Case Title: Atwater et al v. Lago Vista Tx. et al
Date: 2001
Background: In March, 1997, Gail Atwater was pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, and although she remained calm and admitted fault, she was verbally assaulted by the police officer who pulled her over. When he demanded her license and proof of insurance, she tried to explain that they were in her purse that had been stolen a couple days before. He dismissed this saying he'd "heard that story two million times before" and that she was going to jail. She asked if she could bring her children to a friend's house two doors away from where they were and he yelled that she wasn't going anywhere. As it happened, a friend approached them and took the children into her custody as Atwater was handcuffed and put in the squad car. She was held on a $210 bail for a charge that only held a $50 fine. After providing proof, the charges of driving without a license and insurance were dropped.
Appealable Technicality: 4th Amendment rights ~ unwarranted seizure. Also excessive bail.
Majority Opinion: In favor of Lago Vista ~ police officers have "reasonable doubt" and can't possibly be held accountable for knowing the reprocussions of every single misdemeanor on their feet
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Lago Vista
Case Title: Board of Education of Pottawatomie County et al v. Earls, Lindsey et al
Date: 2002
Background: Two parents in Tecumseh, OK, sued the Board about mandatory drug testing for students in extracurricular activities. They claimed it violated the 4th amendment.
Appealable Technicality: Fourth Amendment rights - search and seizure without probable cause.
Majority Opinion: In favor of Board of Education - students in extracurriculars have a lower expectation of privacy
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Board of Education
Case Title: Baker v. Carr
Date: March 26, 1962
Background Information: The TN constitution requires that legislative districts be redrawn every ten years according to the federal census to provide for districts of substantially equal population. However, the districts hadn't been redrawn since 1901, sixty years and 6 census...es? censi? ago. Charles Baker was a Republican who lived in the district containing Memphis. Over the past sixty years, his district had grown to contain about 10 times the amount of people in rural districts - however, voting-wise, the rural population was more important. He sued Joe Carr, the Secretary of State in Tennessee, as the person ultimately responsible for this. Carr's defense was that this was a "political question" and therefore shouldn't be sueable.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not legislative districts were "political questions" and therefore whether or not the Courts could regulate them
Majority Opinion: In favor of Baker - Legislative districts were not simply political and therefore the Courts could overlook them
Vote: Would have been 6-2 in favor of Baker, but Supreme Court granted authority to the District court to settle it.
Case Title: Barron v. Baltimore
Date: January, 1833
Background Information: John Barron, a wharf owner in Baltimore, Maryland, sued the mayor for property damages, claiming that when the city had redirected streams during construction, it had deposited sand and other materials into the wharf making the water too shallow for most ships. A district court awarded Barron $4500, but an appeals court overturned it.
Appealable Technicality: Whether the Bill of Rights, in particular the 5th Amendment (just compensation for eminent domain), applied to the States.
Majority Opinion: In favor of Baltimore - The Bill of Rights was intended for the federal government, not the States.
Vote: 7-0 in favor of Baltimore
Case Title: Board of Regents University of Wisconsin v. Southworth et al
Date: March 22, 2000
Background Information: Regents University charged a mandatory $165.75 fee each semester to fund school-related extracurriculars. A group of students protested, claiming that 18 of the clubs sponsored by this fee engaged in "political activites," including a couple Women's rights groups and the Gay and Lesbian center. They claimed that their first amendment right to free speech and association. The University returned with a statement that although the students may not have agreed with the groups' opinions, they had a right of free speech as well.
Appealable Technicality: First Amendment rights - free speech and association fought by both sides
Majority Opinion: In favor of University - organizations had right to free speech and the fee was fair because it applied to all extracurriculars
Vote: 9-0 in favor of Board of Regents University of Wisconsin
Case Title: Bob Jones University v. United States
Date: May 24th, 1983
Background Information: On November 30, 1970, Bob Jones University received notice from the IRS that their tax-exempt status was being revoked due to BJU's policy on refusing admission to those "engaging in interracial marriage," or "known to advocate interracial marriage or dating." BJU immeaditely responded with Bob Jones University v. Schultz. Following was a series of lawsuits and appeals, eventually reaching the Supreme Court in 1974, in Bob Jones University v. Simon. In tax year 1975, BJU filed for a return on an unemployment benefit. The IRS returned with a notice claiming nearly $500,000 in taxes from 1971-1975. This was what was brought to court in 1983.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the Internal Revenue Service could, without Congress approval, revoke tax exempt status of organizations that are contrary with established public policy.
Majority Opinion: In favor of IRS - "common law" public interest requirement into the statute governing tax-exempt charitable status, and cited Congress' refusal to intervene as proof that they approved of the IRS's construction of the statute.
Vote: 8-1 in favor of United States.
Case Title: Bowers v. Hardwick
Date: 1986
Background Information: In August, 1982, police entered the apartment of Michael Hardwick to serve a summons. The date had been written in wrong on Hardwick's copy, so he hadn't shown up, and an arrest warrant was issued. Hardwick wasn't home, and the officers left. When Hardwick returned and realized that the police had been there, he went straight to the courthouse and paid his fine. After a few weeks, after the arrest warrant had been recalled, an officer went to his apartment again. A visitor let the officer into the apartment. While snooping around, the officer went into Hardwick's bedroom, where Hardwick and a male were engaging in consenual oral sex. The officer put both men under arrest for sodomy. Hardwick then sued Michael Bowers, the state Attorney General, because he felt the law was invalid. Although an initial hearing was in favor of Hardwick, Bowers appealed it, wishing to maintain Georgia's sodomy law.
Appealable Technicality: Due Process of Law; sodomy law of Georgia claimed unjust. Also privacy.
Majority Opinion: In favor of Bowers - "to claim that a right to engage in [consensual homosexual sex] is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' is, at best, facetious."
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Bowers
Case Title: Brandenburg v. Ohio
Date: June 9, 1969
Background Information: Clarence Brandenburg, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, invited a reporter at a Cincinnati television station to come and cover a rally. Parts of the rally were videotaped, including a speech that suggested "revengence" on "niggers," "Jews," and those who supported them. Brandenburg was later arrested for advocating violence for his participation in the rally and the speech he had made. He was fined $1000 and sentenced to one to ten years in prison. An appeals court upheld this decision, in spite of Brandenburg's claims that his First and Fourteenth Amendment right to free speech had been violated.
Appealable Technicality: 1st and 14th Amendment right to free speech, whether these covered inflammatory speech
Majority Opinion: In favor of Brandenburg - One cannot be arrested for abstract advocation of violence. One can, however, be arrested for inciting imminent lawless action.
Vote: 9-0 in favor of Brandenburg
Case Title: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Date: May 17, 1954
Background Information: For as long as anyone could remember, racial segregation had been a part of life. Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896, had determined that as long as seperate facilities were equal, they didn't go against the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. A group of parents in Topeka, Kansas, decided that enough was enough and filed a suit against the school board on behalf of their children. They claimed that instead of being equal, the seperate facilities provided the African-American children with lower quality schools, supplies, etc. A district court ruled in favor of the school board, citing the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson.
Appealable Technicality: 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law
Majority Opinion: In favor of Brown - seperate facilities were "inherently unequal" and needed to be done with
Vote: 9-0 in favor of Brown
Case Title: Buckley v. Valeo
Date: January 30, 1976
Background Information: In spite of a veto by President Ford, Congress passed several new restrictions on campaign donations in an effort to allow the average American to keep up with the wealthy in races for office. However, according to Senator James Buckley (New York), this was a direct infringement on 1st and 5th Amendment rights to free speech and due process, respectively. A district and appeals court ruled in favor of Francis Valeo, ex officio member of the FEC, who the suit was filed against.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not putting limits on campaign donations is an infringement on free speech
Majority Opinion: In favor of Buckley - putting limits on campaigns was Unconstitutional because it limited a person's right to free speech without any compelling reason.
