CHAPTER 13 SUPREME COURT CASES

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 13 SUPREME COURT CASES 1 Section 1: The First Amendment: Your Freedom of Expression Section 2: The Fourth Amendment: Your Right to Be Secure Section 3: Due Process and the Fourteenth Amendment Section 4: Federalism and the Supreme Court

2 SECTION 1: THE FIRST AMENDMENT: YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Tinker v. Des Moines School District In the mid-1960s public opinion about the Vietnam War was divided. By 1963, protests and demonstrations against the war began to spread, especially on college campuses. Within a couple of years, some high school and middle school students also began to protest the Vietnam War. The Black Armband Case 1965: John Tinker and others protested Vietnam War by wearing black armbands at public school School board adopted policy banning wearing of armbands Several violated policy, wore armbands, and were suspended Parents sued school district claiming students First Amendment right to free expression had been violated U.S. district court ruled in favor of school; appeals court upheld Case appealed directly to U.S. Supreme Court 2

3 SECTION 1: THE FIRST AMENDMENT: YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION The Supreme Court Decision Tinkers and others argued school s ban on armbands violated right to free speech under First, Fourteenth Amendments armbands symbolic speech School district argued ban intended to prevent classroom disruption, not suppress expression; argued reasonable use of power to preserve order 1969: Tinker v. Des Moines School District reversed lower court s ruling Constitutional rights not shed at schoolhouse gate Court agreed school authorities have right to maintain order, but protesters did not interrupt activities or seek to intrude in school affairs Court said schools can regulate student speech when speech would be disruptive and interfere with rights of other students Tinker test: if expression does not substantially interfere with school operation, regulating that speech violates the Constitution s protection of free expression 3

4 SECTION 1: THE FIRST AMENDMENT: YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION After Tinker Tinker case remains leading case dealing with free-expression rights of public school students 1980s Times and court membership changed Court gradually modified and expanded concept of school disruption Examples 1986: Bethel School District v. Fraser upheld suspension of student for giving speech containing vulgar sexual references 1988: In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier justices upheld right of school officials to censor school newspaper if school believes content inconsistent with legitimate educational purpose Supreme Court has limited student expression on and off campus in recent years 4

5 SECTION 1: THE FIRST AMENDMENT: YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Freedom of Religion The First Amendment guarantees your right to freedom of expression, the right of citizens to hold, explore, exchange, express, and debate ideas. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. These two guarantees are known as the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The Establishment Clause Jefferson called for wall of separation between church, state Supreme Court has tried to maintain such a wall Disagreement exists over how high wall should be, or if it should exist School Prayer Some of the greatest controversy Court has banned public enforced school prayer, not private, voluntary school prayer Private religious groups allowed Employees may not take part 5

6 6

7 SECTION 1: THE FIRST AMENDMENT: YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Religion and Instruction Teaching about religion and the Bible allowable Instruction must be done in nonreligious manner Cannot include teaching of religious beliefs 1968: Epperson v. Arkansas Overturned law that prohibited teaching of evolution 1987: Edwards v. Aguillard Voided Louisiana law requiring religious view known as creation science to be taught alongside evolution 7

8 SECTION 1: THE FIRST AMENDMENT: YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION The Free Exercise Clause First Amendment seems to make freedom of religious belief an absolute right Court has drawn distinction between right to believe and right to express beliefs through actions Difference noted in first case heard involving free exercise clause 1879: In Reynolds v. United States Court upheld conviction of George Reynolds for practice of polygamy, having more than one wife. Reynolds belonged to Mormon Church, which allowed polygamy. Federal law prohibited practice of polygamy Court ruled free exercise clause did not protect religious practices subversive of good order, even if they reflected religious beliefs Court developed principle into compelling interest test Requires government to have compelling reason for banning religious practice as necessary to protect society 8

