SUPREME COURT CASES THAT TEENS SHOULD KNOW:
1. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)
Issue: Freedom of Speech at School
Bottom Line: You Have the Right To Express Yourself—Up to a Point
Background
In December 1965, John and Mary Beth Tinker and their friend Chris Eckhardt wore black
armbands to school in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest the war in Vietnam. School officials told
them to remove the armbands, and when they refused, they were suspended (John, 15, from
North High; Mary Beth, 13, from Warren Harding Junior High; and Chris, 16, from Roosevelt
High). With their parents, they sued the school district, claiming a violation of their First
Amendment right of freedom of speech.
2. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
Issue: Privacy Rights at School
Bottom Line: Your Belongings Can Be Searched, But Not Arbitrarily
Background
T.L.O. (Terry), a 14-year-old freshman at Piscataway High School in New Jersey, was caught
smoking in a school bathroom by a teacher. The principal questioned her and asked to see her
purse. Inside was a pack of cigarettes, rolling papers, and a small amount of marijuana. The
police were called and Terry admitted selling drugs at school.
Her case went to trial and she was found guilty of possession of marijuana and placed on
probation. Terry appealed her conviction, claiming that the search of her purse violated her
Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures."
3. Ingraham v. Wright (1977)
Issue: School Discipline
Bottom Line: Teachers Can Use Corporal Punishment, If Your Locality Allows It
Background
James Ingraham, a 14-year-old eighth-grader at Drew Junior High School in Miami, was taken to
the principal's office after a teacher accused him of being rowdy in the school auditorium. The
principal decided to give him five swats with a paddle, but James said that he hadn't done
anything wrong and refused to be punished. He was subsequently held down while the principal
gave him 20 swats.
While corporal punishment was permitted in the school district, James suffered bruises that kept
him out of school for 10 days and he had to seek medical attention. James and his mother sued
the principal and other school officials, claiming the paddling violated Eighth Amendment
protections against "cruel and unusual punishments."
4. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (2000)
Issue: School Prayer
Bottom Line: Public schools Cannot Sponsor Religious Activity
Background
A Texas school district allowed a student "chaplain," who had been elected by fellow students, to
lead a prayer over the public address system before home football games. Several students and
their parents anonymously sued the school district, claiming a violation of what's known as the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
5. Kent v. United States (1966)
Issue: Juveniles and Serious Crime
Bottom Line: Teens Can Be Tried as Adults
Background
Morris Kent, 16, who had been on probation since he was 14 for burglary and theft, was arrested
and charged with three home burglaries, three robberies, and two counts of rape in Washington,
D.C. Because of the seriousness of the charges and Morris's previous criminal history, the
prosecutor moved to try Morris in adult court.
Morris's lawyer wanted the case to stay in juvenile court where the penalties were much less
severe. He had planned to argue that Morris had a mental illness that should be taken into
account when deciding where he would be tried. Without a hearing, the judge sided with the
prosecutor and sent Morris to adult court, where he was found guilty and sentenced to 30 to 90
years in prison. Morris appealed, arguing that the case should have remained in juvenile court.
6. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Issue: Student Journalism and the First Amendment
Bottom Line: Schools Can Censor Student Newspapers
Background
Cathy Kuhlmeier, Leslie Smart, and Leanne Tippett, juniors at Hazelwood East High School in
St. Louis, Missouri, helped write and edit the school paper, the Spectrum, as part of a journalism
class. An issue of the paper was to include articles about the impact of divorce on students and
teen pregnancy. The school's principal refused to publish the two stories, saying they were too
sensitive for younger students and contained too many personal details. The girls went to court
claiming their First Amendment right to freedom of expression had been violated.
7. Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995)
Issue: Student Athletes and Drug Testing
Bottom Line: Schools Can Require It
Background
James Acton, a 12-year-old seventh-grader at Washington Grade School in Vernonia, Oregon,
wanted to try out for the football team. His school required all student athletes to take drug tests
at the beginning of the season and on a random basis during the school year. James's parents
refused to let him be tested because, they said, there was no evidence that he used drugs or
alcohol. The school suspended James from sports for the season. He and his parents sued the
school district, arguing that mandatory drug testing without suspicion of illegal activity
constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
8. West Side Community Schools v. Mergens (1990)
Issue: Student Clubs
Bottom Line: Public Schools That Allow Student-Interest Clubs Cannot Exclude
Religious or Political Ones
Background
Bridget Mergens was a senior at Westside High School in Omaha, Nebraska. She asked her
homeroom teacher, who was also the school's principal, for permission to start an after-school
Christian club. Westside High already had about 30 clubs, including a chess club and a scubadiving club. The principal denied Bridget's request, telling her that a religious club would be
illegal in a public school.