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Buckley
Case Title: Bush v. Gore
Date: December 12, 2000
Background Information: In a notoriously close Presidential race, in which the last electoral votes could be decided by the state of Florida, Al Gore requested a manual recount in 4 Florida counties. The counties agreed, but said that they weren't sure they could be finished in time. As it is, only one finished recounting in time. George W. Bush, however, saw these recounts as being unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause and wanted them stopped. It should be mentioned that Bush had won a majority in Florida, but by less than 0.5% of the votes. Also, controversy arose around the fact that Bush's brother, Jeb Bush, was the governer of Florida at the time.
Appealable Technicality: Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause
Majority Opinion: In favor of Bush - manual recounts striving to meet deadline of December 12th unconstitutional and needed to be stopped
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Bush
Case Title: California Democratic Party et al v. Jones
Date: June 26, 2000
Background Information: Traditionally, a candidate runs for election by winning primaries in party rallies. In California, this was always done by a closed primary, in which voters only chose a candidate in their party. However, for the 2000 presidential election, this was changed by Bill Jones, the Secretary of State in CA, to a blanket in which everyone voted for every party regardless of affiliation. This led to an outcry by all the political parties in California, especially the Democrats. They claimed that this violated their right to association and warned that a candidate chosen by rivals of the party could be disastrous. District court and appeals court ruled in favor of Jones.
Appealable Technicality: Free right of association as determined by closed vs. blanket primaries.
Majority Opinion: In favor of California Democratic Party - blanket primaries deny parties the right of association and are therefore unconstitutional
Vote: 7-2 in favor of California Democratic Party
Case Title: California v. Greenwood
Date: May 16, 1988
Background Information: In 1984, an investigator from the Laguna Beach Police Department received tip-offs that Billy Greenwood might have been involved in drug trafficking. She ordered that the garbage that Greenwood put on the curb be brought in for investigation. In it, she found evidence of drug use and used this to aquire a search warrant for his home. Not only was this nasty, but, as Greenwood argued, it was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless search and seizure. The police argued that it was general knowledge that trash put out to the curb was susceptable to children, animals, etc., so there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. A district court and appeals court ruled in favor of Greenwood.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not garbage left at the curb is given the Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure.
Majority Opinion: In favor of California - no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Vote: 6-2 in favor of California
Case Title: Cantwell v. Connecticut
Date: May 20, 1940
Background Information: Newton Cantwell and his two sons were Jehovah's Witnesses in a heavily Roman Catholic area. They went door-to-door with pamphlets and a portable phonograph with several religious records. One, entitled Enemies, attacked Catholics. When Cantwell's son played this for two men, they got angry. The Cantwells were arrested for breaching the peace and failing to register as religious solicitors. The Cantwells shot back by citing the First and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming their right to Free Exercise of religion.
Appealable Technicality: First/Fourteenth Amendment right to Free Exercise of religion and whether it applied to the states.
Majority Opinion: In favor of Cantwell - their actions were protected under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment
Vote: 9-0 in favor of Cantwell
Case Title: Chicago v. Morales
Date: June 10, 1999
Background Information: Chicago's anti-gang law stated that if a police officer saw a group of persons and had "reasonable belief" that they were involved in gang activies, he was to ask them to disperse. If they refused, they could be arrested. In 1993, Jesus Morales was arrested after ignoring a dispersal order. He sued, claiming that this was an infrigement of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the Chicago Anti-Gang law was unconstitutional
Majority Opinion: In favor of Morales - under Due Process Clause, the law was found too vague and an obstruction of liberty.
Vote: 6-3 in favor of Morales.
Case Title: Chisholm v. Georgia
Date: Febuary 18, 1793
Background Information: Alexander Chisholm, executor of the Robert Farquhar estate, tried to sue Georgia in a South Carolina court in 1792. Chisholm was trying to get back funds that Farquhar had lent to Georgia during the Revolutionary War. Georgia refused to show up for the hearing, saying that as a "sovereign," Georgia didn't have to appear for cases it didn't consent to.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not Article III, Section 2 forced a state to attend a federal court when being sued.
Majority Opinion: Technically none. However, the opinion of the majority was that yes, Georgia was not a sovereign and needed to show up to court.
Vote: 4-1 in favor of Chisholm
Case Title: City of Bourne v. Flores
Date: June 25, 1997
Background Information: Flores, a Catholic Archbishop in San Antonio, TX, requested a permit to enlarge a church in Bourne, TX. When the city refused the request, explaining that a historical preservation law included the church and that they couldn't re-distribute the land, Flores sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Bourne argued that the law was unconstitutional because it overshot Congress's powers as defined in the Constitution.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the RFRA was constitutional
Majority Opinion: No, Congress overshot its power in passing the RFRA
Vote: 5-3 in favor of the City of Bourne (I think. The only information I could get alluded to this at best)
Case Title: Clinton et al v. City of New York
Date: June 25, 1998
Background Information: In the 1994 mid-term election, Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in part by the "Contract with America," a list of provisions the Party promised to enact if voted for. One of these was the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which allowed the President to cancel certain parts of legislation but approve the rest. Although then-President Bill Clinton approved the bill, many Democrats didn't, some breaking with Clinton to vote against it. Several initial attempts were made to consider the bill unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court said that they lacked a standing and dismissed them. The second case was a consolidation of the City of New York, the District Court of the District of Columbia, and several health care organizations claiming injury because of Clinton's line-outing of certain parts of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
Appealable Technicality: The Presentment Clause of the Constitution
Majority Opinion: In favor of City of New York - Line Item Vetoes skip around the Presentment Clause
Vote: 6-3 in favor of City of New York
Case Title: Clinton v. Jones
Date: May 27, 1997
Background Information: In May, 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones filed a sexual harrassment suit against Bill Clinton. She claimed that in 1991, the then-Govener of Arkansas Clinton had "crudely propositioned her." The District court stated that a President could not be sued while in office, and that this case would be heard after the end of Clinton's term. The appeals court, however, stated that a President was not above the law and needed to be held accountable like every other citizen. Clinton appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for a writ of certiorari.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not a President could be sued while in office
Majority Opinion: In favor of Jones - a President, current, former, or elect, is a citizen first and therefore is not above the law.
Vote: 9-0 in favor of Jones
Case Title: County of Alleghany v. ACLU
Date: July 30, 1989
Background Information: Two holiday-related displays in Pittsburgh, PA, were challenged as being unconstitutional by the American Civil Liberties Union. They were a Nativity scene inside a courthouse and a Chanukah menorah outside the City-County building. The ACLU claimed that these violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by publicly endorsing religion.
Appealable Technicality: Establishment Clause of 1st Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of ACLU in the case of the Nativity Scene - by displaying the words "Glory to God and the birth of Christ" it was obvious that it was endorsing the Christian religion. In favor of Alleghany in the case of the menorah - due to its "exact physical location" it was deemed okay.
Vote: 5-4 in favor of ACLU
Case Title: Dennis v. United States
Date: June 4, 1951
Background Information: Eugene Dennis, the general secretary of the Communist Party, USA, as well as other petitioners, was arrested for violating the Smith Act by conspiring to overthrow the United States' Government by force and replace it with a Communist model. Dennis claimed that this was an infringement on his freedom of speech.
Appealable Technicality: Whether a) the Smith Act was constitutional, and b) conspiring was covered under free speech.