9 SECTION 1: THE FIRST AMENDMENT: YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Compelling Interest Test West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 Court upheld students right to refuse to salute flag, recite Pledge if it violated their religious beliefs Making patriotic ceremonies voluntary did no harm to society Sherbert v. Verner, 1963 Reversed South Carolina s denial of unemployment benefits to woman fired for refusing to work on Saturdays, her day of worship Society s gain did not outweigh person s freedom to follow beliefs Goldman v. Weinberger, 1986 Upheld Air Force s ban on wearing nonmilitary apparel Jewish man could not wear yarmulke while on duty Based on military need to foster unity and group spirit 9

10 SECTION 1: THE FIRST AMENDMENT: YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Employment Division v. Smith, 1990 Upheld right to deny unemployment benefits for two Native Americans fired for ingesting peyote States may enforce laws that incidentally interfere with religious practices 10

11 SECTION 1: THE FIRST AMENDMENT: YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Freedom of Speech Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press Is speech only spoken words, or does it include other forms of expression? Are there limits to this freedom? Protected and Unprotected Speech Speech that has little or no social value is generally not protected 1942: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, some classes of expression not protected Fighting words- Defamatory speech-lewd and profane speech Student Speech Court has ruled schools can regulate time, place, content of student expression Political speech fewest limits Vulgar, obscene speech not allowed in school Speech codes many schools have adopted limits on expression Cyberspeech generally same protection as printed material 11

12 12

13 SECTION 1: THE FIRST AMENDMENT: YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Freedom of Petition and Assembly First Amendment recognizes, protects right to petition government for redress of grievances to remove the cause of a complaint and make things right Freedom of petition: right to ask government to act to correct injustice without fear of punishment for making request Rights of assembly and petition go hand in hand Right of assembly: you have right to join, form groups, gather for any peaceful, lawful purpose Must be peaceful May not gather on private property without owner s consent Government may reasonably regulate time, place, behavior 1927: Whitney v. California upheld conviction of woman for membership in Communist Labor Party Such limits allow authorities to arrest suspected terrorists, members of armed groups that pose threat to society 13

14 SECTION 1: THE FIRST AMENDMENT: YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Student Assembly Limits that apply to public also apply to students in school Court has been more restrictive of student rights Schools have right to control time, place, manner of gatherings, set restrictions on school clubs, have right to deny some clubs permission to form Equal Access Act of 1984 Prohibits schools from discriminating against clubs because of religious or philosophical viewpoint Students may distribute religious and political literature, but school officials may regulate activity Illegal Activity Schools do not have to allow organizations that preach hate or violence, engage in illegal activity Cannot restrict students from forming clubs just because clubs might be controversial 14

15 SECTION 2: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOUR RIGHT TO BE SECURE The Right to Privacy Should authorities be able to search a car or home with sniffer dogs, or an electronic sensor? Neither method requires authorities to enter the car or building, so are these really searches? When, if ever, should they be legal? Caballes Pulled Over 1998: Roy Caballes clocked by state trooper driving 71 mph in a 65 mph zone. Caballes pulled over for speeding. Warrant check revealed no outstanding warrants, but that Caballes had been arrested twice for selling drugs. Second trooper with drug-sniffing dog arrived at scene A Canine Alert Dog walked around Caballes s car, barked at trunk. Troopers opened trunk, found large quantity of marijuana. Caballes arrested for drug trafficking. Lawyer claimed drugs found as product of illegal search Caballes convicted, sentenced to 12 years in prison 15

16 SECTION 2: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOUR RIGHT TO BE SECURE The Court Hears Illinois v. Caballes 2003, Illinois Supreme Court reversed Caballes s conviction, said drugsniffing dog at routine traffic stop violated Fourth Amendment rights State appealed ruling to Supreme Court 2004, Supreme Court hears Illinois v. Caballes Government argued dog sniff not search, does not violate privacy Justice Souter agreed not full-blown search but asked if it were constitutional, what would prevent police from walking dogs around every private home just to see if they get a sniff of something Justice Scalia noted Court had ruled Fourth Amendment rights violated when police used thermal-imaging devices to see if people were growing marijuana in homes Caballes s attorney argued sniff was search, like scanner revealed something hidden from view; police had no reasonable suspicion to search car 16

