Supreme Court Cases
Laura Mayorga
Leslie Sampson
Jameson Clark
David Mirch
Erin Yelverton
Amanda Arriola
Marbury vs. Madison
1803
History
Outgoing President John Adams had issued William
Marbury a commission as justice of the peace, but the
new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver
it. Marbury then sued to obtain it. With his decision in
Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall
established the principle of judicial review, an important
addition to the system of “checks and balances” created
to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government
from becoming too powerful.
Facts
Involved William Marbury, John Adams, James Madison, and Chief Justice Marshall.
When James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote a defense of the
Constitution in The Federalist, they explained their judgment that a strong national
government must have built-in restraints: “You must first enable government to
control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
• The decision in this Supreme Court Case established the right of the courts to
determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of
government.
Affects:
• Peoples rights were better protected and the government was more controlled
• The actions of the legislative and executive branches of government still have to
meet the approval of the supreme court.
McCulloch vs. Maryland
1819
History
In 1816 Congress established the Second National Bank to help
control the amount of unregulated currency issued by state banks. Many
states questioned the constitutionality of the national bank, and Maryland
set a precedent by requiring taxes on all banks not chartered by the state.
In 1818 the State of Maryland approved legislation to impose taxes on the
Second National Bank chartered by Congress. 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. The Supreme Court, however, decided that
the chartering of a bank was an implied power of the Constitution, under
the “elastic clause,” which granted Congress the authority to “make all
laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” the
work of the Federal Government.
Facts
Involved James W. McCulloch .
The Supreme Court, however, decided that the chartering of a bank was an
implied power of the Constitution, under the “elastic clause,” which granted Congress
the authority to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
execution” the work of the Federal Government.
The court decided 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. Marshall ruled in favor of the Federal Government and concluded, “the
power to tax involves the power to destroy.“
Affects:
It pretty much put strict constitution people against loose constitutioners. The
decision upset strict interpreters of the constitution who did not want the national
government to play a huge part. The decision did not do much for the court, but it did
state that the States had less power than the Federal Government and that laws could
not be made to lessen the government's power.
The law that states cannot tax the federal government is still in place.
Plessy vs. Ferguson
1896
History
Racial discrimination was attacked on a particularly broad front by the Civil
Rights Act of 1875. This legislation made it a crime for an individual to deny “the
full and equal enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities,
and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters and other
places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations
established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color.” In
1883, the Supreme Court struck down the 1875 act, ruling that the 14th
Amendment did not give Congress authority to prevent discrimination by private
individuals. In 1891, a group of concerned young black men of New Orleans
formed the “Citizens’ Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car
Law.” They raised money and engaged Albion W. Tourgée, a prominent Radical
Republican author and politician, as their lawyer. On May 15, 1892, the Louisiana
State Supreme Court decided in favor of the Pullman Company’s claim that the
law was unconstitutional as it applied to interstate travel. In 1896, the Supreme
Court issued its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Justice Henry Brown of Michigan
delivered the majority opinion, which sustained the constitutionality of
Louisiana’s Jim Crow law.
Facts
Involved Homer Plessy and Judge John H. Ferguson.
Although the court upheld the state law, it granted Plessy’s petition for a
writ of error that would enable him to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
The ruling in this Supreme Court case upheld a Louisiana state law that
allowed for "equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored
races."
Segregation was still in place
It was not until the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka, Kansas and congressional civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s
that systematic segregation under state law was ended. In the wake of those
Federal actions, many states amended or rewrote their state constitutions to
conform with the spirit of the 14th Amendment.
Schenck vs. US
1919
History
A major effort to promote national unity accompanied America's involvement (1917-1918)
in World War I. As a part of this effort, Congress enacted a number of laws severely restricting 1st
Amendment freedoms to curb antiwar dissent. In 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act,
which set stiff penalties for uttering and circulating “false” statements intended to interfere with
the war effort. Any effort to cause unrest in the military forces or to interfere with the draft was
forbidden. In 1918, Congress passed a Sedition Act—the first such act in 120 years—which made
it a crime to interfere with the sale of government securities (war bonds) and also prohibited
saying or publishing anything disrespectful to the government of the United States. The
Committee on Public Information, a collection of leading writers and journalists, effectively
functioned as a propaganda arm of the government, distributing some 75 million pieces of
literature on behalf of the war effort from 1917 to 1918. But the strict conformity demanded by
the government in wartime invited an element of hysteria. Dissenters were often forcibly silenced
and jailed for their views. Among the best organized organs of dissent against the war was the
Socialist party. Its leader, Eugene V. Debs, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his statement
that while the “master classes” caused the war, the “subject classes” would have to fight it. A
Butte, Montana, mob dragged antiwar labor-organizer Frank Little through the streets before
they hung him from a railroad trestle. In Washington, the House of Representatives refused to
allow Milwaukee representative Victor Berger, a Socialist elected in 1918, to take his seat, despite
his service in that chamber from 1911 to 1913. Berger, too, had been jailed for his antiwar views.
