Period 2/3 Supreme Court Cases
Due December 19, 2014.
Post by number/title. Others are dependent upon you.
A. Context
B. Constitutional Application
C. What did the Court rule (and why - link 2 and 3)
posted by erdecker @ 9:28 AM
42 comments
42 Comments:
New Jersey vs TLO: In 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in New Jersey, found "T.L.O." and another girl smoking in a restroom.The two girls were taken to the principal's office where T.L.O.'s friend admitted that she had been smoking in the restroom. T.L.O. denied smoking there. She denied that she smoked at all. An assistant vice-principal demanded to see T.L.O.'s purse. Searching through it he found a pack of cigarettes,rolling papers, a pipe, marijuana, a large wad of dollar bills, and two letters that indicated that T.L.O. was involved in marijuana drug deals at the high school.
T.L.O. was taken to the police station where she confessed that she had sold marijuana at the school. A juvenile court sentenced her to a year's probation. The State Supreme Court overturned the decision, stating that T.L.O.'s 4th Amendment rights had been violated. The State of New Jersey asked that the Supreme Court hear its appeal.
The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of New Jersey. It was more of a reasonable cause than a probable one.. "to maintain school discipline"
Ps:drugs are bad
14. Gideon vs Wainwright -1963
A. having broken into a poolroom set to enact a misdemeanor offense, Clarence was charged in Florida with a felony but appeared in court without a lawyer. He requested the state to appoint one for him which according to the state's law,an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases. He presented himself and was found guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
B. The sixth amendment supports the argument that felony defendants have the right to counsel during a trial. he applied for a writ of habeas corpus relief to the state's Supreme court on the ground that his conviction violated his rights under the Federal Constitution. The State Supreme Court denied all relief.
C. In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon, guaranteeing the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in federal and state courts. Following the decision, Gideon was given another trial with an appointed lawyer and was acquitted of the charges.
Paul Cyr
30. Reno vs. American Civil Liberties Union-1997
Backround: The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the provisions and regulations set by the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which protected minors from explicit material on the Internet seen as "indecent" or "patently offensive display".
The supreme court found the provisions of the CDA invalid because it violated the first amendment and a persons right to freedom of speech. The court said that previously they had to limit freedom of speech with such things as radio because they couldn't stop the person from hearing explicits, etc. but with internet the materials "must be actively sought out." The internet could not be government regulated, especially in the age determining area. All nine judges voted for the ACLU.
Anna Sifferath
Hazelwood School District vs Kuhlmeier - 1988
Context: Journalism students at Hazelwood East High School were assigned to write articles for their school newspaper. Two of the articles were about teen pregnancy and divorce in the community. The students changed the names of those involved to protect their anonymity. The principal found the articles to be inappropriate so he deleted them before publication. The students then sued and the US District Court ruled in favor of the school. The students appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth circuit. That court ruled in favor of the students. The school then appealed to the supreme court.
Part of Constitution: First Amendment, Freedom of Speech
What did the court rule: the US Supreme court ruled in favor of the school stating that the school can limit speech if it doesn't match the school's educational goal.
19. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. vs. United States (1964)
A. The hotel refused to rent rooms to African American guests, which means that it was in violation of the Civil Rights Act that had just been passed. The owner(s) believed that congress was unjust in forcing the hotel to accommodate black guests because the hotel was a private business. The hotel claimed that it was not going against any legislation and that it was protected via the 5th amendment of the constitution.
B. Involves argument over the 5th amendment (owners believed that they were just in claiming that they were protected through the 5th amendment because the hotel had the right to choose how it wanted to operate) as well as the 13th amendment (hotel claimed that it was being put through "involuntary servitude" to the law if they were forced to open the hotel to guests that were not white).
C. Ruled in favor of the United States - the hotel could not rent to only white guests anymore.
Maggie Keech
3. California vs Acevedo- 1991
A. Charles Acevedo was seen bringing a bag of unknown substance out of a building known to contain marijuana. He put the bag in his car and drove away, but policemen stopped him and searched his car, having probable cause to perform this search. They found marijuana in the bag, arrested him, and he pleaded guilty. Acevedo then appealed his case, arguing that the police shouldn't have searched his car without a warrant.
B. 4th Amendment- Is the search of a container within a car an unreasonable search and seizure if there is probable cause?