17 SECTION 2: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOUR RIGHT TO BE SECURE The Caballes Decision 2005, Illinois v. Caballes: 6 2 decision Court reversed Illinois Supreme Court, upheld Caballes s conviction Majority opinion: person has no legitimate privacy interest in possessing drugs or contraband Government action indicating possession of contraband does not violate 4th Amendment privacy interests. Court agreed with state s argument that dog sniff not a search. If traffic stop lawful, police had right to use sniffer dog Dissenting opinions: dogs can be wrong as result of poor training, errors by handler, dog s limited ability Dog s bark not probable cause Justice Ginsburg: every traffic stop could become an occasion to call in the dogs. Worried Court decision could clear way for police with dogs to be stationed at long traffic lights, circling cars waiting for green lights 17

18 SECTION 2: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOUR RIGHT TO BE SECURE Understanding Search and Seizure The Fourth Amendment states that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure, shall not be violated. This guarantee applies only to searches and seizures made by the government; it does not protect against unreasonable searches and seizures by private organizations or citizens. It did not apply to state governments until 1949, and the Supreme Court did not apply the exclusionary rule to state courts until Searches Definition of search any action by government to find evidence of criminal activity very broad Includes searching property, listening to phone conversations, stopping suspicious-looking persons and frisking for weapons Seizures Seizure occurs when authorities keep something an object, person Police might seize item from home as evidence in a murder Might take drugs or weapon from person stopped and frisked 18

19 SECTION 2: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOUR RIGHT TO BE SECURE Probable Cause and Warrants To obtain a warrant a court order to search for something or seize someone there must be probable cause to believe the search will produce evidence of a crime, or that the person seized committed a crime. Unreasonable Searches 4th Amendment bans unreasonable search and seizure What is reasonable? 1967: Katz v. United States, searchers must respect person s right to privacy Search warrant needed to look inside something Must state what is being searched, what authorities are looking for Warrantless Searches Some instances where warrant not required Plain view doctrine: if object is in plain view, law assumes owner does not consider it private Example if police have warrant to search home for illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia is in plain view, it can be seized even though items not listed on warrant 19

20 SECTION 2: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOUR RIGHT TO BE SECURE 20

21 SECTION 2: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOUR RIGHT TO BE SECURE The Fourth Amendment and Privacy Katz v. United States: Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places Wherever a person is, his/her right to privacy protected if he/she has exhibited reasonable expectation of privacy Level of privacy depends in part on where person is Not as much privacy expected in coffee shop as in home No matter where person is, he/she has no expectation of privacy if in possession of illegal drugs Court has said search or seizure lawful when it begins can violate Fourth Amendment if way search carried out unreasonably infringes upon interests protected by Constitution United States v. Jacobson, 1984 The Court has used all of these principles to decide when and how far protections under the Fourth Amendment apply. 21

22 SECTION 2: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOUR RIGHT TO BE SECURE Searches of Homes Court applies highest expectation of privacy to people s homes Warrant required in most cases to search homes 1998, Minnesota v. Carter: no reasonable expectation of privacy when illegal drugs involved 1988, California v. Greenwood: garbage cans may be searched without warrant; no expectation of privacy for items thrown away 1986, California v. Ciraolo: arrest allowed after marijuana spotted from police plane 2001, Kyllo v. United States: Court drew line at use of devices to look through walls of homes from outside Overturned arrest of man because thermal scan of home revealed marijuana growing inside. Thermal scan reveals information normally available only with actual intrusion into house, requiring warrant. Authorities did not have warrant, therefore seizure of evidence, arrest unconstitutional 22

23 SECTION 2: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOUR RIGHT TO BE SECURE Personal Privacy Fourth Amendment provides people will be secure in persons from unreasonable search, seizure Court has interpreted guarantee in variety of ways, applied differently in number of circumstances Stop and Frisk Generally police do not have right to stop people randomly and search them 1968, Terry v. Ohio: police can stop people who seem to be acting suspiciously, pat down for weapons Neither warrant nor probable cause needed for what now is called Terry stop Public safety outweighs individual s privacy right 23

