Barron v. Baltimore
Context of the case: John Barron was a co-worker of a profitable wharf
in the harbor of Baltimore. Large amounts of sand accumulated in the
harbor which deprived Barron of the deep water, which was the key to
his successful business. Barron Sued the city to recover some of the
money he lost because of the harbor.
Questions before the court: Does the Fifth Amendment apply to the
government?
Court’s Ruling: 7 votes for Baltimore, 0 against
John Marshall wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: Fifth Amendment
Implications of the case socially and politically: The main implication of
this doctrine is that the federal courts have either original or appellate
jurisdiction over cases involving violations of constitutional rights by an
official or agent of government at any level, regardless of whether the
rights are explicitly protected.
Miami Herald v. Tornillo
Context of the case: Pat Tornillo was a Candidate for the Florida House
of Representatives in Dade County. The Miami Herald published two
editorials in which they criticized Tornillo and his candidacy. Tornillo
demanded that they publish his response to the editorials, but Miami
Herald refused. Tornillo then sued under the Section 104.38, which
granted political candidates criticized by any newspaper the right to have
their responses the criticisms published. Miami Herald challenged the
statute as a violation of the free press clause of the First Amendment.
Questions before the court: Did the “right to reply” statute violate the
free press clause of the First Amendment applied to the states through
the Fourteenth Amendment?
Court’s Ruling: 9 votes for Miami Herald, 0 votes against
Warren E. Burger wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: First Amendment:
Speech, Press, and Assembly
Implications of the case socially or politically: The Supreme Court of
Florida had to reverse this decision.
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Context of the case: Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri from 1833 to
1843. He resided in Illinois which was an area of Louisiana Territory,
where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
Scott returned to live in Missouri were he sued the courts for his
freedom, he claimed that his residence in the free territory made him a
free man.
Questions before the court: Was Dred Scott free or a slave?
Court’s ruling: 7 votes for Sandford and 2 votes against
Roger B. Taney wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: Fifth Amendment
and Missouri Compromise
Implications of the case socially or politically: The court held the
Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery
question.
New York Times v. Sullivan
Context of the case: A full-page ad in the New York Times alleged about
the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. for perjury in Alabama was
part of a campaign to destroy King’s effort to integrate public facilities
and encourage blacks to vote. L.B. Sullivan filed a libel action against
the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of
the ad, claiming that the allegations against Montgomery police defamed
him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that
he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was
unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a
$500,000 judgment.
Questions before the court: Did Alabama unconstitutionally infringe on
the First Amendment’s speech and freedom of press protections?
Court’s ruling: 9 votes for New York Times, 0 votes against
William J. Brennan Jr. wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: First Amendment
Speech, Press, and Assembly
Implications of the case socially or politically: The Court held that the
First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false
ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are
made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in
reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard,
Sullivan's case collapsed.
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
Context of the case: The FCC doctrine requires for radio and television
to present a balanced and fair discussion of public issues on the
airwaves. There are two requirements concerning personal attacks in the
context of public issue debates and political editorializing. The FCC
conditioned its renewal of broadcast licenses on compliance with its
regulations. Red Lion Broadcasting challenged the application of the
fairness doctrine with respect to a particular broadcast.
Questions before the court: Do the FCC’s fairness doctrine regulations
violate the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantees?
Court’s ruling: 7 votes for and 0 votes against
Byron R. White wrote the majority opinion
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: First Amendment,
Speech Press, and Assembly
Implications of the case socially or politically: The Court held that the
FCC's fairness doctrine regulations enhanced rather than infringed the
freedoms of speech protected under the First Amendment.
Gregg v. Georgia
Context of the case: Gregg was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery
and murder and was sentenced to death. The Georgia Supreme Court
affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery
conviction. Gregg claimed his remaining death was “cruel and unusual”
punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Questions before the court: Is the imposition of the death sentence
prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as “cruel and
unusual” punishment?
Court’s ruling: 7 votes for Georgia and 2 votes against
Thurgood Marshall wrote a dissent.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: Amendment 8: Cruel
and Unusual Punishment
Implications of the case socially or politically: The Court was not
prepared to overrule the Georgia legislature's finding that capital
punishment serves as a useful deterrent to future capital crimes and an
appropriate means of social retribution against its most serious
offenders.