Berger was allowed back into the chamber from 1923 to 1929.
Facts
Involved Charles Schenck, Eugene V. Debs, and Victor Berger.
Was the law prohibiting free speech? Was it worth it to defy the
constitution?
The Court's unanimous (9-0) decision was written by Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes. In it, the Court upheld Schenck's
conviction, declaring the Espionage Act a reasonable and
acceptable limitation on speech in time of war.
Affects:
Peoples ability to speak their mind was threatened.
No longer in affect.
Gitlow vs. New York
1925
History
The case arose shortly after the Communist Revolution in
Russia and in the wake of the "Red Scare" that gripped the
United States. Benjamin Gitlow was convicted in New York for
having published and circulated, unlawfully, pamphlets and
leaflets detrimental to the government. One of the pamphlets,
called the Left Wing Manifesto, advocated overthrowing
organized government by violent and other unlawful means.
Gitlow's attorney, Clarence Darrow, argued that the statute
under which Gitlow was arrested violated the First Amendment's
guarantee of freedom of expression.
Facts
Involved Benjamin Gitlow and Clarence Darrow.
The precise question presented, and the only question which we can consider under this
writ of error, then is, whether the statute, as construed and applied in this case by the State
courts, deprived the defendant of his liberty of expression in violation of the due process clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We cannot hold that the present statute is an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of the
police power of the State unwarrantably infringing the freedom of speech or press; and we must
and do sustain its constitutionality. This being so it may be applied to every utterance - not too
trivial to be beneath the notice of the law - which is of such a character and used with such intent
and purpose as to bring it within the prohibition of the statute. And finding, for the reasons
stated, that the statute is not it itself unconstitutional, and that it has not been applied in the
present case in derogation of any constitutional right, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Affects:
• People had their freedom of speech protected
• Still holds
Palko vs. Connecticut
1937
History
Appellant Palko was indicated in Connecticut for the crime of First Degree
Murder. A jury found him guilty of murder in the Second Degree, and
sentenced him to life imprisonment. The state then, with permission of the
Judge presiding at the trial, gave notice to the Supreme Court of Errors. The
Supreme Court of Errors reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. It
found that there had been three errors of law to the prejudice of the state.
Pursuant to the court's order, the appellant was brought to trial again. The
Appellant at several points argued that the effect of a new trial was to place
him twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and in doing so, violate the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Appellant's objections
were overruled, and the jury found him guilty of First Degree Murder, and
sentenced him to Death. The Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the decision,
and the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court affirmed
the State Courts conviction.
Facts
Involved Appellant Palko.
The Supreme Court of Errors reversed the judgment and ordered a new
trial. It found that there had been three errors of law to the prejudice of the
state.
The Appellant's objections were overruled, and the jury found him guilty
of First Degree Murder, and sentenced him to Death. The Supreme Court of
Errors affirmed the decision, and the case came on appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the State Courts conviction.
Affects:
• Determines peoples rights
• Still in effect
Brown vs. Board,
1954
st
1
History
The US still had segregation and it had been
endorsed in the court case Plessy vs. Ferguson,
that if separate facilities for the separate races
were equal that it was then not
unconstitutional. Though the plaintiffs in this
case argued that they in fact were not equal.
Facts
Involved Oliver Brown, 11 other parents and their 20 children and the
Board of Education of Topeka.
The district court ruled in favor of the Board, citing Plessy vs. Ferguson.
They did realize that black students were being adversely affected, they
refused to change. The Supreme Court reviewed this case combined with five
other cases, Briggs vs. Elliott (SC), Davis vs. County School Board of Prince
Edward County (VA), Gebhart vs. Belton (DE), and Bolling vs. Sharpe (DC). The
court ruled in favor of Brown et al.
Affects:
The district court’s decision the political climate and election outcome in
Topeka changed.
The Supreme Court’s did not immediately end segregation.
