Landmark Supreme court cases

LandmarkSupreme court cases 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th ,6th ,8th , 9th & 14th Amendments, Right to privacy

1st Amendment • Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. • Ratified 12/15/1791. • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

West Virginia BOE v. Barnette (1943) • Facts of the Case • The West Virginia Board of Education required that the flag salutebe part of the program of activities in all public schools. All teachers and pupils were required to honor the Flag; refusal to salute was treated as "insubordination" and was punishable by expulsion and charges of delinquency. • Question • Did the compulsory flag-salute for public schoolchildren violate the First Amendment? • Decision: 6 votes for Barnette, 3 vote(s) against • In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and held that compelling public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional. The Court found that such a salute was a form of utterance and was a means of communicating ideas.

Everson v. Board of Ed. (1947) • Facts of the Case: • A New Jersey law allowed reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system. Children who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this transportation subsidy. • Question: • Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment? • Conclusion: • No. A divided Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. After detailing the history and importance of the Establishment Clause, Justice Black argued that services like bussing and police and fire protection for parochial schools are "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that for the state to provide them would not violate the First Amendment. The law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was simply a law enacted as a "general program" to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school.

Roth v. US (1957) • Facts of the Case • Roth operated a book-selling business in New York and was convicted of mailing obscene circulars and an obscene book in violation of a federal obscenity statute. • Question • Did either the federal or California's obscenity restrictions, prohibiting the sale or transfer of obscene materials through the mail, impinge upon the freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment? • Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against • In a 6-to-3 decision written by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held that obscenity was not "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press." The Court noted that the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance or form of expression, such as materials that were "utterly without redeeming social importance." • test to determine obscenity was "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest."

Gitlow v. New York (1925) • Facts of the Case • Gitlow was arrested for distributing copies of a "left-wing manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. • convicted under a state criminal anarchy law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force. • Question • 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? • Conclusion • Threshold issue: Does the First Amendment apply to the states? Yes, by virtue of the liberty protected by due process that no state shall deny (14th Amendment).

Engle 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. • Question • Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment? • Decision: 6 votes for Engel, 1 vote(s) against • Yes. Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) • Facts of the Case • Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and AdinYutzy(Amish) were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. Parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs. • Question • Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons? • Decision: 7 votes for Yoder, 0 vote(s) against • The Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade.

Morse v. Frederick (2007) • Facts of the Case: • At a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick held up a banner with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," a slang reference to marijuana smoking. Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days. She justified her actions by citing the school's policy against the display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs. • Question: • Does the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events? • Decision: • Yes. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit by a 5-4 vote, ruling that school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use.

Morse v. Frederick (2007) school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use.

2nd Amendment • Right to Bear Arms. • Ratified 12/15/1791 • A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Printz v. US (1997) • Facts of the Case: • County sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the constitutionality of the Brady Bill on behalf of CLEOs in Montana and Arizona respectively. • The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required "local chief law enforcement officers" (CLEOs) to perform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers, until such time as the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose. • Questions • Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I as justification, can Congress temporarily require state CLEOs to regulate handgun purchases by performing those duties called for by the Brady Bill's handgun applicant background-checks? • Decision: 5 votes for Printz, 4 vote(s) against • No. The Court constructed its opinion on the old principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction..

4th Amendment • Search and Seizure. • Ratified 12/15/1791. • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Weeks v. US (1914) • Facts of the Case • Police entered the home of Fremont Weeks and seized papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. This was done without a search warrant. • Question • Did the search and seizure of Weeks' home violate the Fourth Amendment? • Conclusion • In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the seizure of items from Weeks' residence directly violated his constitutional rights. To allow private documents to be seized and then held as evidence against citizens would have meant that the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring the right to be secure against such searches and seizures would be of no value whatsoever. This was the first application of what eventually became known as the "exclusionary rule."

Massachusetts v. Shepard (1984) • Facts of the Case • Boston police sought to obtain a warrant to search the home of Osborne Sheppard, a suspected murderer. • During Sheppard's trial, the judge stated that the warrant did not conform to Fourth Amendment standards because it did not describe the items to be seized. • police acted in good faith upon what they believed was a valid warrant, the judge admitted the items as evidence and Sheppard was convicted. • Question • If police officers mistakenly believe they have obtained a valid warrant, can a trial court use the evidence they obtained?

