Landmark Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court,

Transcription

1 Landmark Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, Barron V. Baltimore (1833) First precedent of applying Bill of Rights to States, although did not hold states accountable to eminent domain under 5 th Amendment **1925: Gitlow v. New York. The Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibition against government abridgment of the freedom of speech applied to the states as well as to the federal government. The decision was the first of a number of rulings holding that the 14th Amendment extended the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to state action. Religious Freedom: 1 st Amendment Establishment Clause Engel v. Vitale (1962) The Court held that public schools could not require pupils to recite a state-composed prayer, even if nondenominational and voluntary, because this would be an unconstitutional attempt to establish religion. Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) The Court struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring that each public school day open with Bible reading. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) There are three criteria that should be used to assess legislation: "First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances or inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster and excessive government Entanglement with religion." 2002: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. The Court ruled that publicly funded tuition vouchers awarded to individuals based on circumstance do not violate the establishment clause. Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need, and reaches the religious institutions by choice of the individuals. 2001: Good News Club v. Milford Central School. The justices found that religious and secular organizations were entitled to equal access to public elementary school grounds for after-school meetings. (That open forum use by religious groups is not an establishment violation.) Van Orden v. Perry (2005) Ruled that a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of a state capitol building does not violate the First Amendment's establishment clause. The establishment clause did not bar the monument on the grounds of Texas' state capitol building. Religious Freedom: 1 st Amendment Free Exercise Clause Reynolds v. United States (1878) Do the laws against polygamy violate the free exercise clause of the 1 st amendment? 2) Can religious belief be accepted as a justification of an overt act made criminal by the law of the land? No and no. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) The Court ruled the West Virginia School Board s policy requiring Jehovah s Witness students and teachers to recite the pledge of allegiance a free exercise violation.

2 Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) The Court ruled that Amish adolescents could be exempt from a state law compelling school attendance Oregon v. Smith (1990) Does the Oregon law prohibiting the use of hallucinogenic drugs, even for religious purposes, violate the free exercise clause of the 1 st amendment? No- Neutral laws in applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) States cannot not restrict religiously mandated slaughter of animals, regardless of the purpose for the slaughter. The city had passed an unconstitutional ordinance prohibiting slaughter of animals except for food, which singled out the Santeria church. 1 st Amendment Speech/Expressions 1919: Schenck v. U.S. The Court sustained the Espionage Act of 1917, maintaining that freedom of speech and press could be constrained if the words used... create a clear and present danger... "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. Near v. Minnesota: (1931) A statute authorizing... proceedings in restraint of publication is inconsistent with the conception of the liberty of the press as historically conceived and guaranteed. The fact that liberty of press may be abused does not make any less necessary the immunity of the press from prior restraint...a more serious evil would result if officials could determine which stories can be published..." 1964: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the press from libel suits for defamatory reports about public officials unless an injured party could prove that a defamatory report was made out of malice or reckless disregard for the truth. New York Times v. United States (1971) In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) The Supreme Court ruled that wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was pure speech, or symbolic speech, thus protected by the First Amendment. The principal s right to forbid conduct that substantially interfered with school discipline was outweighed by the students right to free expression. Texas v. Johnson (1989) The Supreme Court protected flag-burning as symbolic speech: Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