Brown vs. Board
1955
nd
2
Brown vs. Board 2nd is really just a
continuation of the Brown vs. Board 1. The
court just completed it’s ruling. It ordered the
states to comply with Brown vs. Board 1st “with
all deliberate speed.”
Though most public schools would not b
desegregated until about 1970 under Nixon.
The issue of busing to integrate students
across school district would still come to the
court’s attention in the next score.
Mapp vs. Ohio
1961
History
Cleveland Police received news that Dollree
Mapp and her daughter were harboring a
suspected bombing fugitive. They came to her
house and demanded entrance. When she refused
the broke into her home, so she demanded to see
the warrant. They waved a fake warrant in her face
which she attempted to keep, but failed. Instead of
finding a bomber in her house, they found a chest
full of pornography.
Facts
Involved Dollree Map and the state of Ohio.
When she was arrested for being in possession of obscene material,
Mapp’s attorney questioned the police about the missing warrant. They were
unable to produce one and she appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio upon
her conviction. When that court failed to accept her appeal, saying that the
materials were admissible evidence, she appealed to the US Supreme Court.
After much discussion over previous cases such as Wolf vs. Colorado. The
court eventually ruled in favor of Mapp. Stating that the federal rule that said
illegally attained evidence is not admissible to court applied to states.
Affects:
•
Overruled Wolf vs. Colorado
•
Protects people from unreasonable search and seizures.
Engel vs. Vitale
1962
History
Parents of students attending Hyde Park High
School complained the prayer to “Almighty God”
was against their religion.
“Almighty God, we acknowledge our
dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings
upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.
Amen.”
Claimed that the prayer violated the first
amendment even if they weren’t required to recite
it.
Facts
Involved Steven Engel et al. and William Vitale Jr. et al.
The governments of 22 states signed on to an amicus curiae
brief urging a previous decision that upheld the constitutionality
of prayer in schools. There were also opposing briefs submitted.
The court decided that government-directed prayer in public
schools was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment
Clause.
Affects:
• Schools could no longer hold prayer/meditation time, later on
prayer at high school football games.
• “Under God” – Pledge of Allegiance
Baker vs. Carr
1962
History
Plaintiff Charles Baker of Shelby County, Tennessee
complained that even though the Tennessee State
Constitution required that legislative districts be
redrawn every ten years, they had not been redistricted
since the census of 1901. By the time of his lawsuit, his
county had about 10x as many residents as some of the
rural districts. He sued Joe Carr (the Secretary of State
for TN) ex officio as the person who was ultimately
responsible for the actions of the state legislature. He
argued that they were essentially political not judicial
business.
Facts
Involved Charles Baker and Joe Carr
Baker argued that the voting discrepancy was violating
his rights under the 14th amendment, which guaranteed
equal protection under the laws to all.
After a bunch of disagreements and conference an
opinion was finally formed in March 1962 (1yr later
almost). Though they were unable to agree on a ruling.
The court remanded it to the District Court.
Affects:
In a later case, the Court formulated “one-man, onevote” standards for districting. And caused nearly every
state to redistrict during the 1960’s, often several times.
Abington vs. Schempp
1963
History
Edward Schempp (Unitarian) filed suit against
the Abington School District for reading passages
from the Bible before class as part of their
education. Pennsylvania has a law that stated “at
least 10 verses from the Holy Bible [be] read,
without comment, at the opening of each public
school on each school day.” He argued that it
violated the 1st and 14th amendments. 25 states had
similar laws at the time. In 11, it had already been
declared unconstitutional to have laws supportive
of Bible reading or state-sponsored prayer.
Facts
Involved Ellory Schempp, Edward Schempp and the Abington School District.
The district court ruled in Schempp’s favor and struck down the statute.
However, the school district appealed the ruling, while they waited they amended
the law to allow children to be excused from it. However Schempp continued his
action claiming it did not change it’s nature. The Supreme Court remanded the case
back due to the change. It once again settled in Schempp’s favor and struck down
the law once more, for still making it obligatory to do so regardless of whether
children are present.
Affects:
•
Public backlash (Most Hated Woman in America)
•
Calls for amending the Constitution to allow students to pray or read the Bible
are still heard.
•
Established requirements of a church-state law to have 3 things, sponsorship,
financial support, and active involvement of the government in the religious activity.
Gideon vs. Wainright
1963
•
1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with burglary in breaking in
to a pool hall and taking beer, wine, and money from the change machine.
•
Gideon poor and was not able to afford legal counsel.
•
The Court did not appoint Counsel to Gideon for appointed counsel
was only for defendants that committed a capital offence.