Massachusetts v. Shepard (1984) • Decision: • 7 votes for Massachusetts, 2 vote(s) against • Legal provision: • Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment) • Yes.The Court maintained that trial courts can use evidence seized by officers who have an "objectively reasonable basis" for mistakenly believing they have obtained valid warrants.

5th & 6th Amendment Amendment 5 Amendment 6 Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. • Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. • Ratified 12/15/1791. • No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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, he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himselfin the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison. • Question • 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? • Decision: • 9 votes for Gideon, 0 vote(s) against • Legal provision: Right to Counsel • In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney

8th Amendment • Cruel and Unusual Punishment. • Ratified 12/15/1791. • Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Gregg v. Georgia (1988) • Facts of the Case • A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. • This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Jurek v. Texas, Roberts v. Louisiana, Proffitt v. Florida, and Woodson v. North Carolina. • Question • Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment? • Decision: • 7 votes for Georgia, 2 vote(s) against • No.Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed.

14th Amendment • Citizenship Rights. • Ratified 7/9/1868. • 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) • Facts of the Case • Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in an area of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution. • Question • Was Dred Scott free or slave? • Decision: 7 votes for Sandford, 2 vote(s) against • Dred Scott was a slave. Under Articles III and IV, argued Taney, no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confer national citizenship. Taney reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) • Facts of the Case • The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy--who was seven-eighths Caucasian--took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested. • Question • 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? • Decision: 7 votes for Ferguson, 1 vote(s) against • No, the state law is within constitutional boundaries. The majority, in an opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, upheld state-imposed racial segregation. The justices based their decision on the separate-but-equal doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were equal. In short, segregation does not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination.

Brown v. Board of Ed (1954) • Facts of the Case • Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races. The white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries. This case was decided together with Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County. • Question • 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 14th Amendment? • Decision: 9 votes for Brown, 0 vote(s) against • Yes. Despite the equalization of the schools by "objective" factors, intangible issues foster and maintain inequality. Racial segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on minority children because it is interpreted as a sign of inferiority. The long-held doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected. 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.

University of California v. Bakke (1970) • Facts of the Case • Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excludedfrom admission solely on the basis of race. • Question • Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school? • Decision: 5 votes for Bakke, 4 vote(s) against • Split Vote • No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Baker v. Carr (1962) • Facts of the Case • Charles W. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state. • Question • Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? • Decision: 6 votes for Baker, 2 vote(s) against • In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue.

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) • Facts of the Case • James P. Wesberry, Jr. filed a suit against the Governor of Georgia, Carl E. Sanders, protesting the state's apportionment scheme. • Question • Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment or deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote? • Decision: 6 votes for Wesberry, 3 vote(s) against • The Court held that Georgia's apportionment scheme grossly discriminated against voters in the Fifth Congressional District.

Checks & Balances: Clinton v. New York (1998) • Facts of the Case • This case consolidates two separate challenges to the constitutionality of two cancellations, made by President William J. Clinton, under the Line Item Veto Act ("Act"). • City of New York, two hospital associations, a hospital, and two health care unions, challenged the President's cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which relinquished the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York. • Snake River farmer's cooperative and one of its individual members challenged the President's cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The provision permitted some food refiners and processors to defer recognition of their capital gains in exchange for selling their stock to eligible farmers' cooperatives. After a district court held the Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on expedited appeal. • Question • Did the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, violate the Presentment Clause of Article I?

Clinton v. New York • Decision: 6 votes for City of New York, 3 vote(s) against • Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision the Court first established that both the City of New York, and its affiliates, and the farmers' cooperative suffered sufficiently immediate and concrete injuries to sustain their standing to challenge the President's actions. The Court then explained that under the Presentment Clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved (i.e. signed) or rejected (i.e. vetoed) by the President. The Court held that by canceling only selected portions of the bills at issue, under authority granted him by the Act, the President in effect "amended" the laws before him. Such discretion, the Court concluded, violated the "finely wrought" legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers.

Landmark Supreme court cases