24 SECTION 2: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOUR RIGHT TO BE SECURE Intrusive Searches Degree to which authorities may go in searching person s body depends on situation Three questions considered in deciding if search reasonable What is legal status of person being searched How invasive is search Does search serve safety, security need for society this standard called special needs test Examples Strip searches of prisoners permissible Fingerprinting arrested persons allowable Fingerprinting persons not under arrest requires probable cause Blood or DNA testing more invasive, requires search warrant Blood testing of arrested person requires only probable cause 24

25 SECTION 2: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOUR RIGHT TO BE SECURE Drug Testing Drug tests require blood, urine samples Considered intrusive searches In most cases require warrant, at least probable cause Court has removed requirement for certain groups of people Government can require workers in jobs where public safety important to be tested without probable cause or suspicion 1995, Vernonia School District v. Acton: schools may require random drug testing of athletes even if no one suspected of drug use Deterring drug use by our nation s school-children is at least as important as deterring drug use by engineers and trainmen 25

26 SECTION 2: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOUR RIGHT TO BE SECURE Students Fourth Amendment Rights Court has generally limited students Fourth Amendment rights Reasoning same as limiting students First Amendment rights Students rights may be restricted in order to preserve proper learning environment in schools 1985, New Jersey v. T.L.O. Probable cause not needed for school officials to search students if circumstances make search reasonable T.L.O.: teacher found girl smoking in restroom Girl denied smoking to vice principal Search of purse revealed cigarettes, marijuana Court: search not unreasonable under circumstances After T.L.O., most student search cases decided at state level Any search by police officers still requires warrant 26

27 SECTION 2: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOUR RIGHT TO BE SECURE Private Communication 1967, Katz v. United States: landmark Supreme Court decision on wiretapping, other forms of electronic surveillance Since Katz, use of computers, cell phones, personal digital assistants, other wireless devices has created new kinds of searches, applications of Fourth Amendment Cases involving cyber-surveillance have yet to reach Supreme Court The 4th Amendment Since 9/11 USA PATRIOT Act greatly relaxed privacy protections, controls on searches, seizures Government allowed to search variety of information phone company records, Internet service providers, libraries, bookstores NSL ( National Security Letter) National Security Letter issued by FBI and others; authorizes search without warrant PATRIOT Act also contains gag order recipient of NSL prohibited from disclosing that letter was ever issued 27

28 SECTION 2: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOUR RIGHT TO BE SECURE Wireless Searches Many of today s communications devices use wireless communication Anyone with scanner tuned to proper frequencies can intercept signals Such interception illegal, except for law enforcement agencies Warrant must be obtained to monitor wireless communications PATRIOT Act some standards for obtaining warrants relaxed, eliminated National Security and the Courts Several 4th Amendment challenges to government surveillance programs now before federal courts 2006, United States v. Arnold: case of search of laptop contents at airport 2006, class-action suit accusing AT&T of turning over phone records of millions of Americans to the National Security Agency Government argues that actions necessary to protect national security Supreme Court likely to be asked to decide these issues, other similar cases 28

29 SECTION 3: DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Due Process and Public Schools What due process rights, if any, do students have if they are facing suspension from public school? The Supreme Court addressed the issue in Goss v. Lopez in The School Suspension Case 1971: Columbus, Ohio, school officials suspend number of students for up to 10 days for student misconduct Dwight Lopez asserted he was innocent bystander Claimed due process rights denied because he was suspended without hearing District court ruled suspensions unconstitutional; Lopez, others denied due process Court said school should have given students notice of suspension, held hearing School system appealed to Supreme Court 29