• Gideon had to act as his own counsel in which he was found guilty. He
was sentenced to five years in the state prison.
• Gideon wrote the U.S. Supreme Court of his case against the
Secretary to the Florida Department of Corrections, Louie L. Wainwright.
• The Supreme Court ruled the denied counsel to Gideon in his trial
had ignored the Sixth Amendment rights.
• 1963, Gideon was retried with counsel and acquitted.
• The right to counsel allowed any individual to counsel during their
trial.
•
Florida required that public defenders be present in all 16 circuit
courts.
• In August of 2006, the American Bar Association urged states to
provide a an attorney for low income individuals.
Wesberry vs. Sanders
1963
•
This case involved congressional districts in the state of Georgia
• The case ruled that the districts have to be closely equal in
population
•
Wesberry and the Courts ruled “one person, one vote” because
the Georgia’s congressional districts and population were so much
larger that the Constitution was violated.
• The rural overrepresentation was a problem before this case.
• The Constitution states that the representatives shall be chosen
"by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned
among the several States...according to their respective
Numbers...."
• The cities of the nation and the suburbs have a larger voice
within Congress because each person is one vote and does not hold
a higher power over another.
Griswold vs. Connecticut
1965
•
Estelle Griswold and Dr. C. Lee Buxton opened a birth control clinic in New
Haven, Connecticut. Connecticut had a law that banned the use of contraception
•
After the clinic was opened, both were arrested, found guilty, and both fined
$100.
•
The case was upheld by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, and by the
Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors.
•
Griswold appealed her case to the Supreme Court
•
The Supreme Court overturned her case and invalidated the contraception law
in Connecticut. Justice William O. Douglas ruled the case because of the Bill of Rights
mentioning “penumbras” and “emanations” which are similar to “privacy” rights. The
9th amendment does not specify enumerated power given to the people.
•
Justice John Marshall Harlan II ruled that the privacy of an individual is protected
by the due process clause in the 14th Amendment.
•
Griswold v. Connecticut helped other rulings such as Roe v. Wade and Lawrence
v. Texas
•
Today women are allowed contraceptives. There are no laws banning the use of
birth control.
Miranda vs. Arizona
1966
• The 1960’s was a time which defendants were provided with legal aid.
• Legal Services Corporation was created under the Great Society
program of Lyndon B. Johnson
• Police interrogation was considered unfair and strange.
• In 1963, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested for rape. Under police
interrogation, he confessed of robbery and attempted rape.
• During the trial the confession was considered evidence. Miranda was
convicted of rape and kidnapping which sentenced him to 20 to 30 years in
prison for each charge.
• His court-appointed attorney, Alvin Moore, appealed the case to the
Arizona Supreme Court. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the trial
court.
• The U.S. Supreme court ruled that due to police interrogation that was
brutal, no confession was allowed because of the 5th Amendment.
• Miranda’s rights were not stated to him and he was not offered an
attorney before being interrogated. The charges were overturned.
• This case led to a Miranda waiver which has criminals sign and date to
make sure they are aware of their rights.
Lemon vs. Kurtzman
1971
•
Lemon v. Kurtzman was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act
violated the 1st Amendment.
• The Act allowed the Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse
private schools for teachers’ salaries, textbooks and teaching materials. The
schools receiving aid were mostly Catholic.
• The Courts decided in created the “Lemon Test” which set guidelines for
legislation concerning religion.
• “The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose
• “The government's action must not have the primary effect of
either advancing or inhibiting religion”
• “The government's action must not result in an "excessive
government entanglement" with religion.”
• A government’s action is unconstitutional if it violates any of the three
prongs. It is unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause and the 1st
Amendment
• The Supreme Court has used the “Lemon Test” in the Santa Fe
Independent School District v. Doe
Roe vs. Wade
1973
• In 1970, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington filed a suit for Norma L.
McCorvey (“Jane Roe”). McCorvey claimed that her pregnancy was the result of
rape, District Attorney Henry Wade represented the State of Texas.
• The court ruled in her favor but did not grant her the permission to have an
abortion.
• The decision was made under the 9th Amendment and the court case of
Griswold v. Connecticut in the right to use contraceptives.
• The case reached the U.S. Supreme court on appeal.
• The decision was 7 to 2 majority voted to strike down the Texas abortion
laws. Abortion was viewed as a fundamental right. The 9th Amendment and its
“right of privacy” led to the decision of allowing abortion.
