The Supreme Court
Expands its Power
Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Facts of the Case
-John Adams tried to appoint Marbury and several other
guys to judicial positions the day before he left office.
-The appointments were never completed
-Jefferson refused to recognize the appointments.
-The angry appointees sued for their jobs in the Courts
Question Presented
-Is Marbury entitled to his appointment?
Conclusion
-Yes
- Established
“Judicial Review” the ability for courts to
interpret the Constitution
Supreme Court
and
Individual rights
Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
Facts of the Case
-Louisiana passed a law that required separate railway cars
for blacks and whites
-Homer Plessy took a seat in the a “white only” car of a train.
He refused to move to the car for blacks and was arrested
Question Presented
- Did this arrest violate his 14th amendment (equal protection)
Conclusion
-Conclusion “You can keep things separated
as long as they are equal.”
“Separate but equal” idea.
Legalizes segregation
Brown v. Board of Education,1954
Facts of the Case
-Black children were denied admission to public schools
-Things were equal in terms of building, curricula, and
qualifications of teachers
-Question
-Is segregation legal or in violation of the 14th “equal protection”
amendment?
Conclusion
-You cannot possibly keep things equal by separating them. By
definition the separation creates inequality. They cannot
possibly be the same.
“Separate is NOT equal” Schools must integrate and achieve
equality with all due speed. What does this mean?
How can schools become equal?
Is it possible to force schools to integrate?
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S., 1964
Facts of the case
-Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
forbade racial discrimination by places
of Public accommodation.
-The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta,
Georgia refused to accept Black
Americans
Question presented
-Did Congress deprive motels of the
right to choose their own customers?
Conclusion
-The Court concluded that places of
public accommodation had no “right to
select guests as they saw fit, free from
government regulations….THEY HAD
TO OPEN THE DOORS TO ALL.
Think about how this
might apply to smoking
bans.
Should a store owner
have the right to smoke
or allow smoking in his
shop?
Korematsu v. United States, 1944
Facts of the case
-During World War II, Presidential Executive Order 9066 gave the
military authority to exclude citizens of Japanese ancestry from
areas deemed critical to nation defense
Question presented
-Did the President and Congress go beyond their war power by
implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of American
Japanese descent
Conclusion
- The courts sided with the government and held that the need to
protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu’s rights, but
only during wartime.
- How does that set the stage for what is happening today?
Supreme Court
and the
Power of Speech
Tinker V. Des Moines, 1969
Facts of the Case
-John Tinker (15), Mary Beth Tinker (13), and Christopher
Echardt (16) decided to protest the Vietnam war by wearing black
arm bands to their school during the Christmas holiday season
-The principals of the school districts said that all student wearing
these arm bands were to take them off or face suspensions.
-The students wore their armbands anyway and when they did
not take them off they were suspended until after New Year’s Day
Questions
-Did this violate the students’ “First amendment right?”
Conclusion
- The wearing of the armbands was part of freedom of speech.
Although school officials have the right to prohibit certain actions,
they fail to show how the protest would cause trouble and
disturbance in the school setting
Hazelwood School District v.
Kuhlmeier,1988
Facts of the case
-THE SPECTRUM, the school-sponsored newspaper
of Hazelwood East High School, was written and
edited by students.
- The Principal, received the proof of the May 13th issue and found
that two of the articles were inappropriate
-He ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared by
withheld from publication
-Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood students brought
the case to court
Question Presented
-Did the deletion of the articles violate the student’s 1st Amendment
right?
Conclusion
- NO, school newspapers are sponsored by the school and articles
not directly reflecting the view of the school for “learning” purposes
can be deleted from the paper.
Engel v. Vitale, 1962
Facts of the Case
-The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a
short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school
day.
-“ Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee,
and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country.”
Question Presented
-Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of
each school day violate the “establishment of religion” clause of
the First Amendment?
Conclusion
- YES, Neither the prayer’s nondenominational
character nor its voluntary character saves it from
unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York
officially approved religion.
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 1986
Facts of the case
-At a school assembly Matthew Fraser made a speech
nominating a fellow student for elective office
-In his speech Matthew used a graphic sexual
metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend.
-Fraser was suspended from school for two days
Question Presented
-Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from
disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a
high school assembly?
Conclusion
- No, the court found that it was appropriate for the school to
prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language.
Texas v Johnson,1989
Facts of the case
-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.
Question of the case
-Is the burning of an American flag a form of
speech protected under the 1st Amendment?
Conclusion
- The court found that the burning of the flag is
protected under “expression” in the 1st
amendment.
Supreme Court
and the
Rights of the Accused
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
Facts of the case
-Dollree Mapp was convicted of
possessing obscene materials after
an illegal police search of her home
for a fugitive.
Question Presented
-Were the confiscated materials
protected by the 1st amendment?
-Can evidence obtained through a
search in violation of the 4th
amendment be admitted in a state
criminal proceeding?
Conclusion
- Materials obtained from a violation
of the 4th Amendment is inadmissible
in a state court.
Search
Warrant
New Jersey v. T.L.O, 1984
Facts of the Case
-T.L.O was a 14 year old accused of smoking in
the girl’s bathroom
-A principal at the school questioned her and
searched her purse and found a box of
cigarettes and rolling papers
- He decided to search the pocketbook further
and found a bag of marijuana (and other drug
paraphernalia), plastic bags, money, and a list of
people who still owed her money.
Question presented
-Did the search violate the 4th Amendment?
Conclusion
-NO, the school official is allowed to search a student if he/she has
reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is in the act
of being committed.
Gideon V. Wainwright, 1963
Facts of the Case
-Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking
and entering.
-He lacked funds as was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his
defense
-When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court
refused
-Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and
the court sentenced him to 5 years in a state prison
Question presented
-Did the state court’s failure the appoint counsel for Gideon violate his
right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the 6 th 14th
(equal protection)
Conclusion
- Gideon had the right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney.
The right to an attorney was essential to a fair trial. Lawyers in criminal
courts are necessities, not luxuries.
Miranda V. Arizona, 1966
Facts of the case
-Ernesto Miranda had been arrested at his home in Phoenix, Arizona
and accused of kidnapping and rape.
-He was questioned at the police station by 2 police officers has was
not advised of his right to an attorney nor his right to remain silent.
-After two hours of interrogation, he signed a written confession to
the crime.
-He was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison
Question
-Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying
them of their right to counsel and their protection against selfincrimination violate he 5th Amendment?
Conclusion
-A person in police custody “or otherwise deprived of his
freedom…must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the
right to remain silent, and that anything he says can be used against
him in the court of law..”