atlanta. The four men interrupted their journey for a rest stop along the highway. After Simmons and Moore left the car Gregg intended to rob them so he shot them, robbed them of valuables, and then drove away with Allen. Upon reading about the murder in the paper Weaver called athourities who arrested Gregg and Allen. Gregg was found guilty of armed robbery and murder, his sectence was a death scentance for the murder. Gregg felt this violated his 8th and 14th Amendment rights. The supreme court found that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate.
Post a Comment
<< Home