• A decision was established a system of trimesters that balanced states and
personal rights. Within the first trimester a state can not interfere with a
women’s right to abortion. During the second trimester, a state cant regulate the
abortion procedure.
• Roe v. Wade has contributed to other cases such as Webster v. Reproductive
Heath Services, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Gonzales v. Carhart.
United States vs. Nixon
1974
History
The Watergate scandal began during the 1972 presidential campaign
between Democratic Senator George McGovern of South Dakota and the
Republican President Richard Nixon. Months before the election, burglars
broke into Democratic headquarters located in the Watergate building
complex in Washington, D.C. After investigating the story, the Washington
Post suggested the break in could be traced to officials in the Nixon
administration. Archibald Cox filed a subpoena to secure tapes Nixon had
secretly taped in the Oval Office of the White House which he believed
would shed light on the Watergate burglary. He refused and fired Cox.
Cox’s replacement Leon Jaworski continued with the subpoena and was
granted the tapes. A grand jury indicted U.S. Attorney General John N.
Mitchell and six other persons, all senior Nixon administration officials or
members of the Committee to Re-elect the President. They were charged
with conspiracy to obstruct justice by covering up White House
involvement in the break-in at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate
complex.
Facts
Who Was Involved: President Richard Nixon, South Dakota Governor George McGovern,
Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, New Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski, Attn. General
John N. Mitchell, Judge John Sirica, Nixon’s Attn. James St. Clair
Why Did It Go To The Supreme Court: When edited copies of the tapes were received James D.
St. Clair, Nixon's attorney, requested Judge John Sirica of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia to repeal the subpoena. Sirica denied St. Clair's motion and ordered
the president to turn the tapes over by May 31. Both St. Clair and Jaworski appealed
directly to the Supreme Court which heard arguments on July 8.
What Was The Decision: After ruling that the Court could resolve the matter and that Jaworski
had proven that it was likely that each of the tapes contained conversations relevant to the
offenses charged in the indictment, the Court went to the main issue of executive privilege.
The Court rejected Nixon's claim to an absolute, unqualified executive privilege from the
judicial process under all circumstances.
What Are The Effects: The unanimous decision held that the Supreme Court has the power to
decide how the Constitution limits the President's powers; that the Constitution provides
for laws enforceable on a president; and that executive privilege does not apply to
"demonstrably relevant" evidence in criminal cases.
How Does It Affect People Today: Because of this case the public now has potential access to all
business the President conducts. The President is not allowed to withhold tapes and
documents from the public if the courts believe there is a reason for suspecting illegal
activity is occurring. This case helped define executive privilege so that the President does
not abuse it.
Buckley vs. Valeo
1976
History
In 1974, over the veto of President Gerald R. Ford, the
Congress passed significant amendments to the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971, creating the first comprehensive effort by
the federal government to regulate campaign contributions and
spending. A lawsuit was filed in the District Court for the D.C., on
January 2, 1975, by Senator James L. Buckley of New York,
former Senator, 1968 presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy of
Minnesota, and others. The suit was filed against Francis R.
Valeo, the Secretary of the Senate and ex officio member of the
FEC who represented the U.S. federal government. The court
denied plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs then appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Facts
Why Did It Go To The Supreme Court: A lawsuit was filed in the District Court
for the D.C., on January 2, 1975, by Senator James L. Buckley of New York,
former Senator, 1968 presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy of
Minnesota, and others. The suit was filed against Francis R. Valeo, the
Secretary of the Senate and ex officio member of the FEC who represented
the U.S. federal government. The court denied plaintiffs' request for
declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs then appealed to the Court of
Appeals.
What Was The Decision: The Supreme Court of the United States maintained
federal limits on campaign contributions and ruled that spending money
to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech.
The court also stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to
their own campaigns.
What Are The Effects: Although the decision upheld restrictions on the size of
campaign contributions, because it struck down limits on expenditures
some argue that this precedent allows those with great wealth to
effectively drown out the speech of average citizens.
How Does It Affect People Today: This ruling makes it a more fair race for
those who may not have as much economic support as another candidate.
Who Was Involved: James L. Buckley, Secretary of the Senate Francis R. Valeo
U.C. Regents vs. Bakke
1978
History
Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had
twice applied for admission to the University of California
Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The
school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of
one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the
university's affirmative action program, in an effort to
redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the
medical profession. Bakke's qualifications, college GPA
and test scores, were much higher than those of any of
the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's
applications were rejected. on the basis of race.