C. The Court ruled 6-3 that "Police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained" (quote from ruling). This ruling was made on the basis that the possession of drugs, whether intentional or not, is a serious enough matter to require the immediate search and seizure by police. A warrant would take too long to obtain, and by the time it is finally obtained the drugs may have already been consumed or sold elsewhere.
Michael Streyle
21- Katz vs United States 1967
A) Charles Katz was caught sending illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami using a payphone. The FBI had a listening device planted on the outside of the payphone booth. Katz was convicted because of the recordings gathered by these listening devices. Katz appealed the decision and it went to Supreme Court.
B) This court case questions the interpretation of the fourth amendment right regarding search and seizure. If the Supreme Court upheld the conviction it would weaken the fourth amendments context. If the Supreme Court decided that Katz shouldn't be convicted, the fourth amendment would be strengthened because it would give citizens complete privacy in public phone booths.
C) The court decided to overturn the decision made by the Court of Appeals and sided with Katz. They stated that since the door of the phone booth was closed during the conversation, it was a private conversation and that Katz's privacy was invaded. This ruling strengthened the fourth amendment and altered the fourth amendment warrant requirements which require federal and state governments to have a warrant to search and seize.
Laura Harper
Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services 1989- background: Missouri had passed a law stating that life begins at conception, which is said in their state preamble, and that an unborn child has rights just as much as any other person. The US district court struck down the provisions of the law, and ruled they violated the decision of Roe vs. Wade. Then, William Webster and the Missouri Attorney General appealed the decision to the US supreme court.
The court ruled that
1. the law stated in the preamble of Missouri had no legal effect on the matter, and it raised no constitutional issue.
2. Nothing in the constitution requires states to uphold the acts of abortion. Healthcare providers could encourage childbirth over abortion, but some women could still have abortions with private healthcare providers.
3.the court upheld the section that states a physician is required to test if a fetus is over 20 weeks, and because of this presumption of viability, the plaintiffs decided it violated the framework established in Roe vs. Wade.
Application: because abortion was not stated in the constitution previously, it was said that abortion was "liberty interest protected by the Due Process clause" in the fetal viability section.
28. Powell vs. Alabama-1932
A. Nine black youths got into a fight with some white youths on a freight train headed from Chattanooga to Alabama. When the train was stopped before its destination, two white women testified that they had been sexually assaulted by those young African-American men on board.
B. 14th Amendment, Due Process Clause.
Many argue whether the defendants had sufficient counsel and if the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated.
C. A total of three trials took one day, and all nine were sentenced to death. Alabama law required the appointment of counsel in capital cases, but the attorneys did not consult with their clients and had done little more than appear to represent them at the trial.
Jordan Campbell
#29 Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke.
A. Allan Bakke, an engineer and former marine officer who had been a national merit in high school, applied to UC-Davis twice, and was twice denied by the school because he was considered too old. He was in his early thirties. Bakke then took the case to court because he felt that he should have been well qualified to be accepted.
B. This case questions the fourteenth amendment of the constitution because it goes against the equal protection clause, and Allan Bakke was definitely qualified and equal to those accepted at UC-Davis.
C. The Supreme Court ordered that admitting special minority groups over people who are well qualified is unconstitutional and that the medical school admit Bakke.
A. A Louisiana law says that there should be balanced treatment for creation-schience and evolution-science in public schools.This prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools without being accompanied by the teaching of creation science. Schools were not required to teach creation science. However, if either topic was addressed,teachers needed to discuss the other as well.
B. The first amendment needed to be interpreted by teaching creation science with the theory of evolution, violate the first amendment as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment.
C. The court held that the law violated the constitution 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 central idea to certain religions. Third, the law entangeled the interests of church and state by seeking the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose.
Mine was #8 Edwards vs. Aguillard-1987
16 - Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972)
Context: Richard Grayned was involved in a protest outside of a school, in Rockford, Illinois, which involved about 200 people. Grayned was one of 40 arrested, and was charged with violating two city ordinances: one which prevented excessive noise within 150 feet of schools, and another which prohibited protests within 150 feet of schools. Grayned appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois, challenging the constitutionality of both ordinances, and it was then passed on to the US Supreme Court.
Ruling: The US Supreme Court ruled that the anti-noise ordinance was constitutional because it only prohibited actions that intentionally disrupted school activities. However, the Court ruled that the anti-picketing law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it was too vague and broad.
Madison Frei
36. United States vs. Eichman-1990
A. Shawn Eichman and Mark Haggerty were arrested when they burned flags because it was a violation of the Flag Protection Act of 1989 which made it illegal to destroy an American flag or any likeness of a flag that was "commonly displayed."
