1 / 17

Recent Supreme Court Cases

Recent Supreme Court Cases. 2005. ILLINOIS v. CABALLES . Search based solely on sniffing dog did not violate 4 th Amendment. No probable cause needed before dog is used. 5 to 3 decision (Rehnquist did not participate). JOHNSON v. CALIFORNIA .

maisie
Télécharger la présentation

Recent Supreme Court Cases

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RecentSupreme Court Cases 2005

  2. ILLINOIS v. CABALLES • Search based solely on sniffing dog did not violate 4th Amendment. • No probable cause needed before dog is used. • 5 to 3 decision (Rehnquist did not participate)

  3. JOHNSON v. CALIFORNIA • California practice of assigning cell mates based on race was not properly reviewed by the 9th Circuit. • Strict Scrutiny must be applied. • State must have a compelling interest. • 5 to 3 decision (Rehnquist did not participate)

  4. ROPER v. SIMMONS • 18 year old sentenced to death for murder committed while he was 17. • Death penalty for crime committed by a minor violates 8th and 14th Amendments. • 5 to 4 decision.

  5. TENET v. DOE • Couple claimed they contracted with the United States to provide espionage services. • Sued for breach of contract. • Services were secret and thus can’t sue to enforce contract for spying. • Unanimous decision

  6. JACKSON v. BIRMINGHAM BOARD of EDUCATION • Male coach of girl’s basketball team removed after complaining about Title IX violations. • Court found that removal was discrimination on the basis of sex. • 5 to 4 decision

  7. SMITH v. CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI • New employee pay plan gave larger raises to newer police officers. • More experienced officers more likely to be over 40. • ADEA does allow disparate-impact argument, but sufficient case not made. • Concurring opinion arguing that disparate-impact not allowed under ADEA.

  8. ROUSEY v. JACOWAY • Taxpayers removed money from pension plan and deposited in IRA. • Several years later filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy. • Trustee tried to take funds, but debtors claimed it as exempt property. • Held IRA deposits are exempt. • Unanimous decision

  9. SMALL v. UNITED STATES • Small convicted of smuggling firearms in Japan and served 5 years. • Small purchased a gun in the United States. • Convicted of violating law prohibiting gun purchase by a person “convicted in any court”. • Court held that “any court” means U.S. courts , only. • 5 to 3 decision (Rehnquist did not participate)

  10. BATES v. DOW AGROSCIENCES • Pesticide damaged peanut crop. • EPA had approved pesticide under federal labeling requirements. • Plaintiff set forth several common law tort claims. • Dow argued common-law state claims pre-empted by federal labeling law. • Held that state claims only pre-empted when they impact labeling. • 7 to 2 decision (dissenting in part, concurring in part)

  11. GRANHOLM v. HEALD • Michigan’s liquor regulation system allowed consumers to mail order wine from Michigan producers, but not from out of state producers. • Despite extraordinary authority states are given to regulate alcohol by 21st Amendment, discrimination against out of state producers violates the commerce clause. • 5 to 4 decision

  12. LINGLE v. CHEVRON • Hawaii passed limitation of gas station rental payments. • Chevron argued that the price limitation constitutes a “taking” pursuant to the 5th Amendment. • Court held that it is not a “taking” unless owner loses all economic benefit of property. • Unanimous decision

  13. ARTHUR ANDERSEN v. UNITED STATES • Arthur Anderson was convicted for its destruction of documents associated with the Enron investigation. • The Court reversed the reversed and remanded the conviction, because the jury instructions did not adequately convey the “knowingly and corruptly persuade” requirement. • Unanimous decision

  14. GONZALES v. RAICH • California passed a law, which allowed the use of doctor prescribed marijuana. • The California law conflicted with federal law prohibiting the use of Marijuana. • Held that the federal law is a valid exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority, and thus pre-empts the state law. • 6 to 3 decision

  15. JOHNSON v. CALIFORNIA • Black male defendant was convicted of murdering a white girl. • After potential jurors were eliminated for cause, 3 black jurors remained in pool of 43 eligible jurors. The prosecutor used preemptory challenges to remove the remaining 3 black jurors. • Held that there were sufficient facts to indicate that the preemptive challenges were based on race and violate the equal protection clause. • 8 to 1 decision

  16. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION • Michigan imposed $100 per year fee on all trucks engaged in intrastate commercial hauling. • Interstate haulers argued that the fee was discriminatory, because on average the interstate haulers do less in Michigan than the intrastate haulers. • Held that the fee does not discriminate, and thus does not violate the dormant commerce clause doctrine. • Unanimous decision

  17. KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON • Pursuant to economic development plan, the City of New London condemned several well kept single family homes and rental properties. • Property would be turned over to other private owners. • Held economic development was sufficient to meet the “public use” requirement of the 5th Amendment. • 5 to 4 decision

More Related