2014
Supreme Court
Preview
Susan McHugh, Esq
Social Studies/Debate
Denver East High School
Susan_McHugh@dpsk12.org
Agenda
Supreme Court Fun Facts
Previous Term Round Up
Using This Term in Your Class
Fernandez v. California
Using This Term in Your Class
Town of Greece v. Galloway
Classroom Materials
Current Court
Supreme Court 2012-2013
 Number of Merit Opinions?
 Number from State Courts?
 Number from US Court of Appeals?
 Which circuit had the highest #?
 http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/final-october-term-2012-stat-pack
 Which 2 Justices had the highest agreement rate?
 Which 2 Justices had the lowest agreement rate?
 Of the merit opinions, how many were 9-0?
 Of the merit opinions, how many were 5-4?
 Of the 5-4 decisions, which justice was in the majority the most?
 Who authored the most opinions (total)?
 Who authored the most 9-0 decisions?
 Which majority opinion author had the fewest # of days between
argument and opinion?
 Which Justice had the highest # of average questions?
 Which Justice had the highest frequency as the first questioner?
Last Year’s Cases
Fisher v. University of Texas
 7-1 decision (Justice Kagan recused) with no decision on
UT admissions program but sent case back to the 5th
Circuit with clarified standard of review emphasizing that
race can be used as a factor in university admissions, as
long as the use of race is “narrowly tailored” to achieve a
compelling interest.
 5th Circuit heard oral arguments on November 13, 2013. All appellate
briefs are available at: http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Fisher-VTexas.html
Florida v. Jardines
 5-4 decision that the use of a drug-sniffing dog on the
porch of a home without a properly executed warrant is an
unreasonable search violating the 4th Amendment.
This Term: Fernandez v. California
4th Amend - Consent to Search
Facts: F suspected of stabbing during gang robbery.
Police went to apartment without warrant and hear screams.
Police knock and live-in girlfriend opened door holding a child and bloody/ fresh bruises.
F was visible to officers at door and said “Get out. I know my rights. You can’t come in.”
Police arrested F for domestic violence and took him into custody. One hour later police
returned to apartment and girlfriend consented to search. Police found evidence that was
used to convict F of gang robbery.
Issue: Is consent to search valid from co-tenant when the potential defendant previously
stated that he did not consent?
Two Major Precedents:
United States v. Matlock (1974) 6-3 opinion: Anyone who has “common authority” (mutual
use) over a home can consent to a police search of the home in the absence of the other
co-tenant. Rationale = when you choose to live with someone and share space, you
assume the risk that he/she might consent to a search in your absence.
Georgia v. Randolph (2006) 5-3 opinion (Souter): If a potential defendant with self-interest
in objecting is at the door of the home and objects, then the co-tenant’s consent to search
does not suffice for a reasonable search.
Rationale = In customary social actions if two people share a home and at the door one
invites you in while the other refuses, then you would not enter.
Town of Greece v Galloway
1st Amend: Establishment Clause
Facts: Starting in 1999 Town of Greece opened town board meetings with a prayer
delivered over public address. Prayer-leaders often asked audience to participate by
bowing heads, standing or joining prayer. From 1999 – 2007 all prayer leaders were
Christian. Between 2007-2010 there were four prayers delivered by non-Christians.
Majority (2/3rds) of prayers between 1999-2010 used Christian language like “Jesus”,
“Christ”, “Holy Spirit”. Substance of town meetings after prayer included general town
business, public forums and applications for various permits.
Issue: Did the Town of Greece’s practice of opening board meetings with a prayer violate
the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment?
Background presentation: http://www.oyez.org/town-of-greece/
Tests:
Marsh v. Chambers (1983):Marsh Test. In light of history, no violation if prayer does not
proselytize, disparage, or advance one faith over another.
Lynch v. Donnelly (1984): Endorsement Test. No violation unless prayer creates
perception to reasonable observer that the government is endorsing or disapproving of
religion.
Lee v. Weisman: (1992) Coerion Test. No violation unless government 1 )provides direct
aid to establish a state church, or 2) coerces people to support/participate in religion
against their will.
Classroom Materials
www.streetlaw.org/en/home
www.streetlaw.org/en/topics/us_supreme_c
ourt
www.landmarkcases.org
www.oyez.org
www.scotusblog.com
www.constitutioncenter.org
http://www.streetlaw.org/en/programs/Progr
am/10/Supreme_Court_Summer_Institute_f
or_Teachers