The year before, in 1984, Congress had addressed this issue in the Equal Access Act, which
required public schools to allow religious and political clubs if they let students form other kinds
of student-interest clubs. When Bridget challenged the principal's decision, her lawsuit became
the Supreme Court's test case for deciding whether the Equal Access Act was constitutional
under what is known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
9. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Issue: Affirmative Action in College
Bottom Line: Colleges Can Use Race as a Factor in Admissions
Background
In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident, was denied admission to the University of
Michigan Law School. Grutter, who had a 3.8 undergraduate grade point average and good
standardized test scores, sued the university over the law school's affirmative action policy,
which considered race as a factor in admissions. Michigan and many other universities use
affirmative action to increase the number of minority students admitted. Grutter claimed that
Michigan admitted less-qualified minority applicants in violation of federal civil rights laws and
the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizens "equal protection" under the law.
10. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (1989)
Issue: Constitutional Rights at Home
Bottom Line: The Constitution Doesn't Protect Kids from Their Parents
Background
Four-year-old Joshua DeShaney lived with his father, who physically abused him, in Neenah,
Wisconsin. At one point, the State Department of Social Services took custody of Joshua but
returned him after three days. Later, Joshua was hospitalized with bruises all over his body and
severe brain damage. He survived, but was permanently paralyzed and mentally disabled. His
father was convicted of child abuse and sent to prison. Joshua's mother sued the Department of
Social Services for returning him to his father. She argued that the department had a duty to
protect her son under the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids the state from depriving "any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
CONTROVERSIAL SUPREME COURT CASES
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
How can an 1803 case about Secretary of State James Madison’s refusal to seat four judicial
appointees be controversial you ask? Because this is the case that made the Supreme Court what
it is today. This was the case that introduced the idea of “judicial review” – the ability of the
Court to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. Although we understand this to be part of the
Court’s job description, this is a power that was not explicitly granted by the Constitution. Some
might call it the first instance of “judicial activism” by the legendary Chief Justice John
Marshall, but without this case, the Court as we know it would not exist.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Most of us are familiar with the fact that if we are charged with a crime, one will be provided for
us if we are unable to afford a lawyer. If you ever find yourself in that situation, you can thank a
petty thief named Clarence Gideon. Until Mr. Gideon wrote a letter to lawyer Abe Fortas (later a
Supreme Court Justice himself) asking for help finding a lawyer due to his impoverished status,
individuals charged with a crime had to retain their own lawyer. The Supreme Court held that
that anyone charged with a serious criminal offense has the right to an attorney under the Sixth
Amendment, and the state must provide one if they are unable to afford legal counsel. Possibly
only the most libertarian of libertarians would find this controversial, but some still believe that
“public defenders” (a term that did not exist until this case came along) are an unnecessary
government expense, particularly in these economic times. Whether you agree with the Supreme
Court or not, do yourself a favor and read Gideon’s Trumpet, a book detailing the story behind
this case
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Thanks to television police dramas, nearly everyone knows the “Miranda warning” by heart,
although the younger of us might not realize that the case that gave rise to a police officer’s need
to inform a suspect of his due process rights is less than 50 years old. The Supreme Court ruled
that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that criminal suspects must
be warned of their rights (the right to remain silent, to have an attorney present, and, if the
suspect cannot afford an attorney, to have one appointed by the state) before they are questioned
by police. It retains some degree of controversy still today (“getting off on a technicality”), but
most accept it simply as a procedural requirement.
Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke (1978)
Race-based set-asides in education – nothing controversial there, right? In Bakke, the Supreme
Court ruled (in a 5-4 decision, the narrowest of margins) that the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment meant that race could be only one of a number of factors that could be
used by college admissions boards (or other similar institutions). The decision did leave the door
open to some race usage in admission decisions, and was later modified in Grutter v. Bollinger
(2003), in which the Supreme Court held that a narrowly-tailored use of race in student
admission decisions may be permissible under the Equal Protection Clause.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
From race to sex, the Supreme Court handles all the controversial subjects. In this case, the
Supreme Court held that a Texas law prohibiting homosexuals from engaging in consensual
sodomy was prohibited by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In making this
ruling, the Court overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which had upheld a Georgia statute
outlawing sodomy. The issue in both cases deals with the issue of whether the Constitution
provides a “right of privacy” (and whether that extends to the sexual acts of consenting adults.