Facts
Who Was Involved: Allan Bakke, Archibald Cox, Reynold H. Colvin, Wade H. McCree
Why Did It Go To The Supreme Court: Bakke contended, first in the California courts, which
favored Bakke, in a vote of eight to one, and the university appealed to the United States
Supreme Court the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis
of race.
What Was The Decision: There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended
that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to
admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as
employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
What Are The Effects: This case was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States on affirmative action. It bans quota systems in college admissions but affirms the
constitutionality of affirmative action programs giving equal access to minorities. Powell
found that quotas insulated minority applicants from competition with the regular applicants
and were thus unconstitutional because they discriminated against regular applicants.
How Does It Affect People Today: It prevents certain amounts of certain races to get into college.
It makes it so that the college is selecting on ability not solely on background. Race is still a
factor when one applies to college but there is no set ratio, which makes the process much
more fair.
Webster vs. Reproductive
Health Services
1987
History
In 1986, the state of Missouri enacted legislation that placed
a number of restrictions on abortions. The statute's preamble
indicated that "[t]he life of each human being begins at
conception," and the law codified the following restrictions:
public employees and public facilities were not to be used in
performing or assisting abortions unnecessary to save the
mother's life; encouragement and counseling to have abortions
was prohibited; and physicians were to perform viability tests
upon women in at least, their twentieth week of pregnancy.
Lower courts struck down the restrictions.
Facts
Who Was Involved: William L. Webster, Frank Susman, Charles Freid
Why Did It Go To The Supreme Court: It was questioned whether or not the Missouri restrictions
unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to privacy or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
What Was The Decision: The Court held that none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri legislation were
unconstitutional. First, the Court held that the preamble had not been applied in any concrete manner for
the purposes of restricting abortions, and thus did not present a constitutional question. Second, the
Court held that the Due Process Clause did not require states to enter into the business of abortion, and
did not create an affirmative right to governmental aid in the pursuit of constitutional rights. Third, the
Court found that no case or controversy existed in relation to the counseling provisions of the law. Finally,
the Court upheld the viability testing requirements, arguing that the State's interest in protecting potential
life could come into existence before the point of viability.
What Are The Effects: Specifically, it allowed a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds,
facilities and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions. The Supreme Court thus
allowed for states to legislate in an area that had been previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe
v. Wade.
How Does It Affect People Today: Because the preamble didn’t go against anything established in Roe v. Wade,
the preamble of Missouri was unconstitutional. Therefore, it paved the way for other states to also have
more leeway in regulating abortion.
Texas cs. Johnson 1989
History
In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall,
Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag
as a means of protest against Reagan
administration policies. Johnson was tried and
convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag
desecration. He was sentenced to one year in
jail and assessed a $2,000 fine.
Facts
Who Was Involved: Gregory Lee Johnson, Kathi Alyce Drew- argued for petitioner,
William M. Kunstler- argued for respondent
Why Did It Go To The Supreme Court: After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court.
What Was The Decision: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Johnson's burning
of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court found
that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a
distinctively political nature. The fact that an audience takes offense to certain
ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech.
What Are The Effects: A decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that
invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag in force in 48 of the 50
states.
How Does It Affect People Today: It allows people the freedom to protest politically
and against other things with protection from the 1st Amendment. It accounts for
symbolic speech.
Ashcroft vs. ACLU
2002
History
In 1996 Congress created the Communications Decency Act, (CDA) as part of the 1996
Telecommunications Act. The CDA prohibited the use of the internet to purposely send indecent
material to those under 18 years of age. The CDA was found unconstitutional in the decision of
Reno v. ACLU, because in the CDA the internet was held to the same standards as broadcast
media. The court held that the internet is less “invasive” than broadcast media, the same rules
could not apply to the two entities. Despite this ruling, however, the court agreed that the
government does have a responsibility to protect minors from obscene/indecent internet
content. Congress's second attempt to answer to this was the Child Online Protection Act (COPA)
of 1998. COPA made it illegal for any commercial sources to allow minors access to “harmful”
content. Drawing on language from the landmark Miller v. California case to better define the
term "obscenity."
Opponents of COPA argued that child pornography is already illegal, and COPA would not be
effective because it would waste too much time going after individual sites within the US which
could simply set up shop overseas if shut down. It was also argued that COPA would infringe upon
rights of adults to receive non-pornographic/harmful messages, and that COPA was not the least
invasive or most efficient way to protect children from harmful online content.
Facts
Involved Attorney General John Ashcroft and American Civil Liberties Union.