B. First Amendment (Free Speech)
C. Court Ruled 5-4 against U.S. Government. While flag desecration is offensive to many, it is free speech expression to burn one. The flag is also considered to be just a symbol of the nation and the nation's ideals, burning the flag does not diminish any of these ideals, but rather reflects the attitude of those who are burning it.
Stephen Bly
27. Plessy vs Ferguson- 1896
Homer Plessy was arrested in Louisiana for sitting in the white section of a railroad car rather than the colored section. He lost the first case and made an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that the case had violated the 13th and 14th amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled that it was not a violation of the amendments as long at the separate facilities were equal.
This is an important case because it gives legal standing to the separate but equal idea.
Kelli and Brenna
35. Tinker vs. Des Moines School District- 1969
A. A group of students wanted to show their support for the Christmas Truce and protest against the Vietnam war. To do this they planned to wear black arm bands to school and to fast on predetermined days. The principals of the district found out about this protest and decided to forbid it in their schools; anyone who participated would be subject to suspension. The Tinker kids decided to protest and wear the black armbands anyways and were suspended. They then decided to sue through their parents.
B. First Amendment: right to free speech and symbolic speech
C. The case went all the way to The Supreme Court where the court finally ruled in Tinker's favor. They said that the First Amendment's freedom of speech did not end "at the schoolhouse gate," as long as the speech did not interfere with the overall operation of the school.
33 Roe Vs Wade
A single woman, who was pregnant, wanted an abortion, but she did not meet the requirements for a legal abortion whereas the pregnancy must be harmful to the mother. She then challenged the constitutional right to an abortion.
The court then declared that the abortion statutes infringe on the rights of the 9th(certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people) and 14th (Due process clause: prohibits gov't from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken) amendments. The 9th proves she has a right to an abortion and the 14th says she is entitled to privacy.
The decision held that a woman with her doctor could choose abortion during the early parts of pregnancy, but with restrictions on the later parts based on her rights to privacy.
31. Reynolds vs. Sims - 1964
Kirthica Dutta
A. In this case, voters from Jefferson County, Alabama challenged the apportionment structure of their State House and Senate, which required each county to have at least one representative, regardless of size. However, this system did not take population size into account, therefore leading to huge discrepancies between district populations. Due to this urban areas were very underrepresented and rural areas were vastly overrepresented.
B.The Court believed that this was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
C. There were 8 justices who struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of "one person, one vote". Chief Justice Earl Warren even said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."
Cox vs New Hampshire-1941: Chris L-P: I had typed up a more detailed version, but it was deleted after my phone made me log into my google account. Since I'm not in the mood to remember exactly what I typed, here's a summary: a Jehovah's Witness was causing civil disturbances with obscene shouting and propaganda; as a result he was arrested. The supreme court upheld the arrest, as the lewd language of the extremist individual was more detrimental than beneficial to the well-being of society and thus inferior to the rights of everybody else.
Bailey Olson
13. Gibbons v Ogden
A) The dispute in Gibbons concerned competing claims of rival steamship franchises. The state of New York gave Aaron Ogden an exclusive license to operate steamboat ferries between New Jersey and New York City on the Hudson River. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat operator, ran two ferries along the same route. Ogden sought an injunction against Gibbons in a New York state court, claiming that the state had given him exclusive rights to operate the route.
B) In response, Gibbons claimed he had the right to operate on the route pursuant to a 1793 act of Congress. By the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8, the Court ruled that under that clause Congress had powers to regulate any aspect of commerce that crossed state lines, including modes of transportation, and that such regulation preempted conflicting regulation by the states.
C) It was ruled that the grant to Ogden violated the 1793 Federal Licensing Act. Through interpretation of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, Congress may pass any law that regulates commerce, so long as that commerce is not wholly confined within a single state, and its power to regulate such commerce is plenary. Under this interpretation of the Commerce Clause, Congress had the authority to regulate the commercial steamboat route between New York and New Jersey. It was assumed that the licensing act of 1793 did this and that the New York law in question was in conflict with it. Thus, the New York law was unconstitutional and New York's injunction against Gibbons was overturned. Gibbons was free to operate his steamships.
Kristy Strain
Jaffee v. Redmond, 1996:
Police officer Mary Redmond found herself at the home of Ricky Allen, at the scene she found Allen chasing a man with a butcher knife. Fearing that Allen was going to murder the man, Redmond killed Allen. 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 right to keep their discussions confidential.