Majority Opinion: In favor of US - because Dennis's actions were harmful in nature, they were not covered under free speech. (This issue would be revisited in Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which it was stated that unless the language used is intended to spark imminent lawless action, it is covered under free speech)
Vote: 6-2 in favor of United States
Case Title: Department of Commerce v. US House of Representatives
Date: January 25, 1999
Background Information: Under the Census Clause (Article I, Section 2), Congress is authorized to conduct a census of the American public every 10 years. The census provides a basis for apportionment of congressional districts. Under the Census Act, Congress delegated this responsibility to the Secretary of Commerce. When the Census Bureau announced plans to use two new forms of discretionary statistical sampling in the 2000 census, various United States residents, counties, and the House of Representatives challenged the constitutionality of the new sampling methods in two separate suits.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the use of statistical sampling in the execution of the census was inconsistent with provisions of the Census Act
Majority Opinion: In favor of House - representatives lost seats due to new reapportionment and the act diluted voting strength. Not done on a constitutional/unconstitutional basis
Vote: 6-3 in favor of US House of Representatives
Case Title: McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission
Date: December 10, 2003
Background Information: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2000 had developed a small posse of enemies, including Senator Mitch McConnell (R - KY). McConnell, amoung others, sued the Federal Elections Commission, the federal agency that oversees US campaign finance laws. He claimed that money, and what one chooses to do with it, is covered under free speech.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not campaign finances are covered under free speech
Majority Opinion: In favor of Federal Elections Commission - Money is property, not speech
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Federal Elections Commission
Case Title: Dred Scott v. Sandford
Date: March 6, 1857
Background Information: Dred Scott, a slave owned by Dr. John Emerson, had kept quiet while his owner moved from free state to free territory to free state, hired him out, and kept him in bondage in spite of the laws that governed the area they were in. He was allowed to marry, a privilage not granted to slaves in the South. Dr. Emerson died in 1843, and the Scotts continued to work for Mrs. Emerson for another three years. However, when Scott tried to buy his freedom from Mrs. Emerson, she refused. Scott sued, claiming that he'd become a free man from living in free areas, and he couldn't just revert into slave status. After the initial hearing, Mrs. Emerson gave the case to her brother, John Sandford, who took her place as defendant.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not living in a free state made a free man out of a slave
Majority Opinion: In favor of Sandford - a) Scott was not a citizen because he was African-American, and therefore, couldn't file a lawsuit anyway. b) The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 were unconstitutional because Congress had no power to abolish slavery in territories. c) One can't remove another's property from them (including enslaved persons) because they change jurisdiction
Vote: 7-2 in favor of Sandford
Case Title: Edwards v. Aguillard
Date: June 19, 1987
Background Information: Creationists and evolutionists had, by this time,
long been at arms with each other. However, as evolutionists had won Epperson
v. Arkansas, creationists could not forbid the teaching of evolutionary
science. What they could do, and what they did, was pass legislation supporting
the teaching of creationism alongside evolution. Evolutionists were
outraged by this, especially a Louisiana law that required that creationism be
taught whenever evolution was taught. The State claimed that the Act was to
encourage academic freedom, while evolutionists counterclaimed that it didn't
extend teachers any liberties, and, in fact, supressed freedoms they already
had. A group of 72 Nobel prize-winning
scientists, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations
supported Aguillard in the suit against Edwards, the then-governor of
Louisiana.
Appealable Technicality: That creationism has a
strong religious connatation, and the law of Louisiana had religious
implications. First Amendment to the Constitution, establishment clause.
Majority Opinion: In favor of Aguillard -
teaching creationism is unconstitutional because it advocates a particular
religion
Vote: 7-2 in favor of Aguillard
Case Title: Engel v. Vitale
Date: June 25, 1962
Background Information: This case was brought forward by parents who complained that the opening prayer in their childrens' schools violated their religious beliefs. The prayer in question was "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen." The defendants claimed that it was okay because it was non-demoninational and non-mandatory. The plaintiffs stated that it was breaking the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Appealable Technicality: Establishment clause of the First Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of plaintiffs - prayer is inofitself religious, being a prayer, and even if it's non-denominational, it's still promoting a group of religions and excluding others (depending on whether the religion worships "Almighty God" or not) and therefore breaches the Establishment Clause
Vote: 6-1 in favor of plaintiffs
Case Title: Escobedo v. Illinois
Date: June 22, 1964
Background Information: On January 19, 1960, Danny Escobedo's brother-in-law was fatally shot. Police brought Escobedo in for questioning and then released him. However, another suspect stated that Escobedo fired the shots. Police brought Escobedo back into questioning, where he asked to speak with his attorney. His attorney came to the police station and asked to be present during the questioning, and both requests were refused. Escobedo later made a "damning statement" to police and later confessed to a prosecuting attorney. He was convicted of murder, but appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, who overturned the decision because of his right to an attorney. Illinois petitioned for a rehearing and the Court reversed their own statement, upholding the conviction. Escobedo then appealed to the US Supreme Court.
Appealable Technicality: Sixth Amendment right to counsel, whether applies only to court hearings or from the time person becomes a suspect
Majority Opinion: In favor of Escobedo - viewed the police interrogation in this case as more of a focus on a suspect than a general interrogation of witnesses. Upheld that right to counsel applies to when person first becomes primary suspect.
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Escobedo
Case Title: Ex Parte Merryman
Date: 1861
Background Information: While not technically a Supreme Court Case, this was a District Case heard by the Supreme Court Justices. Following the bombardment of Fort Sumter in April 1861, President Lincoln requested a volunteer army protect the Capital, due to the close proximity with the Confederation. However, as this army was marching, a riot broke out and several people were injured as shots were fired. During this confusion, Lt. John Merryman demolished a bridge to halt any further troop movements. He was eventually arrested without being told why, and protested his arrest ceaselessly until he was brought before a court.
Appealable Technicality: Writ of Habeas Corpus, and whether a President could abolish it
Majority Opinion: In favor of Merryman - a President has no right to suspend the writ, giving himself practically unending power like a dictator
Vote: 9-0 in favor of Merryman
Extra Information: It should be noted that while this was a unanimous and angry ruling by the Court, Lincoln, citing Andrew Jackson, simply ignored the ruling and continued to have people arrested without cause. Eventually, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863, formally suspending the writ for him.
Case Title: Ex Parte Milligan
Date: April 3, 1866
Background Information: Lambdin Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invading Union prisoner-of-war camps. Once they liberated Confederate soldiers, they planned to use their little army to liberate other Confederates across the state of Indiana and eventually overthrow the governments of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan and join the Confederacy. However, this plan was leaked and they were arrested. They were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death by hanging by military tribunal. They weren't set to be executed until 1865, however, so the case was heard by the Supreme Court after the war ended.
Appealable Technicality: Writ of Habeas Corpus, and whether it applies in states where civilian courts are still operating under Constitution (i.e., Union states)
Majority Opinion: In favor of Milligan - suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is unconstitutional in states where civilian courts have not been forced closed. Also, even when writ suspended, one can only be held, not tried and certainly not executed.
Vote: 9-0 in favor of Milligan
Case Title: Fletcher v. Peck
Date: March 16, 1810
Background Information: In 1795, the Georgia State Legislature sold land in the Yazoo River country (now in Mississippi) in exchange for bribes. In the next election, voters rejected most of the incumbents due to this, and as a reaction to the public outcry, the next legislature repealed the Act and voided the land sales made under it. John Peck had bought land under the 1795 law, and then sold it to Robert Fletcher. In 1803, Fletcher, angry that his land had been taken away from him, filed suit against Peck, claiming that he didn't have a title to the land when he had sold it to him.
Appealable Technicality: Article I, Section 10, Paragraph I (Contract Clause), whether it applied to States
Majority Opinion: In favor of Peck - the Georgia repeal of the law was unconstitutional and the sale of the land was a "binding contract"
Vote: 9-0 in favor of Peck
Case Title: Furman v. Georgia
Date: June 29, 1972
Background Information: While William Furman was bulgaring a home, the victim returned. As Furman was trying to escape, according to his testimony, he tripped and the weapon he was carrying fired accidentally. One of the homeowners was shot and killed. At trial, largely because of his own testimony, he was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. This case was consolidated with 2 others, Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas. Originally, the Court planned to consolidate Aikens v. California as well, but the State Supreme Court of California found that the death penalty went against their state constitution in California v. Anderson and so the case was dismissed as moot.