The Supreme Court of the United States decided the case, which began in
1999, and found that, contra the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, "COPA's
reliance on community standards to identify 'material that is harmful to minors'
does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for purposes of the
First Amendment" (majority opinion).
Affects:
COPA should be enjoined because the statute likely violates the first
amendment. There are less restrictive alternatives to COPA. Blocking and filtering
software are less restrictive. Filters impose selective restrictions on speech at the
receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source. Childless adults can access
information they have a right to see without having to identify themselves. Adults
with children may turn off their filters to access material they wish to view.
Congress passed two more less restrictive alternatives to COPA: the prohibition of
misleading domain names and the minor safe “dot-kids” domain name. Blocking
and filtering software also blocks all pornography (40% of content deemed
harmful to minors comes from overseas).
•
Helps to protect the peoples rights under the first amendment
Lawrence vs. Texas
2003
History
Under the common law, the existence of rights of sexual partners were recognized through
the marriage contract. That is, in common law there was no stand-alone right to engage in sexual
activity, be they male or female, adult or minor. But, it is a basic legal principle under the
common and statutory laws that everything that is not forbidden by the common and statutory
law is allowed. As sexual acts usually take place in private, few cases involving engagement in
"sodomy" and "fornication" came before the courts, and no precedent was established under the
common law forbidding "fornication"; with "sodomy", the common law was mixed. The common
law came from Great Britain with the British colonists, and upon the American Revolution,
became the law of the United States, except where contradicted by statute, or, above all, the
Constitution. Because "fornication" was viewed as an evil, several US jurisdictions passed statutes
forbidding it, and also forbade and specified penalties for "sodomy". By the 1960s, attitudes
towards sexual relations, marriage, sexual orientation, and the role of women began to change.
This was sped along with the advent of safe and effective birth control devices and medicines.
Attitudes strongly discouraging premarital sex decreased in intensity. "No-fault" divorce laws
made getting divorces easier, and the number of unmarried partners living together (a
relationship formerly frowned upon) soared. As part of this change in societal norms, the
acceptance of same-sex relationships and the number of people openly seeking such
relationships increased, to the point that many states repealed their sodomy laws in the 1970s.
Involved John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner v Texas .
Was a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the
justices struck down the sodomy law that had criminalized homosexual sex in
Texas. The court had previously addressed the same issue in 1986 in Bowers v.
Hardwick, but had upheld the challenged Georgia statute, not finding a
constitutional protection of sexual privacy.
Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty
interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct
was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws
throughout the United States that purport to criminalize homosexual activity
between consenting adults acting in private. It may also invalidate the application
of sodomy laws to heterosexual sex based solely on morality concerns.
Affects:
The case attracted much public attention, and a large number of amicus
curiae ("friends of the court") briefs were filed. Its outcome was celebrated by gay
rights advocates, who hoped that further legal advances might result as a
consequence. Conversely, it was decried by social conservatives as an example of
judicial activism.
Gratz v. Bollinger
2003
History
The University of Michigan used a 150-point scale to rank
applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The
University gave "underrepresented" ethnic groups, including
African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, an
automatic 20-point bonus on this scale.
Facts
Involved Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher v. Lee Bollinger
The petitioners, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both white residents of Michigan, applied
for admission to the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA). Gratz
applied for admission in the fall of 1995 and Hamacher in the fall of 1997. Both were subsequently
denied admission to the university. In October 1997, Gratz and Hamacher filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the University of Michigan, the LSA,
James Duderstadt, and Lee Bollinger. Duderstadt was president of the university while Gratz's
application was under consideration, and Bollinger while Hamacher's was under consideration. Their
class-action lawsuit alleged "violations and threatened violations of the rights of the plaintiffs and the
class they represent to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment... and for racial
discrimination.“
Held that the policy was unconstitutional because the University's use of race in its current
freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve respondents' asserted compelling
interest in diversity, the admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Affects:
Further protected the rights of the people with the fourteenth amendment and the equal
protection clause, however in this case the protection was for white and non-minority students instead
of its original intended.
This helps to protect the rights of the people both minority and non-minority.
Grutter vs. Bollinger
2003
History
The case originated in 1996 when Barbara Grutter, a white
Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 Law School
Admissions Test (LSAT) score, was rejected by the University of
Michigan Law School.
Facts
Involved Barbara Grutter, Petitioner v. Lee Bollinger
She filed suit in December 1997, alleging that the university had discriminated against her
on the basis of race in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She said she was
rejected because the Law School used race as the "predominant" factor, giving applicants
belonging to underrepresented minority groups (African Americans, Hispanics, and Native
Americans) a significantly greater chance of admission than White and Asian American applicants
with similar credentials. She argued that the university had no compelling interest to justify that
use of race.