30 SECTION 3: DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT The Court Hears Goss v. Lopez School argued because there was no constitutional right in Ohio to public education, no requirement school provide due process Attorneys for Lopez pointed to Ohio law requiring state to provide free education for all students Argued suspending without due process unconstitutionally deprived students of this right The Supreme Court s Decision 1975: in 5 4 decision Court said because Ohio offered public education, students could not be deprived of that right without due process Justice White: Ohio had made education a property right Either before suspension, or soon thereafter, students must be given hearing, allowed to explain events Courts have consistently interpreted Goss to mean that students who are suspended for longer than 10 days must be granted more due process rights 30

31 SECTION 3: DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Due Process and Equal Protection 14th Amendment: no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process nor deny any person equal protection of the laws Court has applied many Bill of Rights guarantees to actions of states through doctrine of incorporation, and has applied idea of equal protection against actions of federal government Due process laws, process, and procedures of applying them must be fair Equal protection each person in same, similar circumstances stands before law equally Procedural due process certain procedures must be followed in carrying out, enforcing law Substantive due process if way laws carried out are fair, then laws themselves must be fair People have natural rights not listed in Constitution To be fair a law cannot violate people s natural rights 31

32 SECTION 3: DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 32

33 SECTION 3: DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Substantive Due Process Constitution does not create or grant rights Protects, guarantees unalienable rights referred to in Declaration Purpose of 9th Amendment: recognize, protect rights not explicitly stated unenumerated rights Court has used doctrine of substantive due process to decide what some of those rights are, including certain property rights, right to privacy, others Protecting Property Rights Court first used doctrine of substantive due process to define, protect property rights, other economic rights 1905, Lochner v. New York, one of most famous examples also known as the Bakeshop Case The Bakeshop Case Bakery owner arrested in violation of Bakeshop Act; claimed deprived of property rights to negotiate employment contract without due process. State argued it was empowered to protect well-being of citizens 33

34 SECTION 3: DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT The Decision and the Dissent 5 4 decision, justices agreed with bakeshop owners Overturned conviction, ruled Bakeshop Act unconstitutional When considering if exercise of state s police power to safeguard public health constitutional, Court must ask if regulation reasonable and necessary, or unreasonable, unnecessary, arbitrary Court did not believe long hours in bakery unhealthy Law unreasonable interference with rights of individuals to make contracts regarding labor Strong dissents Justices Harland, Holmes argued Court s majority should have respected legislature s judgment instead of own point of view A constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory... 34

35 SECTION 3: DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Lochner s Effect After Lochner, first criticisms of substantive due process heard Court attacked for using doctrine to impose its views, values on nation As Court continued to apply substantive due process to laws affecting property rights, criticism grew 1938, United States v. Carolene Products Company: Court said it would apply only rational basis test to economic regulations Rational basis test meant for a law to be upheld, government would have to show only it had good reason rational basis for passing law When Court called upon to review law, rational basis test the least strict standard it can apply The practical result of the Court s announcement was that it nearly stopped applying substantive due process to property rights. However, it said it would apply a stricter test to laws that affected personal rights. 35

36 SECTION 3: DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Protecting Personal Rights After Carolene, the Court did begin to use substantive due process to define basic personal rights, none of which are expressly listed in the Constitution. Right to Privacy 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut: privacy right first recognized by Court 1973, Roe v. Wade: expanded privacy right Determining the Right to Die 1983: Nancy Beth Cruzan critically injured in auto accident Doctors said she would never recover from persistent vegetative state 1987: hospital refused parents request to remove feeding tube and allow Nancy to die Parents argued daughter would not want to live in such a condition 36

37 SECTION 3: DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT The Cruzan Decision Trial court ruled for parents; Missouri Supreme Court overruled, holding there was no clear, convincing evidence Nancy wished to die 1990, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri State Department of Public Health: Court ruled right to refuse medical treatment a privacy right protected by 14th Amendment, but also upheld ruling of Missouri Supreme Court could not end treatment without evidence of what patient wanted The Effect of Cruzan Case established person s right to refuse medical treatment, and to die Also set due process standard by which someone else could make decision if patient unable to do so Cruzan s parents went back to state court with evidence of conversations in which Nancy said she would never want to live like a vegetable Court ordered feeding tube removed; she died 12 days later 37