Appealable Technicality: 8th Amendment Right protecting against cruel and unusual punishment
Majority Opinion: No formal opinion, however 5 short concurrences in favor of Furman - since there was no method of deciding whether or not to grant the death penatly over other sentences, it was cruel and unusual in these "handpicked" cases
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Furman
Case Title: Gibbons v. Ogden
Date: March 2, 1824
Background Information: In 1793, Congress passed an act regulating coastal trade. Under this, Thomas Gibbons had been running a ferry service between New York City and Elizabeth Point, NJ. However, NY, in an attempt to create a monopoly, granted Aaron Ogden exclusive rights to this line. Ogden then obtained an injunction against Gibbons to keep him out of the waters, holding that navigation was not a distinct form of commerce, and therefore, was a legitimate area of state regulation. Gibbons sued for entry into the state.
Appealable Technicality: Article I (Commerce Clause)
Majority Opinion: In favor of Gibbons - Navigation is a form of commerce, and therefore is protected under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution
Vote: 7-0 in favor of Gibbons
Case Title: Gideon v. Wainwright
Date: March 18, 1963
Background Information: In 1961, Clarence Gideon was arrested for breaking into a pool hall and taking beer, wine, and change from the vending machines. He was too poor to afford an attorney and requested one, citing the previous Supreme Court ruling of Powell v. Alabama, in which the Court stated that counsel was necessary to protect American freedoms. However, the judge, citing Betts v. Brandy, said that he was only required to provide counsel in cases of capital offenses. Gideon was then forced to act as his own lawyer, pleading his innocence, and ended up sentenced to five years in prison. He appealed to the Supreme Court, saying that his right to counsel had been denied.
Appealable Technicality: Whether Powell v. Alabama pertained to noncapital offenses
Majority Opinion: In favor of Gideon - right to counsel was to be given to all cases, capital or otherwise
Vote: 9-0 in favor of Gideon
Case Title: Gregg v. Georgia
Date: July 2, 1976
Background Information: Gregg v. Georgia was consolidated with cases Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana. Otherwise known as the "July 2nd Cases," these cases sought to determine whether the guidelines of the respective states followed Furman v. Georgia, in which the Court stated that there must be specific ways to determine whether or not the death penalty be implemented. The defendents were all similar in that they had been tried for murder, found guilty, and sentenced to death. The purpose of these hearings was not to determine whether or not the death penalty was cruel and unusual, but rather check the states' guidelines to determine sentence.
Appealable Technicality: Furman v. Georgia, 8th Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of Georgia, Florida, and Texas, and against North Carolina and Lousiana - the guidlines of GA, FL, and TX were legitimate, the guidelines of NC and LA needed work. Death penalty is not inofitself cruel and unusual as long as it is done on a case-by-case basis (i.e., not mandatory for certain offenses as it was in NC and LA)
Vote: 6-3
Case Title: Griswold v. Connecticut
Date: June 7, 1965
Background Information: In an "uncommonly silly law" (written in the dissenting opinion by Justice Potter Stewart) passed in 1879, the use of contraceptives was banned in the state of Connecticut. Several attempts to have the Supreme Court look into the constitutionality of this law had failed on technicalities. In an attempt to get the law noticed, Estelle Griswold and Dr. C. Lee Buxton opened a New Haven, CT, branch of Planned Parenthood. Shortly after the opening, Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried, and fined $100 each. The ruling was upheld by the Appealate Division of the Circut Court, and later by the Connecticut Supreme Court. Griswold then brought the case to the Supreme Court.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not a "right to privacy" existed within the Consitution
Majority Opinion: In favor of Griswold - banning the use of contraceptives was a breach upon the privacy of married couples
Vote: 7-2 in favor of Griswold
Case Title: Van Orden v. Perry, and McCreary County, KY v. ACLU of KY
Date: June 27, 2005
Background Information: In Van Orden v. Perry, a 6 foot tall monument of the Ten Commandments had been donated to the State of Texas by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The State accepted the monument, and had it erected outside the capitol. Thomas Van Orden challenged the constitutionality of the monument, which the then-homeless native Texan passed frequently to use the law library in the Texas Supreme Court building. In McCreary County, KY v. ACLU of KY, a similar display in a Kentucky Courthouse had been ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court. The ACLU had sued after two KY counties each posted large, easily visible diplays of the Ten Commandments.
Appealable Technicality: 1st Amendment, Establishment Clause
Majority Opinion: No formal opinion in Van Orden v. Perry, but most justices upheld that the display was constitutional because it also had secular, lawful connatations. In McCreary County, KY v. ACLU of KY, in favor of ACLU - not constitutional because it as mainly religious. Interesting how two such similar cases can have different verdicts because of one swing vote - in this case, Justice Stephen Breyer.
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Perry, 5-4 in favor of ACLU
Case Title: Hammer v. Dagenhart
Date: June 3, 1918
Background Information: Due to the 10th Amendment, Congress found itself unable to regulate child labor laws within individual states. They came up with the idea to instead ban interstate trade of products made by children under 14, or made by factories in which children 14 to 16 worked more than 8 hours a day, worked overnight, or worked more than 6 days a week. Roland Dagenhart, who worked in a cotton mill with his two sons, filed suit.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the Commerce Clause applies to the interstate trade of products manufactured by children
Majority Opinion: In favor of Dagenhart - Congress had no right to try to regulate child labor, as it wasn't one of its enumerated powers
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Dagenhart
Case Title: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Date: January 13, 1988
Background Information: In a high school journalism class in the Hazelwood School District, Missouri, a school newspaper had been produced. The principal of this school usually reviewed the newspaper before it was distributed to the school body, but in this case, he deleted two of the articles the students had written. One of the articles was on teen pregnancy and included interviews with three girls who had become pregnant during high school. To protect their identities, the reporter had used pseudonyms instead of the real names. However, the principal believed that this did not do enough to protect their anonymity, and the girls' discussion of their non-use of contraceptives was inappropriate for the younger students. The journalism class claimed that this was censorship and filed suit.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not school-sponsored newspapers are protected by the 1st Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of Hazelwood School District - student papers that are not a "forum for student expression" are subject to a lower level of 1st Amendment protection than individual student opinions or papers that have been established as such forums
Vote: 5-3 in favor of Hazelwood School District
Case Title: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Date: December 14, 1964
Background Information: In an effort to halt unfair discrimation towards blacks, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in which hotels and the like were prohibited from denying a client based on race. The Heart of Atlanta Motel had, since its opening, denied rooms to blacks, and filed suit, claiming that Congress had no right to take their 5th Amendment right to choose customers as they wanted, and that Congress had overstepped its boundries by claiming that the motel was "interstate commerce." The United States counterclaimed that as over 75% of the clientele of the Motel came from out of state, and that is was strategically placed between I-75 and I-85, that it was, indeed, interstate commerce.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not Congress could regulate the patrons of accomadation, such as motels
Majority Opinion: In favor of United States - Congress did not overstep its boundries using the Commerce Clause to pass the Civil Rights Act
Vote: 9-0 in favor of United States
Case Title: Indianapolis v. Edmond
Date: November 28, 2000
Background Information: Starting in 1998, the city of Indianapolis began conducting roadblocks in which a police officer would conduct an open-view examination of the vehicle, while another officer would circle the vehicle with a narcotics-sniffing dog. James Edmond, a motorist stopped at one of these roadblocks filed suit, citing his 4th Amendment rights against unwarranted search and seizure.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not drug-dog motor stops violate the 4th Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of Edmond - "because the checkpoint program's primary purpose was indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control," they violated the 4th Amendment.