Justice Clarence Thomas voted to uphold the Texas law at issue in Lawrence, as he said he could
find “no general right of privacy” or relevant liberty in the Constitution. However, Justice
Thomas added that he found the law to be”silly,” and would have voted to repeal the law if he
had been a member of the Texas Legislature. The Lawrence case has had the effect of
invalidating similar laws throughout the United States. As a result, social conservatives have
decried the Lawrence ruling.
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
In 1972, the Supreme Court (in Furman v. Georgia) struck down state laws that gave juries
sweeping discretion in imposing the death penalty, holding that these laws violated the Eight
Amendment prohibition of “cruel and unusual” punishment. In response, 37 states enacted new
death penalty laws that sought to address the court’s concerns about the arbitrary imposition of
the death penalty. Four years after Furman, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of
the death penalty in Gregg (with two companion cases from Florida and Texas), rejecting claims
that capital punishment was always in violation of the Eighth Amendment. However, Gregg did
imply that mandatory death penalty statutes would violate the Eighth Amendment (and Woodson
v. North Carolina, decided the same day, outlawed the mandatory death sentence).
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
For some, the Supreme Court invalidating a state law barring married couples from buying
contraceptives might not seem controversial. However, the significance (and controversy) of
Griswold is that the Court overturned that law based upon the infamous (to law students,
anyway) pronouncement that the right to privacy was found in the “penumbras” of the Bill of
Rights. This finding of a constitutional right to privacy has been extremely controversial, and has
served as the basis for other cases on this list. Critics cite Griswold as the forerunner of “judicial
activism” – reaching a desired result, and then attempting to find a Constitutional basis for it.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Some call this the case that started the Civil War (although history scholars will explain to you
that it was a wee bit more complicated than that). Dred Scott was a slave who was taken from a
Missouri (a slave state) to “free” states and territories (which barred slavery). Mr. Scott filed a
lawsuit claiming that because he had lived on free soil he was entitled to his freedom. When this
went to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote the famous opinion holding that
neither Dred Scott, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United
States. As a result, he could not bring suit in federal court (under diversity of citizenship
procedural rules). What made this even more controversial was the statement that Mr. Scott’s
temporary residence outside Missouri did not affect his emancipation under the Missouri
Compromise, since the Court reasoned that reaching that result would deprive Mr. Scott’s owner
of his property.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
In 1896, the Supreme Court, in Plessy v. Ferguson, upheld a Louisiana law that mandated
“equal, but separate, accommodations for the white and colored races” on railroad cars. As a
result, Plessy paved the way for the Jim Crow laws of the South. Half a century later, the
Supreme Court overturned Plessy in Brown, holding that racial segregation in schools violated
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for a
unanimous Court in stating that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” This
case led to the desegregation (sometimes forcefully) of schools across the nation. Future
Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was one of the NAACP lawyers who successfully
argued the case.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
If you known the name of only one Supreme Court case, this is likely the one you know.
Building upon the Griswold “right of privacy,” the Roe Court held that a mother may abort a
pregnancy for any reason until the “point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.” The decision
overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with
its holdings. Those who oppose Roe are not just those who feel that it is morally wrong – some
argue that the definition of “viable” in 1973 (“usually placed at about seven months but may
occur earlier, even at 24 weeks”) is outdated due to developments in medicine.
Bush v Gore (531 US 98), 2000. Bush v Gore decided the 2000 presidential election, and did so
in a way that was extremely controversial and unusual, as the Court said that the case would
never be considered binding precedent. Those on the left would say that the Court unreasonably
interfered with Florida election law and procedures, stopping a lawful recount.
Hamdi v Rumsfeld (548 US 557), 2006. The second of the Guantanamo trial cases, in which the
Court held that the executive cannot hold military trials for persons held in US custody at
Guantanamo Bay, as it would violate the Uniform Code and the Geneva conventions.
Terry v Ohio (392 US 1), 1968. The Terry ruling established a right for police officers to search
individuals if they have some particular reason to do so, and feel that it is necessary as a point of
safety. "Terry searches" are controversial because they lend themselves to fishing expeditions in
search of criminal activity.