9. Engel vs. Vitale - 1962
Context: New York law required public schools to open with a prayer (Regent's Prayer) in an attempt to support patriotism after WWII. The law also allowed students to remove themselves from this practice by either remaining silent or leaving the class with no penalty to them if they found the prayer objectionable. Parents of some of the students filed a suit against public schools saying that the prayer was against their religious practices and beliefs.
Part of the Constitution: Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law in respecting an establishment of religion..."
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled, 6-1, that the prayer was unconstitutional. State officials cannot compose an official school prayer and encourage it to be recited in public schools.
Jenny Molitor
Brown vs The Board of Education
1)Oliver Brown was one of the many parents in Topeka, Kansas that filed a class action suit against the board of education to put an end to segregated schools. Mr. Brown's daughter had to walk very far just to reach the bus for her segregated school when there was a "white school" only 7 blocks away.
2) The 14th amendment supports Brown in saying that the states may not deny anyone equal protection of the law.
3)This case overturned the precedent of Plessy vs Ferguson when the court decided unanimously that segregated schools were "Inherently unequal". Rule was in favor of Brown to desegregate schools.
Gloria Kitange and Kalli Fautsch
Schenck VS United States – 1919
A.During WW1, Schenck sent out circulars to draftees that said the US draft was wrong and urged those draftees to protest peacefully for the repeal of the Conscription Act. Schenck was said to have violated the Espionage Act by obstructing recruitment and attempting to cause insubordination in the military. He was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act.
B.The case dealt with the 1st amendment, more specifically; do US citizens always have fully access to freedom of speech, even in times of war?
C.The Court ruled a unanimous 9-0 decision in favor of the United States. The way that the amendments are interpreted is different depending on the circumstances. The words Schenck used were interpreted as dangerous to the US government as so “utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished” depending on the circumstances.
Blake Harris and Katie Klinkhammer:
West Virginia State Board of Education vs Barnette 1943: a student (Barnette) refused to say the pledge of allegiance in a public school based on his religious views and was expelled and charged with juvenile delinquency. Barnette believed this was unfair and unconstitutional against his freedom of speech and relgion because he is a Jehovah Witness and it goes against his religion to say the pledge. However, a 1942 law was passed saying all students and teachers must say the pledge each day. If the student refused he would be found insubordinate and expelled from school. He would not be readmitted to school until he abided by the rule. When the case went to trial, the supreme court ruled in favor of Barnette in a 6-3 favor. The result of this trial ruled in favor of the first amendment of the constitution, thus protecting the personal liberties of the American people. It also overruled a case three years earlier that sided with the schools forcing kids to say the pledge: Minersville School District vs. Gobitis.
Ashton Naumann H-2
Furman vs. Georgia- 1972
-capital punishment (1st ruling)
A. Furman was robbing a private home when a family member discovered him. He tried to escape, but tripped and fell causing his gun to go off and kill a member of a home. He was then convicted to murder and sentenced to death. The question became does the death sentence constitute cruel and unusual punishment violating the 8th and 14th Amendments...
B. 8th Amdendment: prohibits use of cruel and unusual punishments as well as excessive bails.
14th:(Equality Amendment): granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” (originally regarding slaves) It also forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without "due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
C.The court decided in a 5-4 ruling that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment (violating 8th Amendment)and the 14th by extent as it took away individual protection of the law. However, the split indecision of the supreme justices would hint on further dispute on this topic in the future..
Amber Thomas
22. Marbury vs. Madison-1803
A.The case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents.
B.The constitutional issue on which Marbury v. Madison was decided was whether Congress could expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
C.Marbury v. Madison was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. They expanded the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to establish judicial review.
Grant Heller
40:Whren Vs. United States
A)On a June night in 1993 Whren (defendant) was seen making an illegal right turn, during the traffic stop, two bags of crack cocaine were spotted and the two defendants in the car were charged with federal drug violations. The defendants argued that the traffic stop was only a pretext to investigate drug crimes without probable cause.
B)4th amendment
C)both defendants convicted in local court, appealed, sent to supreme court and the decision held
Escobedo vs. Illinois:
A. In 1963 Escobedo was suspected in the murder of his brother-in-law. During over 14 hours of interrogation by the police Escobedo was repeatedly denied legal counsel and his attorney was repeatedly denied entry to help his client. Escobedo ended up confessing to murder.