3 Freedom of Expression Campaign Finance (Freedom of Speech can include spending of $) Buckley v. Valeo (1976) This campaign finance case disallowed limits on campaign expenditures, but permitted reasonable restrictions on individual, corporate and group contributions to candidates. The Supreme Court recently upheld the $1,000 limit. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996) The Supreme Court ruled that campaign spending by political parties on behalf of congressional candidates may not be limited, as long as the parties work independently of the candidates. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) 1 st Amendment prohibits government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, unions, or other associations like interest groups. Stuck down a provision of McCain-Feingold (BCRA) that prohibited electioneering by outside groups 60 days prior to a general election or 30 days prior to a primary. Now allows for the groups to essentially spend unlimited amounts of money on independent political messaging up to day of an election. Equal Protection Clause of 14 th Amendment 1954: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The Court ruled that separate public schools for black and white students were inherently unequal, so that state-sanctioned segregation in public schools violated the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment. And in Bolling v. Sharpe the Court ruled that the congressionally mandated segregated public school system in the District of Columbia violated the 5th Amendment's due process guarantee of personal liberty. (The Brown ruling also led to abolition of statesponsored segregation in other public facilities.) 1962: Baker v. Carr. The Court held that the constitutional challenges to the unequal distribution of voters among legislative districts could be resolved by federal courts. 1978: Regents of Univ. of Calif. v. Bakke. The Court ruled that a special admissions program for a state medical school, under which a set number of places were reserved for minorities, violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids excluding anyone, because of race, from a federally funded program. However, the Court ruled that race could be considered as one of a complex of factors. 1995: Adarand Constructors v. Peña. The Court held that federal programs that classify people by race, unless narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling governmental interest, may violate the right to equal protection. 2003: Grutter v. Bollinger, Gratz v. Bollinger. The Court upheld affirmative action in admission policies at the University of Michigan Law School. However, in a second decision, the Court ruled against a strict point system based on racial and ethnic backgrounds, as used in the university's undergraduate admissions process.

4 Due Process 4 th Amendment: Weeks v. U.S. : (1914) establishes federal exclusionary rule Mapp v. Ohio (1961) The Court ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure must be excluded from use at state as well as federal trials. New Jersey v. TLO (1985) Citing the peculiarities associated with searches on school grounds, and used a less strict standard of probable cause to conclude that the search did not violate the Constitution. School searches would require only "reasonable suspicion." Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? No- the concern of schools is reasonable. Press v. Fair Trial (1 st and 6 th ) Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) What threshold must be crossed before a trial is said to be so prejudicial, due to context and publicity, as to interfere with a defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment due process right to a fair trial? Court ruled that right of defendant exceeds publicity and limits can be placed on media coverage/influence to enable defendant to have a fair trial. 6 th Amendment Right to counsel Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) The Court ruled that state and federal defendants charged with serious crimes must have access to an attorney, at state expense if necessary. 5 th Amendment Escobedo v. Illinois (1963) Right to counsel during police questioning. Statements obtained without counsel option allowed can be excluded in court evidence. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 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? Yes, as well as 6 th right to have counsel present in an advisory capacity. Led to Miranda Rights. Rasul v. Bush, Al Odah v. United States (2004) The Court ruled that terrorism detainees held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could challenge their detentions in U.S. courts. Death Penalty (8 th ) Furman v. Georgia The arbitrary way the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty as applied in this case- constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Gregg v. Georgia Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment? A punishment of death does not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. A bifurcated (two part) process of determining facts and sentencing circumstances is acceptable.

5 Ring v. Arizona 2002 Does Arizona's capital sentencing scheme violate the Sixth Amendment's jury trial guarantee by entrusting to a judge the finding of facts sufficient to impose the death penalty? Yes, because Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors operates as "the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense." Therefore the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury. PRIVACY (IMPLIED) Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) The Court ruled that a state unconstitutionally interfered with personal privacy in the marriage relationship when it prohibited anyone, including married couples, from using contraceptives. Roe v. Wade (1973): The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. 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. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) Unholding parental consent requirements (with judicial bypass) the court imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The standards asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." 2 nd Amendment: District of Columbia v Heller (2008) Right to Bear Arms: The Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Second Amendment is more than a right of states to maintain militias and does, in fact, protect an individual's right to keep firearms in the home. The Court struck down a District of Columbia firearms regulation without deciding precisely what types of gun regulations might be constitutional. The Court has yet to decide whether the Second Amendment restricts state firearm regulations as well as regulations of the federal government.