Supreme Court Case Rulings
Ms. Ellison
1.The Supreme Court ruled that words which “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite [cause] an immediate
breach of the peace” were not protected by the 1st Amendment and could be punished. The man’s right to free speech was
not violated, and he was convicted for using offensive language.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Wisconsin attendance law violated the Amish’s free exercise of religion, and that the
individual’s right to the free exercise of religion outweighed the state’s interest in compulsory (required) school
attendance. The Amish parents were allowed to keep their children out of the public high school.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment protects actions that express an idea just as it protects what people say
and write. The man’s conviction was overturned, and he was not punished for attaching the peace symbol to the flag and
hanging it upside down. (The Court has also ruled that the 1st Amendment protects people from being forced to perform
acts that express ideas they may not share.)
4. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the man, stating that the police had no right to search him in the restaurant. The
man was not punished for possession of cocaine.
5. The Supreme Court ruled that the officers had no right to enter the home without a warrant. They also ruled that
evidence taken under the circumstances of the illegal search could not be used against the woman in a state court. Since
1914, illegally seized materials cannot be admitted in federal courts.
6. The Supreme Court ruled that the search of the car was proper. It found that there was probable cause to believe that
liquor was being illegally transported. The men were convicted of illegally transporting the liquor. (Under some
circumstances, no warrant is required in order to search a car, since a car can move long distances quickly and it would be
inconvenient to hold a car while a warrant was obtained. However, the police must have probable cause to believe that
something illegal is in the car.)
7. The Supreme Court ruled that the search of the garbage was proper because it had been put out on the sidewalk.
8. The Supreme Court ruled that the statements the man made at the hospital were not voluntary. Because of the man’s
medical condition, he had not been able to exercise his free will in responding. Therefore, the use of the statements was a
violation of “due Process.” The man’s narcotics convictions were reversed, and he was not punished for possessing drugs.
9. The Supreme Court held that the life sentence imposed by Texas law did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment
under the 8th and 14 Amendments. The Court held that Texas had a significant interest in dealing “in a harsher manner
with those who by repeated criminal acts have shown that they are simply incapable of conforming to the norms of
society.” The Court also noted that Texas had “a relatively liberal policy of granting ‘good time’ credits to its prisoners,
“indicating that there was a possibility that the man would not actually be imprisoned for the rest of his life.
10. The Court ruled that the equipment failure was not a purposeful event designed to cause unnecessary pain. The Court
ruled that the “cruelty” mentioned in the 8th Amendment refers to the way the death penalty is applied, not the cruelty
which is part of the actual suffering involved in the lawful sentence of death. The Court did not overturn the man’s death
conviction. (In an earlier decision, the Court determined that death by electrocution was not “cruel” if inflicted in accord
with the lawful sentence of death. To the contrary, other forms of death, like beheading, are considered in the U.S. to be
“cruel.”)
11. The Supreme Court ruled that the man’s conviction for carrying a firearm without permission was justified. The Court
stated that the Illinois law against non-members of the state militia from parading in public without the governor’s
approval did not “infringe [take away] the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The Court has also declared that the
2nd Amendment governs actions of only the federal government and is not binding on the states. (This is why gun laws
may vary somewhat from state to state.)
12. The Supreme Court ruled that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause a disruption. The Court
held that the Tinkers’ activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech. A student’s constitutional right to
freedom of expression existed in schools as long as the expression did not cause – or could not reasonable be predicted to
cause – a substantial disruption to the work of the school.
13. The Court ruled that the school district’s policy was unconstitutional. According to the Court, the school’s policy was
too vague because it did not give students enough information about exactly what conduct/expression was prohibited. The
Court furthermore ruled that such a vague policy invited unconstitutional, arbitrary, and discriminatory enforcement
because it allowed school administrators, police officers, judges, and juries to determine on a case-by-case basis exactly
which colors, symbols, signs, etc. violated the policy.
14. The Supreme Court held that Johnson’s conviction for flag desecration was unconstitutional, in violation of the First
Amendment. The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society
finds the idea offensive or disagreeable. The flag burning did not fall within the class of “fighting words” likely to be seen
as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs. The Court’s holding, however, does not forbid a State to
prevent “imminent lawless action,” or rioting.
15. The Supreme Court ruled that indigent (poor) defendants are entitled to a lawyer, even in noncapital cases. “[A]ny
person … who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to
us to be an obvious truth ... Lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.” The Court stated that “From the very
beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards
designed to assure fair trials … in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized
if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.”
16. The Supreme Court ruled in the students’ favor on First Amendment grounds. The Court held that the right to read is
implied by the First Amendment. The Court ruled that a public school cannot restrict speech because it does not agree
with the content of that speech. The Court called libraries places for ‘voluntary inquiry’ and that the school board
therefore did not have absolute control over which books could and could not be included in a school library.
17. The Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a basic human right. The Court ruled that the Chicago handgun ban was
unconstitutional.
18. The Supreme Court ruled that Nevada did not violate Larry Hiibel’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The police’s
stop of Larry Hiibel was based on reasonable suspicion and therefore satisfied the requirements of the Fourth
Amendment. The Court further ruled that the police request for Hiible to state his name did not infringe upon his right
against “self-incrimination.” A name alone, the Court ruled, is not considered “evidence” that could point to a person’s
guilt.
19. The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles may not be sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole for any
crime short of homicide. The Court ruled that juvenile offenders who have not committed homicide must have a chance to
rejoin society. Juveniles who receive lengthy prison sentences must be provided a meaningful chance at some point to
show they should be released. The Court determined that juveniles have a greater capacity for change than adults and have
limited moral responsibility for their actions. This ruling is an extension of a 2005 ruling that prohibits the death penalty
for any crime committed by a juvenile. The Eighth Amendment, the Court ruled, protects juveniles against such harsh
punishments as the death penalty and life sentences without parole.
20. The Supreme Court ruled that the Virginia law was unconstitutional. The Court held that restricting the freedom to
marry based on racial classifications violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also
ruled that the law violated the “due process” clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court stated that the freedom to marry is
a vital personal right essential to the pursuit of happiness by free people. To take away this fundamental freedom on the
basis of race deprives citizens of liberty without due process of law.