In the court's ruling, Justice O'Connor's majority opinion held that the United States
Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions
decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a
diverse student body." The court held that the law school's interest in obtaining a "critical mass"
of minority students was indeed a "tailored use."
Affects:
Reversed the changes made in Gratz vs. Bollinger, and at the same time allows University
Admissions to be racially selective, even though it has been determined unconstitutional.
The major affect today is that, as the Supreme Court justice’s stated, they hope to see
University Admissions’ selection processes filter out the use of race within 25 years.
Kelo vs. City of New
London
2005
History
The case was appealed from a decision in favor of the city of
New London by the Supreme Court of Connecticut, which found
that the use of eminent domain for economic development (the
central focus of the case) did not violate the public use clauses of
the state and federal constitutions. The court found that if an
economic project creates new jobs, increases tax and other city
revenues, and revitalizes a depressed (even if not blighted)
urban area, it qualifies as a public use. The court also found that
government delegation of eminent domain power to a private
entity was also constitutional as long as the private entity served
as the legally authorized agent of the government.
Facts
Involved Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut
The city of New London, Connecticut, had by the early 2000s fallen on hard economic
times. The city in 2000 approved a development plan and authorized the corporation to acquire
the necessary land in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. The development corporation offered to
purchase all 115 lots on the property; however, the owners of 15 of these properties did not wish
to sell to the corporation. The city of New London chose to exercise its power of eminent domain
and ordered the development corporation to condemn the 15 holdout owners' lots.
The Supreme Court found for the City of New London. They set out more detailed standards
for judicial review of economic development takings. In so doing, it contributed to the Court's
trend of turning minimum scrutiny--the idea that government policy need only bear a rational
relation to a legitimate government purpose--into a fact-based test.
Affects:
Following the decision, many of the plaintiffs expressed an intent to find other means by
which they could continue contesting the seizure of their homes. The controversy was eventually
settled when the city paid substantial additional compensation to the homeowners.
The importance of this today is the definition of eminent domain in relation to public
purpose and in protection the peoples rights’.
Gonzales vs. Carhart
2007
History
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was signed into law by
President Bush on November 5, 2003, and was immediately
challenged. Three different U.S. district courts, the Northern
District of California, the Southern District of New York, and the
District of Nebraska declared the law unconstitutional. Federal
District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of California ruled it
unconstitutional on June 1, 2004 in Planned Parenthood v.
Ashcroft. New York District Judge Richard C. Casey also found the
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional, as did U.S.
District Judge Richard Kopf in Nebraska.
Facts
Involved Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Petitioner v. LeRoy Carhart, et al.;
Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Petitioner v. Planned Parenthood Federation of
America, Inc., et al.
The federal government appealed the district court rulings, first bringing Carhart
v. Gonzales before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit. The panel unanimously upheld the ruling of the Nebraska court on July 8,
2005. Finding that the government offered no "new evidence which would serve to
distinguish this record from the record reviewed by the Supreme Court in Stenberg,"
they held that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is unconstitutional because it lacks an
exception for the health of the woman. Attorney General Gonzales petitioned the U.S.
Supreme Court to review the Eighth Circuit decision on September 25, 2005.
Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit also found the law unconstitutional, as did the Second
Circuit (with a dissent),issuing their opinions on January 31, 2006. The Supreme Court
agreed to hear the Carhart case on February 21, 2006, and agreed to hear the
companion Planned Parenthood case on June 19, 2006.
Facts cont.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Court that the respondents had failed
to show that Congress lacked power to ban this abortion procedure. Chief Justice
John Roberts along with Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin
Scalia agreed with the Court's judgment, and they also joined Kennedy's opinion.
The Court left the door open for as-applied challenges, citing its recent precedent
in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England. According to Washington Post
reporter Benjamin Wittes, "The Court majority, following the path it sketched out
last year in the New Hampshire case, decided to let the law stand as a facial
matter and let the parties fight later about what, if any, applications need to be
blocked." The Court decided to "assume ... for the purposes of this opinion" the
principles of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Court then
proceeded to apply those "principles accepted as controlling here.“
Affects:
This affects mainly Pro-life activists and religious persons who believe
strongly against abortion of any sort. The fact that the courts continue to uphold
cases similar to this one only shows a strong Pro-choice trend that does not
appear to be altering.