Vote: 6-3 in favor of Edmond
Case Title: The Insular Cases
Date: 1901-1904
Background Information: These are several cases that took place in the
early 20th century regarding the governing of islands who belonged to the
United States, but who were not States (i.e., Hawaii at the time, Puerto Rico,
Gaum, etc.). They focused mostly on what parts of the US Constitution applied
to these territories. They found that:
a. Puerto Rico is not a
foreign country for purposes of tariffs
b. Puerto Rico is not part of
the United States for purposes of taxation
c. No one could impose duties
on items shipped into Puerto Rico from the United States
d. Ports in Puerto Rico were
part of the United States for purposes of US coastal law
...etc. Similar jurisdictions were held for other island territories as well.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not US laws applied to island territories
Majority Opinion: n/a
Vote: n/a
Case Title: Kansas v. Colorado
Date: December 7, 2004
Background Information: Kansas and Colorado had a long-winded dispute over ownership of the Arkansas River. In 1949, Congress passed the Arkansas River Compact, which attempted to solve the dispute between the states. However, while it appeared to work for a while, in 1986, Kansas claimed that Colorado violated the Compact. In 1994, the Special Master, who the Supreme Court sent to review these allegations, stated that yes, Colorado did violate terms of the Compact. Kansas then sued Colorado, demanding interest from 1985 onwards to pay for damages from breaches of the Compact from 1950-1985. Kansas also requested a "river master" to settle disputes over computer modeling of the Arkansas River.
Appealable Technicality: 1) Whether or not Kansas was entitled to interest to pay for damages, 2) Whether or not Kansas was entitled to a "river master"
Majority Opinion: In favor of Colorado - a river master was inappropriate because the nature of the dispute was legal, not technical, and a river master would just fan the flames of the dispute. Kansas was not entitled to interest because that would contradict an earlier court decision between the two states.
Vote: 8-1 in favor of Colorado
Case Title: Lemon v. Kurtzman
Date: June 28, 1971
Background Information: This case was consolidated with two others, Earley v. DiCenso and Robinson v. DiCenso. They concerned Rhode Island and Pennsylvania laws that provided money for supplies, textbooks, teacher salaries, and instructional materials for secular subjects in private schools. In Rhode Island, the law provided direct salary payments to teachers in private elementary schools. Both states' statures provided for available aid to "church-related educational institutions."
Appealable Technicality: Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment; did providing aid to religious schools violate it?
Majority Opinion: In favor of Lemon - the statures directly violated the 1st Amendment by using government funding to run religious establishments
Vote: 8-1 in favor of Lemon
Case Title: Mapp v. Ohio
Date: June 19, 1961
Background Information: Dorelee Mapp was convicted of possessing obsence materials in her home. She claimed that they were freedom of expression and therefore protected under the 1st Amendment. Also, the search on her home had been an illegal, unwarranted one for a fugitive, violating her 4th Amendment rights protecting her against unwarranted search and seizure. She claimed that because they were found in an illegal search, the evidence should be thrown out.
Majority Opinion: In favor of Mapp - while they ignored the 1st Amendment claim, they supported her in that evidence found in an illegal search should not be used against someone in court.
Vote: 6-3 in favor of Mapp
Case Title: Marbury v. Madison
Date: Feburary 23, 1803
Background Information: In 1801, during the infamous "midnight appointments" of President John Adams, William Marbury, an "obscure Federalist," was designated as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Marbury, and others, had been appointed to jobs by Adams, but these appointments were never finalized. Marbury, along with other disgrunted appointees, sued for his job.
Appealable Technicality: 1) Whether or not Marbury was entitled to his job as the appointment hadn't been finalized, 2) whether or not his lawsuit was the correct way to get it, and 3) whether the Supreme Court was the correct place for someone to get relief they think they deserve.
Majority Opinion: In favor of Marbury - yes, he was entitled to his job, yes, the lawsuit was the way about getting what he wanted, and it depends on the case whether to involve the Supreme Court. Namely, when the Constitution conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid.
Vote: (couldn't find)
Extra Information: This famous case established the process of judicial review, giving the Supreme Court a legitimate reason to exist.
Case Title: McCullough v. Maryland
Date: March 6, 1819
Background Information: In 1816, Congress chartered the 2nd Bank of the United States. In 1818, Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the national bank. James McCullough, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank, refused to pay the tax, claiming that a state has no right to tax a national bank; it was an unconstitutional breach of power.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not Congress had the ability to charter a bank, and whether a state could tax a branch of the federal government.
Majority Opinion: In favor of McCullough - Congress had every right to charter the bank, and no state could tax the federal government in any form. Used loose construction arguements.
Vote: 9-0 in favor of McCullough
Case Title: Miller v. California
Date: June 21, 1973
Background Information: Miller, a distributor of "adult entertainment," conducted a mass-mailing scheme to advertise his wares. Several unwilling recepients of Miller's brochures complained to the police. Miller was convicted of breaching a California law against distributing obscene material. Miller appealed, claiming that his brochures were covered under the free speech protection of the 1st Amendment and that it was simple freedom of expression.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not obscene material is protected as free speech/expression
Majority Opinion: In favor of California - obsence language/material is not protected as free speech. Established guidelines for determining whether something shall be considered "obsence;" "(a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Vote: 5-4 in favor of California
Case Title: Miller v. Johnson
Date: June 29, 1995
Background Information: Between 1980 and 1990, only one of Georgia's ten congressional districts had a black majority. According to the 1990 census, with a black population of 27%, blacks were entitled to an eleventh seat. Although originally refused by the Justice Department, the Assembly was eventually successful in creating a new, black-majority district, Georgia's Eleventh District. This district, however, was called a "geographic monstrosity" because it extended 6,784.2 square miles from Atlanta to the Atlantic Ocean. In short, "the social, political, and economic makeup of the Eleventh District tells a tale of disparity, not community."
Appealable Technicality: Whether reapportioning districts according to race violates the Equal Protection Clause
Majority Opinion: In favor of Miller - in some cases, a district may be so "irregular and bizarre in shape" that the only forseeable reason to draw it that way is to segregate voters by race. Shaw v. Reno required strict scrutiny whenever race is the "overriding, predominant force" in the redistricting process.
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Miller
Case Title: Minersville School District v. Gobitis
Date: June 3, 1940
Background Information: Lillian and William Gobitis, Jehovah's Witnesses, were expelled from their school in the Minersville School District because they refused to salute the flag as part of the morning routine. The children believed that such an act of respect for the flag was forbidden by Biblical commands, in particular, the forbiddance of idol worship.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not a mandatory flag salute infringed on 1st Amendment rights, in particular the Free Exercise Clause
Majority Opinion: In favor of Minersville School District - the Court refused to become a "school board for the country" and upheld the flag salute. The Court stated that the state's interest in "national cohesion" was "inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values" and that national unity was "the basis of national security." The Court also found that the flag is an important symbol of national unity and could be a part of legislative initiatives designed "to promote in the minds of children who attend the common schools an attachment to the institutions of their country."
Vote: 8-1 in favor of the Minersville School District
Case Title: Miranda v. Arizona
Date: June 13, 1966
Background Information: This case was held jointly with several others. In all cases, suspects had been held and interrogated without being notified of their rights. They were all held in rooms that cut them off from the rest of the world, such as cells and interrogation rooms. Particually, in California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. The suspects then sued (after finally realizing that they had rights to counsel) claiming that statements they made should be thrown out because they were never told their rights.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the practice of holding suspects without notification of their right to counsel violates the 5th Amendment, in particular the right against self-incrimination.
Majority Opinion: In favor of Miranda and other suspects - police could not hold someone without notifying them of their rights.
Vote: 6-3 in favor of Miranda
Case Title: Mitchell et al v. Helms et al
Date: June 28, 2000
Background Information: Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 provides for the allocation of funds towards public and private elementary schools for "secular, nonideological programs." Funds pay for such things as libraries and computers. In Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, about 30% of these funds are allocated to private schools, most of which are Catholic (or otherwise religiously affliated). Mary Helms and other public school parents sued, claiming that allocating money to religious schools violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not Chapter 2 of the ECIA violates the Establishment Clause
Majority Opinion: In favor of Mitchell - Chapter 2 is not inherently a violation of the Establishment Clause simply because it is used to provide resources to religious establishments
Vote: 6-3 in favor of Mitchell
Case Title: Near v. Minnesota
Date: June 1, 1931
Background Information: Jay Near published a "scandal sheet" in Minneapolis, attacking several local officials, claiming that they were affiliated with gangsters. Minnesota officials obtained an injunction preventing Near from publishing sheets like this, citing a law that stated that any person "engaged in the business" of publishing an "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" or a "malicious" newspaper was guilty of a nuisance and could be stopped from continuing this nuisance. Near claimed that this "gag law" intruded upon his 1st Amendment rights and was blatant censorship.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the "gag law" violated the free press clause of the 1st Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of Near - the law, as implemented, was censoring the newspaper, and was therefore breaching the freedom of the press
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Near
Case Title: New Jersey v. T.L.O.