Illinois v Caballes (543 US 405), 2005. This case expanded the right of the police to use drugsniffing dogs during traffic stops and similar circumstances. The Court ruled that a narcotics
canine is not an intrusive search, even though a dog can detect things that a human officer
cannot.
Kelo v City of New London (545 US 469), 2005. The Court ruled that eminent domain -- the
government taking property for the common good -- could be used for building up commercial
and upscale residential housing, on the grounds of economic development. Libertarians don't like
this ruling.
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (558 US___), 2010. The Court held that
corporate spending cannot be limited during elections. This was an extension of a previous case,
Buckley v Valeo (424 US 1) of 1976, in which the Court held that spending money on election
campaigns is a form of speech that should be protected, even if limited. Citizens United
eliminated many of the restrictions Buckley allowed. Both cases are very contentious, as they
raise the specter of special interests and corporations spending huge amounts of money to
influence elections.
District of Columbia v Heller (554 US ____), 2008. The Heller case saw the Court decide that
the right to bear arms overrides Washington, D.C.'s right to ban handguns. It is one of the first
Court cases addressing Second Amendment rights in a long time, and it's expected to lead to a
similar case over the same rights in states, rather than the federal district.
Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency (549 US 497), 2007. In Mass v EPA, the
Court held that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and thus a pollutant, that can be regulated by
the EPA. This case came about because the Bush Administration's EPA said that CO2 couldn't
be regulated by the Clean Air Act, and said it wouldn't regulate carbon dioxide even if it could.
States appealed to force the issue.
There have also been several cases restricting the use of the death penalty. Most people
applaud them, but the law-and-order wing of the Republican Party objects. They are 1) Roper v
Simmons (543 US 551, 2005), in which the Court held that minors cannot be executed for any
crime, and arguing that a "national consensus" had emerged against such a thing; 2) Atkins v
Virginia (534 US 304, 2002), in which the Court made a similar ruling about capital punishment
being unconstitutional -- as cruel and unusual punishment -- when applied to the mentally
retarded; and 3) Kennedy v Louisiana (554 US ___, 2008), which held that the death penalty
cannot be applied to crimes such as rape, if unaccompanied by murder.
Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (484 US 260), 1988. In this case, the Court restricted a previous right
of students to free speech (the famous Tinker v Des Moines case), and held that schools can
prohibit publications of stories in student newspapers. The Court held that such papers are not
public forums, and the school can restrict speech that conflicts with its educational goals.
Also in the First Amendment area of jurisprudence are the cases that involve government
endorsement of religion, the so-called Establishment Clause cases. There are strings of them,
most of which involve Christian or Jewish religious symbols set up on public property. The
Court ties itself in knots distinguishing these cases. One of the more notable is County of
Allegheny v. ACLU (492 US 573), 1989, which dealt with a menorah, a nativity scene, and a
Christmas tree on the steps of the county courthouse. The Court ignored the Christmas tree,
decided that the menorah was either a secular symbol of the holiday season and/or a nod to
multiculturalism, and ruled that the nativity scene was a direct governmental endorsement of
Christianity, and impermissible under the Establishment Clause.
Equally contested, lately, is the issue of displays featuring documents like the Ten
Commandments. In 2005, the Court handed down rulings in two different cases, holding that one
such display was permissible, and the other was not. In Van Orden v Perry (545 US 677), the
Court allowed the display, because it was in a park with many other monuments, had been
donated decades before by a largely secular group, and did not have the appearance of a shrine.
However, in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (545 US 844), the Court concluded that
the display was unlawful because all of the included documents were selected based on religious
references, and the display had been tweaked in order to avoid constitutional objections.
Finally, on the other side of the freedom of religion is the freedom to practice religion as one
sees fit. This has been before the Court many times, but never so memorably as in the case of
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (508 US 520), 1993. The case was brought
because of the Santeria beliefs of the church. Santeria, a Caribbean religion practiced mostly by
descendents of Africans, includes animal sacrifice as part of its rites. On finding that the Lukumi
church was being established, the Hialeah city council passed a law specifically aimed at the
church by prohibiting the killing of any animal not intended to be eaten. The Court held that this
law served no compelling government purpose, was not neutral to all faiths (that is, it penalized
Santeria worshippers but did not affect Christians, for example), and was not narrowly tailored to
limit the religious exercise it prohibited, and was therefore unconstitutional. The case is not
enormously controversial by itself, but it taps into a much larger debate about what religious
practices should be allowed, and how the government can lawfully limit them.