B. The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to counsel and the question in this court case was whether or not Escobedo had been denied his Constitutional right to counsel.
C. In a 5-4 ruling the Supreme Court agreed with Escobedo citing the fact that Escobedo had not been adequately informed of his right to remain silent. Because of this Escobedo was forced to incriminate himself. Over time this case has been implicitly overruled as the arguments have shifted from the 6th Amendment to the 5th Amendment; whether warnings have been given correctly.
#4 California vs. Greenwood
A.) After learning that Billy Greenwood of Laguna Beach, California, might be trafficking in drugs, police investigator Jenny Jones observed several cars making brief nighttime stops at Greenwood's home. Jones asked the trash company to turn over Greenwood's trash bags to police after the trash had been picked up from Greenwood’s home. Investigator Jones never filed for a warrant to conduct this "search." Police examined the trash and discovered a variety of drug-related items. A warrant was then obtained to search Greenwood's home, where police found cocaine and hashish. Greenwood was taken into custody. Greenwood and an accomplice were prosecuted, but a California State court of appeals dismissed the charge against Greenwood, citing State court precedents and previous Supreme Court rulings against the admission of evidence obtained in such a way. After the Supreme Court of California upheld the finding of the appeals court, the State of California appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
B.) The case involved the protections extended by the 4th Amendment.
C.)Justice Byron White wrote the majority opinion for the court in its 6–2 decision, the Court held that the 4th Amendment does not prohibit the search and seizure, without a warrant, of garbage that is left for collection "outside of a home." White also says, "It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops and other members of the public." Requiring a warrant to search an area to which the public has easy access is inappropriate and unnecessary.
#37 – United States vs. Nixon (1974)
Ally Gran
Context – America’s trust in the Federal Government was dwindling after the Pentagon Papers were released and the National Guard opened fire at Kent State University. In June of 1972, burglars attempted to steal important documents from the Democratic National Committee. The burglars were found to work for Nixon’s reelection committee, the scandal is better known as the Watergate Scandal. It has been proven that Nixon attempted to cover up evidence and paid-off FBI agents. United States vs. Nixon is centered on this crime and whether a president has the power to withhold information from other branches of the US government.
Constitutional Application – Does the President have the ability to withhold information from the other branches of Government? The court looked mainly at the 5th Amendment and due process, which states that no one can be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The 6th Amendment was also addressed, which discusses criminal prosecution.
Decision – The Court ruled that Nixon had to surrender the tapes and the Court made it clear that the President could not withhold evidence from an ongoing criminal prosecution simply because he was the President. Dumbbutt. This is important because it once again shows the power balance between the different branches of government and further limits the powers of the executive branch and the president.
Then he resigned.
A.) Taking place in 1857, Dred Scott, a former slave, was moved to Wisconsin. Due to slavery being banned in the North Scott was technically free and sought to buy his and his families freedom from Sanford, who refused. Scott then sued Sanford and won, but due to Sanford not wanting to pay wages that had been withheld from Scott appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court; the decision was then overturned. Scott then filed a law suit against Sanford's brother for the physical abuse against him but was denied the ability to sue in federal court due to him being deemed a slave by Missouri law. Scott then appealed to the US Supreme Court, the court first argued hearing the case saying that they could not hear cases filed by someone who was not a citizen due to Scott being sold as a slave and therefore "property." They argued that even though he belonged to a free state that did not necessarily make him a US citizen, and would not grant him citizenship due to his color and the 5th Amendment ruling that the Constitution forbids Congress from taking "property" away from individuals without compensation.
B.)The Supreme Court's ruling was based on the 5th Amendment saying that the Constitution "forbids congress from taking "property" away from individuals without compensation."
C.) The Supreme Court decided in a 7 - 2 ruling that Scott was not a US citizen even while living in a free state.
Mine was #7 Dred Scott vs. Sanford
Morgan M.
6. CRUZAN VS DIRECTOR:
A.)Summary...
In 1983 Nancy Cruzan was involved in a car accident, which left her in a “persistent vegetative state.” After it became clear that Cruzan would not improve, her parents requested that the hospital terminate the life-support procedures the hospital was providing. The hospital and subsequently the State court refused to comply.
B.)Part of Constitution/Article
5th and 14th amendments
And the Due Process Clause that says... Says no one should be deprived of life
C.) What court ruled...