Abington School District v. Schempp
Context of the case: This case is about the reading of the Bible in
Pennsylvania public schools. Every day at the beginning of school,
students were required to read at least ten verses from the Bible. The
students of Abington Township were required to recite the Lord’s Prayer.
The only way students didn’t have to do this was if they had a note from
their parents.
Questions before the court: Did the Pennsylvania law and Abington’s
policy violate the religious freedom of student as protected by the First
and Fourteenth Amendments?
Court’s ruling: 8 votes for Schempp and 1 vote against
Tom C. Clark wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: Establishment of
Religion
Implications of the case socially or politically: The required activities
encroached on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment since the readings and recitations were
essentially religious ceremonies and were "intended by the State to be
so." Furthermore, argued Justice Clark, the ability of a parent to excuse a
child from these ceremonies by a written note was irrelevant since it did
not prevent the school's actions from violating the Establishment Clause.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Context of the case: The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of
Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. In
May 1983, Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal, received the pages
proofs for the May 13 issue. He said two articles were inappropriate, and
ordered that the pages to be withheld from the publication.
Questions before the court: Did the principal’s deletion of the articles
violate the students’ rights under the First Amendment?
Court’s ruling: 5 votes for Hazelwood School District and 3 votes
against
Byron R. White wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: First Amendment:
Speech, Press, and Assembly
Implications of the case socially or politically: The Court held that
schools must be able to set high standards for student speech
disseminated under their auspices, and that schools retained the right to
refuse to sponsor speech that was "inconsistent with 'the shared values of
a civilized social order.’” Educators did not offend the First Amendment
by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long
as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical
concerns." The actions of principal Reynolds, the Court held, met this
test.
Engel v. Vitale
Context 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. The purpose of this was to defuse the politically potent issue
by taking it out of the hands of local communities.
Questions before the court: Does the reading of a nondenominational
prayer at the start of the school day violate the “establishment of
religion” clause in the First Amendment?
Court’s ruling: 6 votes for Engel and 1 vote against
Hugo L. Black wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: Establishment of
Religion
Implications of the case socially or politically: By providing the prayer,
New York officially approved religion. This was the first in a series of
cases in which the Court used the establishment clause to eliminate
religious activities of all sorts, which had traditionally been a part of
public ceremonies.
Brown v. Board of Education
Context of the case: Black children were not allowed to go to public
schools where white children went, under laws requiring or permitting
segregation according to races. White and Black schools were equal in
terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries.
Questions before the court: Does the segregation of children in public
schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the
equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth amendment?
Court’s ruling: 9 votes for Brown and 0 votes against
Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: Equal Protection
Implications of the case socially or politically: Separate but equal is
inherently unequal in the context of public education. The unanimous
opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial
separation.
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Context of the case: This case is about controversies over laws in
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, a statute provided
financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional
materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island
statute provided direct supplement salary payments to teachers in nonpublic elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to “churchrelated educational institutions.”
Questions before the court: Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania
statutes violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by making
state financial aid available to “church-related educational institutions”?
Court’s ruling: 8 votes for Lemon and 0 votes against
Warren E. Burger wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: Establishment of
Religion
Implications of the case socially or politically: To be constitutional, a
statute must have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal
effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster
"an excessive government entanglement with religion." The Court found
that the subsidization of parochial schools furthered a process of
religious inculcation, and that the "continuing state surveillance"
necessary to enforce the specific provisions of the laws would inevitably
entangle the state in religious affairs.
Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School
District
Context of the case: John Tinker. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher
Echdart decided to protest against the Vietnam war by wearing black
armbands to their school during the Christmas holiday season. The
principals of their schools thought it was a disturbance and if they
refused to take them off they would be suspended. Because they refused
to take them off they were suspended until after New Year’s Day.
Questions before the court: Does a prohibition against the wearing of
armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the
First Amendment’s freedom of speech protections?
Court’s ruling: 7 votes for Tinker and 2 votes against
Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: First Amendment:
Speech, Press, and Assembly
Implications of the case socially or politically: he wearing of armbands
was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First
Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression,
but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Context of the case: Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a
felony for breaking into a house. He was unable to hire a lawyer to
defend him. Gideon requested an attorney from the court, but the court
refused to give him one, they said it was only obligated to appoint
counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself
in trial. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to a five year state
prison.