38 SECTION 3: DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Procedural Due Process Procedural due process has a very different history from substantive due process. Procedural due process grew out of Magna Carta, the 1215 document that required the English king to follow the law of the land. Procedural Due Process and Property Rights Most attention focuses on life, liberty issues as due process applies to arrest, prosecution of persons accused of crimes Issues typically involve depriving people of personal property, land 1970s: concept expanded to include other benefits, education, statuses Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) John Kelly, others, challenged constitutionality of procedures for termination of federal financial aid Court ruled Kelly entitled to full hearing before benefits terminated Decision changed way all government benefits are administered Aid payments are form of property 38

39 SECTION 3: DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Stanley v. Illinois (1972) Illinois law defined parent as father and mother of child born to married couple, and the mother not father of child born to unmarried couple Peter Stanley not married to Joan Stanley, mother of their three children State removed children from Stanleys home when Joan died because according to state s definition, Peter Stanley was not parent Peter Stanley sued state to regain custody of children 1972: Court agreed that Stanley had been denied due process, and that treating unwed fathers differently violated equal protection clause Court said unwed fathers entitled to due process hearings to determine fitness as parent before children can be made wards of state Also established what Constitution requires in way of due process for anyone Before government at any level can deprive person of rights or property, person must at least be given formal notice, hearing to meet requirements of procedural fairness 39

40 SECTION 3: DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Procedural Due Process and Juvenile Justice By 1899 states recognized that juvenile offenders should be treated differently from adult criminals. Unfortunately, juvenile proceedings were often informal and did not include due process protections. In the 1967 landmark case In re Gault, the Court extended many of the due process requirements of adult proceedings to the juvenile justice system. Background to Gault 15-year-old Gerald Gault taken into custody following complaint by Arizona woman who believed him to be person who made lewd phone call to her Mother went to juvenile center, learned son would have juvenile court hearing next afternoon never told what he was charged with Neither Gault nor parents advised he could have attorney; judge took no testimony from family; no one testified under oath; no record of proceedings; accuser not required to appear, denying right to confront, cross-examine Judge found Gerald guilty, sentenced him to state industrial school till 21 40

41 SECTION 3: DUE PROCESS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT The Gault Decision Arizona law Gault had no right to appeal conviction, punishment Appealed to Supreme Court claiming minors should have same due process rights as adults Court agreed: neither 14th Amendment nor Bill of Rights for adults alone Condition of being a boy does not justify kangaroo court Gault s Impact Gault gave juveniles most of same due process rights as adults Rights to know what they are charged with, to counsel, to confront witnesses Did not give all same rights in most states juveniles still do not have right to trial by jury 1984, Schull v. Martin: Court ruled that due process for juveniles does not include the right to be released from custody while they are awaiting trial. 41

42 42

43 SECTION 4: FEDERALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT Treaties and States Rights Hunting and fishing are typically regulated by state governments. Should the federal government have any power over state-regulated activities, such as restricting the hunting of certain animals within a state s borders? Protecting Migratory Birds Wild animals considered property of state in which they lived Wild animals, especially birds, move across boundaries freely Federal government tried to use this to protect migratory birds Courts struck down federal bird hunting regulations as unconstitutional 1916: treaty to protect birds migrating between U.S., Canada Congress passed Migratory Bird Treaty Act to prohibit killing, capturing birds covered by treaty Missouri tried to prevent federal game warden from enforcing act as unconstitutional exercise of federal power 43

44 SECTION 4: FEDERALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT Court Hears Missouri v. Holland Feds argued Constitution gave president power to make treaties. Noted supremacy clause making federal laws, treaties the supreme law of the land. Missouri argued Bird Treaty Act unconstitutional intrusion into Missouri s sovereignty, Congress should not be able to use treaty power to pass law that would be unconstitutional if passed directly Holland s Impact Court upheld lower court ruling that act was constitutional Observed some matters require national action Federal government can, under international treaty, regulate activities within states it might otherwise have no power to control Migratory birds do not recognize borders, are no one s property Holland clarified and expanded the limits of federal power to conduct international relations. Other cases since have continued to expand authority over state laws when the nation is dealing with international issues. 44