Date: January 15, 1985
Background Information: T.L.O., a fourteen-year-old girl, was accused of smoking in the bathroom at her school. The principal conducted a search of her purse, finding rolling papers, which led to a more thorough search in which the principal found marijuana. The girl then sued, claiming that her 4th Amendment rights against unwarranted search and seizure had been breached.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the search violated the 4th Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of New Jersey - in schools, "reasonable suspicion" is reason enough to conduct a search, as opposed to the "probable cause" needed by police.
Vote: 6-3 in favor of New Jersey
Case Title: New York Times v. Sullivan
Date: March 9, 1964
Background Information: A full-page ad in the New York Times claimed that the arrest of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for purjury in Alabama was little more than an attempt to stop King's efforts to integrate public buildings. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed suit for libel, claiming that the ad was aimed at him personally. At the time, Sullivan didn't have to present evidence that the ad was aimed at him, and the defense statement that the ad was truthful fell apart because the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan was awarded $500,000.
Appealable Technicality: Whether a non-truthful ad in a newspaper is protected under the 1st Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of the New York Times - the Court upheld that the 1st Amendment protected all publication, even false ones, unless the publication is obviously malicious.
Vote: 9-0 in favor of New York Times
Case Title: New York Times v. United States
Date: June 30, 1971
Background Information: Otherwise known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," this case was over President Nixon's attempts to stop the New York Times from publishing materials from a classified Defense Department study regarding the United States' history in Vietnam. The President claimed that publishing these papers would be hazardous to the security of the United States.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not President Nixon's attempts to stop the publication of classified information violated the freedom of the press
Majority Opinion: In favor of the New York Times - because publishing the information would not lead to a breach in homeland security, any attempt to stop the publication was censorship
Vote: 6-3 in favor of the New York Times
Case Title: O'Brien v. United States
Date: May 27, 1968
Background Information: In true counter-culture spirit, David O'Brien burned his draft card at a Boston Courthouse. He said he was simply displaying his opposition to the war. However, under federal law, destroying draft cards was a crime and O'Brien was penalized under it. He claimed that this trampled on his rights to free expression.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not burning draft cards is protected under the 1st Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of United States - a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government, if it furthers an important government interest, if the government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and if the restriction on 1st Amendment rights is not greater than is essential to that interest.
Vote: 7-1 in favor of United States
Case Title: Olmstead v. United States
Date: June 4, 1928
Background Information: Roy Olmstead, a suspected bootlegger, was convicted after police illegally placed wire-taps in the basement of his home. Olmstead claimed that this violated his 4th and 5th Amendment rights. This case was consolidated with Green v. United States, in which Green was also arrested after incriminating evidence was found using wire-taps.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not wire-tapping violates the 4th and 5th Amendments
Majority Opinion: In favor of United States - the 5th Amendment arguement was almost immeadiately thrown out, as neither Olmstead nor Green were forced to have the incriminating conversations; they spoke of their own free will. The Court found that wire-tapping did not interfere with 4th Amendment protection against search and seizure, because it does not involve an actual, physical search of one's belongings or person.
Vote: 5-4 in favor of United States
Case Title: Plessy v. Ferguson
Date: May 18, 1896
Background Information: In Louisiana, there was a law that required seperate railway cars for whites and blacks. In 1892, Homer Plessy, who was 7/8 white, sat in the "Whites Only" section of a train. He refused to move to the car for blacks and was arrested. Plessy appealed, claiming that this violated his 14th Amendment rights - the priviliges and immunities and equal protection clauses.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not mandatory segregation violated the 14th Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of Ferguson - "seperate but equal" (although this phrase was not a part of the opinion). As long as the seperate facilities were equal in every way, then segregation is not inherently unconstitutional.
Vote: 7-1 in favor of Ferguson
Case Title: Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust
Date: May 20, 1895
Background Information: In the Constitution, one of the enumerated powers of Congress is to impose direct taxation as long as it is propotional to the states' representation in the House of Representatives. In 1894, Congress passed an income tax law. This was brought to court as a violation of Article I, Section 9, because the tax was on an individual basis, not state-by-state.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the income tax violated Article I, Section 9
Majority Opinion: Yes it does; if a tax by Congress is not done on a proportional basis, then it is unconstitutional.
Vote: 5-4
Case Title: Powell v. Alabama
Date: November 7, 1932
Background Information: Otherwise known as the "Scottsboro Boys Case," this hearing involved nine young, illiterate, black boys who were accused of raping two white women. In a rediculously fast case, three trials were concluded within one day and all nine were sentenced to death. Although Alabama law required counsel be provided for capital crime hearings, the attorneys had no time to speak with the boys, and did little more than show up at the trial.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the Scottsboro trials violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of Powell - the trials denied due process because the boys were not given ample time to secure counsel for their defense.
Vote: 7-2 in favor of Powell
Case Title: Kelo v. New London
Date: Febuary 22, 2005
Background Information: New London, Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to developers. They claimed that the development of this land was to benefit the economy and boost tax revenues. Kelo, along with others whose property had been seized, sued the city, claiming that they violated the 5th Amendment's takings clause. Specifically, while the clause says "for public use," Kelo argued that taking private property to sell to private developers was not for public use.
Appealable Technicality: Literal vs. figurative meaning of "for public use"
Majority Opinion: In favor of New London - because the seizure was to benefit the community and the economy, it was for public use.
Vote: 5-4 in favor of New London
Case Title: Raines v. Byrd
Date: June 26, 1997
Background Information: The 104th Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act, allowing the President to mark out certain parts of bills without having to veto the whole thing. Several members who had voted against the Act sued to test the Act's constitutionality. The District Court ruled in the congressmen's favor, finding the law unconstitutional. It then went to the Supreme Court.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the Line Item Veto violated the Presentment Clause in Article I
Majority Opinion: The congressmen didn't have Article III standing to maintain a suit. The Court questioned how the Act, which the entire Congress had voted on, resulted in their personal inquiry. Also, the congressmen based their arguement on loss of political power, not on legally protected interests. In this way, the Court managed to avoid the question of constitutionality of the Line Item Veto entirely.
Vote: 7-2
Case Title: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Date: June 26, 1978
Background Information: Allan Bakke, a 35-year-old white man, had twice applied to the University of California's medical school, and was twice rejected. The school reserved 16 of each attending class of 100 for minority students to counteract years of discrimination against minorities in the medical field. Bakke's qualifications (GPA and test scores) were higher than all of the minority students in each of the two years he was rejected. He sued the school, claiming that they had rejected him purely on the basis of race. He cited his 14 Amendment rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in his arguement.
Appealable Technicality: Whether rejection on the basis of race violated the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Majority Opinion: In favor of Bakke - while there was no one majority opinion, the concurrences all agreed that the Civil Rights Act had been breached
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Bakke
Case Title: Reynolds v. United States
Date: March 9, 1953
Background Information: An airplane conducting tests involving "secret electronic equipment" crashed, killing several military personnel and civilians. The widows of three of the civilians killed asked for full disclosure of the Air Force's investigation into the crash. The investigation included information on the equipment, and therefore, the Air Force refused, claiming that the information must be held secret for security of the country. The District Court and Court of Appeals viewed the question of negligance in the widows' favor and ruled as such.
Appealable Technicality: Whether classified information needs to be presented in court, even if doing so would breach security
Majority Opinion: In favor of United States - if information is classified it needs to stay that way and proceedings must use other information
Vote: 6-3 in favor of United States
Case Title: Roe v. Wade
Date: January 22, 1973
Background Information: Roe, a pregnant Texas resident, sought an abortion. Unfortunately, Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. Roe sued, claiming that this law breached her 14th Amendment right to privacy.