Questions before the court: Did the state court’s failure to appoint
counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law
as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Court’s ruling: 9 votes for Gideon and 0 votes against
Hugo L. Black wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: Right to Counsel
Implications of the case socially or politically: n this case the Court
found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a
fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made
applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Gitlow v. New York
Context of the case: Gitlow was arrested for disturbing copies of
Questions before the court: Is the new York law punishing advocacy to
overthrow the government by force an unconstitutional violation of the
free speech clause of the First Amendment?
Court’s ruling:
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved:
Implications of the case socially or politically:
Roe v. Wade
Context of the case: A woman in Texas wanted to abort. Texas law
prohibited abortions except if it was to the pregnant woman’s life. The
court heard arguments twice. The first time, Sarah Weddington could not
find the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart.
Jay Floyd misfired from the start. In the second round Weddington
sharpened her constitutional argument. The new opponent, Robert
Flowers, came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and
Thurgood Marshall.
Questions before the court: Does the Constitution embrace a woman’s
right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
Court’s ruling: 7 votes for Roe and 2 votes against
Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: Due Process
Implications of the case socially or politically: The decision gave a
woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and
defined different levels of state interest for the second and third
trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's
ruling.
Plessy v. Ferguson
Context of the case: In Louisiana there was a law that required separate
railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892 a man who was seveneighths Caucasian took a seat in the “whites only” car of a Louisiana
train. He was arrested because he refused to move to the car that was
reserved for the blacks.
Questions before the court: Is Louisiana’s law mandating racial
segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the
privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment?
Court’s ruling: 7 votes for Ferguson and 1 vote against
Henry B. Brown wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: Us Constitution
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1
Implications of the case socially or politically: Justice Brown conceded
that the 14th amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the
races before the law. But Brown noted that "in the nature of things it
could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or
to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a
commingling of the two races unsatisfactory to either." In short,
segregation does not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination.
Schenck v. U.S.
Context of the case: During WWI Schenck mailed circular to draftees
that suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the
capitalist system. The circulars urged to not submit to intimidation and
advised peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate
the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military
and to obstruct recruitment.
Questions before the court: Are Schenck’s actions protected by the free
speech clause of the First Amendment?
Court’s ruling: 9 votes for U.S. and 0 votes against
Oliver W. Homes, Jr. wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: 1917 Espionage Act
and First Amendment
Implications of the case socially or politically: During wartime,
utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.
Marbury v. Madison
Context of the case: An obscure Federalist, William Marbury, was
designated as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia.
Marbury and several others were appointed to government posts
created by Congress in the last days of John Adams's presidency, but
these last-minute appointments were never fully finalized.
Questions before the court: Is Marbury entitled to his appointment?
Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it? Is the Supreme Court the place
for Marbury to get the relief he requests?
Court’s ruling: 6 votes for Madison, 0 vote(s) against
John Marshall wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or Constitutional clause involved: Section 13 of the
Judiciary Act of 1789
Implications of the case socially and politically: The ruling is considered
by many the most important decision in American legal history. The
Court established the guiding principles of judicial review which
recognized the federal courts' role in reviewing acts of Congress and
states regarding their constitutionality. The Supreme Court thus
became a significantly powerful part of the American governmental
system.
U.S. v Nixon
Context of the case: A grand jury returned indictments against seven of
President Richard Nixon's closest aides in the Watergate affair. The
special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio
tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon
asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive
privilege," which is the right to withhold information from other
government branches to preserve confidential communications within
the executive branch or to secure the national interest
Questions before the court: Is the President's right to safeguard certain
information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power,
entirely immune from judicial review?
Court’s ruling 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Warren E. Burger wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or constitutional clause involved: US Const. Art. II
Applications of the case socially and politically: Limited the power of
the President. The ruling established a constitutional basis for executive
privilege. It also held that the president is not immune from judicial
process, and must turn over evidence subpoenaed by the courts.
NAACP v Alabama
Context of the case: As part of its strategy to enjoin the NAACP from
operating, Alabama required it to reveal to the State's Attorney General
the names and addresses of all the NAACP's members and agents in the
state.
Questions before the court: Did Alabama's requirements violate the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Court’s ruling: 9 votes for NAACP, 0 vote(s) against
John M.