5 votes for Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 4 vote(s) against
WHY...After trial, on appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court refused to order termination of the life-support, because clear and convincing evidence was not produced to show that Cruzan herself would have chosen to refuse treatment.
Madison Petrie
Gitlow vs. Georgia
A. Gitlow was arrested for having distributed manifestos that advocated the overthrowing of the government through violent strikes. It had been decided that anything that advocated violent revolutions thus violated the law.
B. This case relied heavily on the First Amendment - Free speech, but it also deals the with 14th amendment.
C. The court ruled in Gitlow's favor. Not only was his conviction unconstitutional, but they stated that his rights did apply to the states (rather than just federal-level).
Madison Petrie
Gitlow vs. Georgia
A. Gitlow was arrested for having distributed manifestos that advocated the overthrowing of the government through violent strikes. It had been decided that anything that advocated violent revolutions or criminal anarchy thus violated New York's established legislation.
B. This case relied heavily on the First Amendment - Free speech. This was because New York's Criminal Anarchy legislation violated the first amendment by limiting his free speech. However, at this time in 1919, the issue was made about the Fourteenth Amendment (due process & equal protection) because it was undecided whether federal rights should translate into state rights.
C. The court ruled in Gitlow's favor. Not only was his conviction unconstitutional, but they stated that his federal rights did apply to the state. It ruled New York State law as unconstitutional.
23-McCulloch vs. Maryland
A. In 1816 Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States. In 1818 Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank and the cashier. James McColloch refused to pay the tax.
B. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 ("congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes...) and Clause 18 (necessary and proper clause)
C. The court ruled that the federal government had the right and power to set up a Federal Bank and that states did not have the power to tax the Federal Government.
17. Gregg v Georgia 1976
A. Troy Gregg was found guilty of armed robbery and murder and was sentenced to death. Following Furman v Georgia (1972), he wanted the Court to rule the death penalty itself unconstitutional, to no avail.
B. Upon review of the Eighth Amendment, which prevents cruel and unusual punishment, the Court decided that in cases of murder the death penalty was appropriate.
C. In two separate trials, it was decided that Gregg was guilty and also that the death penalty was constitutional because the system for the penalty in Georgia was applied judiciously and carefully.
Baker vs. Carr (1962)
The representation in Tennessee for state legislature votes were being underrepresented in the city area since the population had grown so heavily since the last time redistricting occurred in 1901. A resident in an urban area of Tennessee Charles Baker filed a law suit against Joe Carr the Secretary of State in Tennessee. Baker claimed his vote was being diluted and had the support of the 14th amendment, the Equal Protection Clause. It was passed to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not federal courts have the power to decide voting districts.
After a 6-2 vote in the Supreme Court it was passed back down to the federal courts, the justices opinions were that the citizens no longer had the full right to vote fairly and was not being protected under the 14th amendment. This decisions was followed by many subsequent suits dealing with redistricting in the United States and the right to a fair vote.
New York Times Co. vs. U.S.: In 1971, some 'confidential' documents were leaked to several newspapers. The Executive Branch under Nixon proceeded to attempt to prevent the printing of any other documents for the sake of protecting the U.S. from foreign powers. The actions to prevent the printings were taken to court and several Federal courts found the action unconstitutional in nature. Incongruities in lower courts brought the case to the Supreme Court.
The case involves the First Amendment, and under what circumstances it may be limited. Earlier acts had made it possible to censor some documents if their publication showed a 'grave and irreparable danger'. The difficulty is for the Executive Branch to prove this danger.
The Court ruled that the First Amendment was the primary issue in this case and as the Executive Branch was unable to prove the danger in these documents, they could not prevent publication. Many Justices, such as Hugo Black, wrote that the First Amendment was created to give the press the ability to hold the Government accountable for their actions without fear of censorship.
Ainsley Williams
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
A: Miranda was arrested at his home and identified by the complaining witness. He was interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which Miranda wrote and signed a confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count.
B: This case was debated because of the 5th amendment
C:The ruling of the court said that due to Miranda signing the confession and, a statement acknowledging his rights, that his rights were not violated. However, after this case police officers had to start reciting the rights of an individual, so if they do not know their rights then they are now aware of them.
Madison Emery
Rhodes v. Chapman
In 1981 inmates at the South Ohio Correctional Facility challenged the constitutionality of holding two inmates in a cell originally meant for one. The Supreme Court ruled that the inmate harm caused by double celling was a natural consequence of incarceration and therefore it does not violate the 8th amendment.
Post a Comment
<< Home