45 SECTION 4: FEDERALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT Expanding Federal Authority Commerce Clause of Constitution Congress has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, the states, Indian tribes Congress s use of clause, Supreme Court s interpretation of it, has significantly defined balance of power between national government, states, helped shape American life Use of power Congress has tried to use power to regulate commerce to end racial discrimination in United States 1964, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States: Court upheld use of power, said federal government could force private businesses not to discriminate against African Americans Said Heart of Atlanta Motel engaged in interstate commerce since 75 percent of guests were from out of state; racial discrimination had disruptive effect on interstate commerce 45

46 SECTION 4: FEDERALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT The Guns In School Case 1992: Alfonso Lopez arrived at San Antonio high school carrying concealed handgun School authorities received tip, confronted Lopez Lopez admitted he had.38 caliber revolver, five bullets Lopez arrested, charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises Next day state charge dropped when Lopez charged with violating federal Gun-Free School Zones law Law makes it illegal for anyone to have firearm in school zone Lopez convicted in federal court, sentenced to 6 months in jail 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed conviction Federal authorities appealed to Supreme Court 46

47 SECTION 4: FEDERALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT The Arguments Lopez s attorneys said having gun at school may be criminal offense, but federal law was unconstitutional exercise of Congress s power to regulate interstate commerce Government argued guns in school zones could lead to violent crime, making people afraid to travel in the area; fear of violent crime might interfere with students learning; both could affect the economy The Court s Ruling 1995, United States v. Lopez: Court ruled 5 4 that Gun-Free School Zones Act unconstitutional Possession of gun in local school zone not economic activity, would not affect any sort of interstate commerce Lopez first case to limit Congress s use of commerce clause since 1930s Court had duty to prevent federal government from further expanding powers to regulate conduct of a state s citizens 47

48 SECTION 4: FEDERALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT The Medical Marijuana Case Using marijuana illegal under federal law since : California voters approved marijuana use for medical purposes Two Californians, Diane Monson and Angel Raich, used home-grown marijuana to treat chronic pain Doctor said Raich s pain so severe, she could die without marijuana to relieve it 2002: federal authorities seized and destroyed six marijuana plants grown by Monson Monson, Raich sued federal government Court of appeals ruled feds had no right to interfere with right to grow, use marijuana under California law Government appealed decision to Supreme Court 48

49 SECTION 4: FEDERALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT The Arguments Raich, Monson claimed federal law allowing seizure was violation of commerce clause because they were not engaged in interstate commerce. Said marijuana home grown seeds, soil, equipment all from state in which they lived; therefore product was entirely of intrastate commerce Claimed federal government s enforcement action was unconstitutional Government based its argument on supremacy clause Argued federal government does not recognize medical use of marijuana, Constitution makes federal law supreme over state law Also argued use of home grown marijuana for medical purposes affected illegal trade in marijuana coming into California from other states, countries Claimed this gave government right to regulate home grown marijuana 49

50 SECTION 4: FEDERALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT The Raich Decision 2005, Supreme Court ruled 6 3 to uphold government s use of commerce clause to seize home grown marijuana plants Court accepted government s argument that home grown medical marijuana affects interstate commerce Justice John Paul Stevens s majority opinion noted marijuana popular part of commerce, commerce clause applies whether commerce is legal or not Said if Monson, Raich not growing own marijuana, would have to buy somewhere else which would ultimately have impact on the interstate commerce Congress can regulate Justice Sandra Day O Connor s dissenting opinion noted Federalism promotes innovation by allowing a single courageous state, if its citizens choose [to] try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country Added that principles of federalism should protect California s experiment from federal regulation 50