Amendment and/or constitutional clause involved: The fourteenth
amendment
Applications of the case socially and politically: The decision said
privacy is an essential part of the freedom of association. Privacy was
important for many African Americans during the civil rights
movement, which was unpopular among many white Americans.
Craig v. Boren
Context of the case: An Oklahoma law prohibited the sale of "no
intoxicating" 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21 and to
females under the age of 18. Curtis Craig, a male then between the ages
of 18 and 21, and a licensed vendor challenged the law as
discriminatory.
Questions before the court: Did an Oklahoma statute violate the
Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by establishing
different drinking ages for men and women?
Court’s ruling: 7 votes for Craig, 2 vote(s) against
William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or constitutional clause involved: 14th amendment
equal protection clause
Applications of the case socially and politically: This case introduced
the standard of “intermediate scrutiny” under the equal protection
clause, which primarily applies to statutes and policies that discriminate
on the basis of gender. Under this standard it is the burden of the state to
show an important (not compelling) government objective.
Reed v Reed
Context of the case: The Idaho Probate Code specified that "males must
be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates. After
the death of their adopted son, both Sally and Cecil Reed sought to be
named the administrator of their son's estate (the Reeds were separated).
According to the Probate Code, Cecil was appointed administrator and
Sally challenged the law in court.
Questions before the court: Did the Idaho Probate Code violate the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Court’s ruling: 7 votes for Reed, 0 vote(s) against
Warren E. Burger wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or constitutional clause involved: 14th amendment
equal protection clause
Applications of the case socially and politically: This decision was the
first time in the Fourteenth Amendment's 103-year history that the
Supreme Court ruled that its Equal Protection Clause protected women's
rights.
Texas v Johnson
Context of the case: 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. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court.
Questions before the court: Is the desecration of an American flag, by
burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First
Amendment?
Court’s ruling: 5 votes for Johnson, 4 vote(s) against
William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or constitutional clause involved: Amendment 1:
Speech, Press, and Assembly
Applications of the case socially and politically: This decision
invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag enforced in 48
of the 50 states
Mapp v Ohio
Context of the case: Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene
materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a
fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of
expression.
Questions before the court: Were the confiscated materials protected by
the First Amendment? May evidence obtained through a search in
violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal
proceeding?
Court’s ruling: 6 votes for Mapp, 3 vote(s) against
Tom C. Clark wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or constitutional clause involved: the Fourth
Amendment
Applications of the case socially and politically: Before this case, states
did not have to obey the exclusionary rule, which prevents the
government from using evidence its gets during an illegal search and
seizure. By forcing states to obey the exclusionary rule, the Supreme
Court strengthened the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy for
Americans.
Miranda v. Arizona
Context of the case: In Vignera v. New York, the petitioner was
questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an inculpatory
statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. Similarly, in
Westover v. United States, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI,
interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his
right to counsel. Lastly, in California v. Stewart, local police held and
interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right
to counsel. In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police
officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off
from the outside world.
Questions before the court: Does the police practice of interrogating
individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their
protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
Court’s ruling: 5 votes for Miranda, 4 vote(s) against
Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or constitutional clause involved: Fifth Amendment
Applications of the case socially and politically: Originally intended to
protect the poor and the ignorant, the practice of "reading the defendant
his rights" has become standard procedure in every police department in
the country. The practice is seen so frequently in police movies and
shows that the Miranda warnings are as familiar to most Americans as
the Pledge of Allegiance.
New Jersey v TLO
Context of the case: T.L.O. was a fourteen-year-old; she was accused of
smoking in the girls' bathroom of her high school. A principal at the
school questioned her and searched her purse, yielding a bag of
marijuana and other drug paraphernalia.
Questions before the court: Did the search violate the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments?
Court’s ruling: 6 votes for New Jersey, 3 vote(s) against
Byron R. White wrote the majority opinion.
Amendment and/or constitutional clause involved: Fourth and fourteenth
amendment
Applications of the case socially and politically: This decision indicated
that the Court did not view the rights of students in a public school as
equivalent to the rights of adults in a non-school setting. Police need to
demonstrate “probable cause” that individuals they search have violated
or are violating a law. School officials, by contrast, need to have only
“reasonable suspicion” of unlawful conduct to justify a search of
students in school. School authorities, in this view, may restrict the
rights of students in behalf of the school's compelling educational
purpose.