Appealable Technicality: Whether abortion was covered under the right to privacy as recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut
Majority Opinion: In favor of Roe - the Court found that abortion was protected under a woman's right to privacy. The Court granted women full choice to abort their pregnancies within the first trimester. As a result, the laws of 46 states had to be changed.
Vote: 7-2 in favor of Roe
Case Title: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, Jane et al
Date: June 19, 2000
Background Information: Before 1995, a student-elected chaplain of Santa Fe High School would lead a prayer over the intercom at all home varsity football games. A Mormon and a Catholic family sued the school system, claiming that this violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. While this case was pending, the District changed its policy to state that the prayer would be optional, and to be voted on by students and then, if students wanted it, a vote would be cast as to the chaplain. Although the students did vote positive on this new policy and the prayers continued with majority approval, the purpose of the Bill of Rights has always been to protect the minority; i.e., the students that voted against the prayer. The District Court found that the policy did indeed violate the 1st Amendment.
Appealable Technicality: Whether to consider the student-voted, student-led prayer as public endorsement of religion or private student speech
Majority Opinion: In favor of Doe - by its very nature, prayer is religious. Although it is all done by students, it is still considered public endorsement of religion because it is at a public, government-sponsored event
Vote: 6-3 in favor of Doe
Case Title: Schenck v. United States
Date: March 3, 1919
Background Information: During WWI, Schenck circulated flyers to draftees. They suggested that drafting was evil, and to "not give in to intimidation." However, they only suggested peaceful protests, such as petitions, to try to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was arrested for conspiracy and attempting to cause insubordination in the military. Schenck argued that he was using his 1st Amendment rights.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not Schenck's actions were protected under the 1st Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of United States - Schenck's actions were malicious and the circumstances were such that he was not protected under the 1st Amendment (i.e., things permissible in peacetime may be punishable during times of war).
Vote: 9-0 in favor of United States
Case Title: School District of Abington Township Penn. v. Schempp
Date: June 17, 1963
Background Information: At the beginning of each school day, students in Abington Township were required to read at least 10 verses from the Bible. They were then required to recite the Lord's Prayer. A student could be excused from these proceedings with a note written by their parents. According to Abington School District, this ability to skip out made it okay constitutionally, because it wasn't an absolute mandatory establishment of religion. Schempp, a parent of a child in the school district, sued, saying that the note didn't stop it from being a public endorsement of religion.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not these morning routines violated the 1st Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of Schempp - the note didn't stop it being a vast breach of the Establishment Clause, because it was still religious and it was the State's intent for it to be so
Vote: 8-1 in favor of Schempp
Case Title: Gratz v. Bollinger and Gutter v. Bollinger
Date: June 23, 2003
Background Information: In 1995, Jennifer Gratz, a white female, applied to the University of Michigan with a GPA of 3.8 and an ACT score of 25. She was rejected, and went to another school instead. In 1997, Barbara Gutter, a white female with an undergraduate GPA of 3.8 and a LSAT score of 161, applied to the Law School and was rejected also. The University admitted that it used race as a factor in admitting students because it wanted to encourage diversity in its student body. The school would accept every qualified student from three racial groups - African-American, Hispanic, or Native American - that it thought were underrepresented within the student body. Gratz and Grutter sued (seperately), citing the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the University of Michigan's policy of rejecting or accepting students on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Majority Opinion: In favor of Gratz - the automatic distributation of 20%
of the undergraduate class to every "unerrepresented minority" simply
on the basis of race was not tailored enough
In
favor of Bollinger - the Law School's admission policy was much more tailored;
while race was a factor, it wasn't automatic to admit minorities
Vote: 6-3 in favor of Gratz, 5-4 in favor of Bollinger
Case Title: Stenberg v. Carhart
Date: June 28, 2000
Background Information: A Nebraska law prohibited the practice of partial birth abortions, or the procedure of force-delivering a child vaginally before killing it. Violating this law was a felony and would result in an automatic removal of the doctor's license to practice medicine. Dr. Leroy Carhart, a Nebraska physician, claimed this law was unconstitutionally vague and placed a large burden on himself and female patients seeking abortions.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the Nebraska law violated the due process clause in the 14th Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of Carhart - the statute placed an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion and did not allow for exceptions in the case of threatened health
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Carhart
Case Title: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
Date: April 20, 1971
Background Information: After the 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, little actual progress had been made in desegregating public schools. A prime example of this was the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, area, in which 14,000 black children attended either all black schools or school that were more than 99% black. Lower courts had expiremented with solutions to this problem before it reached the Supreme Court in late 1970.
Appealable Technicality: How the courts should go about enforcing a prior ruling, in this case, desegregating schools
Majority Opinion: In favor of Swann - courts had to oversee the desegregation of schools. A four-part guideline was written up as to how to go about this
Vote: 9-0 in favor of Swann
Case Title: Texas v. Johnson
Date: June 21, 1989
Background Information: In 1984, Gregory Johnson burned an American Flag in front of the Dallas City Hall as a protest against President Reagan's policies. He was arrested and found guilty of a Texas law that banned flag desecration. He was sentenced to a year in jail and fined $2000. He claimed freedom of expression under the 1st Amendment.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not flag desecration, in particular flag burning as protest, is protected under the 1st Amendment as freedom of expression
Majority Opinion: In favor of Johnson - flag burning is protected under the 1st Amendment. Johnson's actions had a distictly political, not malicious, nature. Whether or not an audience takes offense to an expression does not justify breaching the 1st Amendment.
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Johnson
Case Title: Tinker v. Des Moines Public Schools
Date: Febuary 24, 1969
Background Information: Three students in the Des Moines school system - John Tinker, 15, Mary Beth Tinker, 13, and Christopher Echardt, 16 - along with their parents, decided to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school during the winter holiday season. The principal of their school, learning of their intentions and fearing that the armbands would provoke disturbances, declared that anyone who wore such armbands would be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the Tinkers and Echardt wore them to school anyway, they were told to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the wearing of armbands as protest is protected under the 1st Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of Tinker - wearing armbands is "closely akin" to free speech and is therefore protected under the 1st Amendment
Vote: 7-2 in favor of Tinker
Case Title: United States v. Morrison et al or Brzonkala v. Morrison et al
Date: May 15, 2000
Background Information: In 1994, while a student at Virginia Tech, Christy Brzonkala alleged that James Crawford and Antonio Morrison, two other students at the school, raped her. After a hearing at the school, Morrison was found guilty and suspended for two semesters. In a rehearing, this punishment was found to be "excessive," and it was dropped. Crawford was not punished. Brzonkala ended up dropping out of the college. She then sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech, alleging that Morrison's and Crawford's act violated section 13981 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Morrison and Crawford moved to drop the case, claiming that Congress lacked the authority to enact the law under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, which were what Congress based the law upon.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not Congress has the authority to enact section 13981 of the VAWA
Majority Opinion: In favor of Morrison - Congress did not have the authority, because it did not cover interstate trade or harm imposed by the state
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Morrison
Case Title: United States v. Nixon
Date: July 24, 1974
Background Information: After the Watergate Scandal leaked, seven of President Nixon's closest aides were indicted. The prosecutor requested recordings of Nixon made in the Oval Office, and Nixon refused, citing "executive privilage," the ability of the President to withold information from other branches of government to protect preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not "execute privilage" is completely immune to the judicial branch
Majority Opinion: In favor of United States - neither the separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality in high-level communications provides basis for an absolute executive privilage. In short, hand the tapes over, Nixon. Or else.
Vote: 8-0 in favor of the United States
Case Title: Wallace v. Jaffree
Date: June 4, 1984
Background Information: An Alabama law authorized teachers to conduct regular religious prayer services and activities in school classrooms during the school day. Three of Jaffree's children attended public schools in Mobile. Jaffree sued, citing the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not prayer in schools infringes upon the Establishment Clause
Majority Opinion: In favor of Jaffree - after putting Alabama's prayer in school's law through the "secular purpose test," the Court determined that the prayer was an endorsement of religion, and served no secular purpose. Therefore, it was a direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
Vote: 6-3 in favor of Jaffree
Case Title: Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
Date: July 3, 1989
Background Information: In 1986, Missouri placed several new laws about abortion on the books. First, neither public employees nor public buildings could be used as gateways to an abortion unnecessary to save a mother's life. Second, no counseling encouraging abortion was allowed. Third, physicians were required to perform viability tests upon women in their twentieth week of pregnancy. Lower courts struck these restrictions down as they went against the previous Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the Missouri laws were an infrigment on privacy as determined by Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade or the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of Webster (? If he was the defendent...) - Missouri's laws were constitutional. The Due Process Clause did not require states to enter into the business of abortion, and did not create a right to aid in the chase of constitutional rights. However, the court emphasized that they were not going against Roe v. Wade.
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Webster (?)
Case Title: West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette
Date: June 14, 1943
Background Information: In West Virginia, there was a law making it mandatory for students to salute the American flag at the beginning of each school day. Failure to do so would result in expulsion and charges of delinquency, as it was considered "insubordination." A similar law to this had been upheld in Minersville School District v. Gobitis.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not a mandatory salute of the flag is an infringement of 1st Amendment rights
Majority Opinion: In favor of Barnette - a flag salute is an expression, and therefore something that should be freely chosen to do or not do. A mandated opinion "is destined to fail."
Vote: 6-3 in favor of Barnette
Case Title: Wisconsin v. Yoder
Date: May 15, 1972
Background Information: Jonas Yoder, along with two others, was prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that compelled parents to send their children to public schools until age 16. Yoder, being Amish, refused to do so; education after the eighth grade was contrary to his religion. Yoder claimed that the law infringed upon his 1st Amendment rights.
Appealable Technicality: What is worth more - a law madating education or the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment?
Majority Opinion: In favor of Yoder - the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment carries much more weight than two extra years of education. Therefore the law was unconstitutional.
Vote: 7-0 in favor of Yoder
Case Title: Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily
Date: May 31, 1978
Background Information: In 1971, police officers conducted a warranted search of the office of the Standford Daily, the student-run newspaper at Standford University. It was believed that the newspaper had pictures of a violent clash between protesters and police, and the photos were needed to identofy the assailants. Nothing was taken from the office, but the officers searched right down to the wastepaper baskets.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the warranted search of the newspaper office violated the 1st and 4th Amendments to the Constitution
Majority Opinion: In favor of Zurcher - the 4th Amendment arguement was thrown out because there was an obtained warrant for the search, and no property was seized. The 1st Amendment right to freedom of the press was not breached either, because the paper had not been prohibited in any way from producing the photos.
Vote: 5-3 in favor of Zurcher
Case Title: Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo
Date: Febuary 19, 2002
Background Information: Kristja Falvo asked the Owasso School District to put a stop to peer grading, or the practice of having students grade each others' worksheets, quizzes, tests, etc., as it embarrassed her children. The school district declined, and Falvo filed suit, citing the Family Education and Privacy Act of 1974, which protected students from having their "education records" released without parent consent. She claimed that peer grading violated this law, because the other students could see each others' "education records" by this practice, i.e., seeing each others' test grades.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not peer grading can be considered a violation of FEPA
Majority Opinion: In favor of the Owasso Independent School District - peer grading does not violate FEPA, because grades are not "education records" until the teacher puts the grades in a gradebook. Moreover, students are not acting for an educational establishment as put forward by FEPA.
Vote: 9-0 in favor of Owasso Independent School District
Case Title: Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, Chair, Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards
Date: June 27, 2002
Background Information: In Minnesota, judges are appointed by popular election. The announcement clause of the Minnesota's Supreme Court canon of judicial conduct forbids a candidate from stating his/her opinion on political or legal issues. Gregory Wersal filed suit against this law, stating that it went against his freedom of speech. He said that during his campaign, it got to the point where he wouldn't take questions from the audience in case he forgot and voiced his forbidden opinion.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not the announcement clause of the canon of judicial conduct violated the 1st Amendment
Majority Opinion: In favor of Republican Party of Minnesota - similar to a "gag rule," this clause forbids free speech. Especially important in a campaign are the candidates' opinions on pressing issues, and without stating them, how can voters accurately decide on who they want to vote for?
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Republican Party og Minnesota
Case TItle: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris or Hanna Perkins School et al v. Simmons-Harris
Date: June 27, 2002
Background Information: Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program provides tuition aid in the form of vouchers to families. They can then choose a public or private school, secular or religious. Any school can participate in the program, and who gets the vouchers is decided by financial need and where they live. A group of Ohio taxpayers wished to end the program, believing it to violate the Establishment Clause since the majority of participating schools were religiously affliated.
Appealable Technicality: Is the Establishment Clause breached by a program that allows parents to choose what school their children go to?
Majority Opinion: In favor of Zelman - the program is secular in nature, and parents have the choice of where to send their children.
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Zelman
Case Title: Lawrence v. Texas
Date: June 23, 2003
Background Information: Houston police entered John Lawrence's home on a reported weapons disturbance. When they walked in, they found Lawrence and Tyron Garner, another male, engaged in a consensual sex act. Lawrence and Garner were arrested for a deviate sexual act under a Texas statute forbidding two people of the same sex to engage in certain sexual acts. Lawrence claimed that this violated his right to privacy and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The District Court disagreed, pointing to the Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not a) the statute was a breach of privacy, b) it breached the Due Process Clause, and c) Bowers v. Hardwick should be overruled.
Majority Opinion: In favor of Lawrence - the statute was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and was an unconstitutional breach in privacy.
Vote: 6-3 in favor of Lawrence
Case Title: Atkins, Daryl v. Virginia
Date: June 20, 2002
Background Information: Daryl Atkins was found guilty of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. The only witness in his trial was a forensic psychologist, who testified that Atkins was mentally retarded. Atkins was sentenced to death. His trial was appealed because of his mentally retarded state and claiming that the death sentence was a breach of the 8th Amendment protecting against "cruel and unusual punishment."
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not executing a mentally retarded prisoner is cruel and unusual punishment
Majority Opinion: In favor of Atkins - because of their lessened culpability, the death sentence is an extreme, cruel, and unusual punishment for a mentally retarded prisoner.
Vote: 6-3 in favor of Atkins
Case Title: Lockyer v. Andrade or Ewing v. California
Date: March 5, 2003
Background Information: Leandro Andrade was convicted of two felony cases of petty theft in which he stole videotapes amounting to about $150. According to California's "three strikes" law, he was sentenced to two sentences of 25 years to life. He appealed, citing his 8th Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment, claiming that the punishment was "grossly disproportional" to the crime.
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not a sentence of 50 years-life is cruel and unusual punishment for $150 worth of theft
Majority Opinion: In favor of Andrade - his 8th Amendment rights protected him against such an extreme sentence
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Andrade
Case Title: Rumsfeld v. Padilla
Date: June 28, 2004
Background Information: Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested shortly after returning home from Pakistan. He was originally held as a material witness for the FBI's investigation into al Queda, but was later labeled an "enemy combatant," which meant he could be held indefinitely without access to an attorney or to courts. The FBI claimed that he was returning to the United States to carry out acts of terror. Donna Newman, who had been working as his attorney while he was a material witness, filed a petition for habeas corpus on his behalf. She argued that detaining Padilla was a breach of the Non-Detention Act, which stated that "no United States citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained except pursuant to an act of Congress."
Appealable Technicality: Whether or not Congress's "Authorization for use of Military Force" authorizes the President to detain a United States citizen based on a determination that he is an enemy combatant
Majority Opinion: In favor of Rumsfeld - the Court effectively ignored the merits of the case and stated instead that the case had been filed incorrectly
Vote: 5-4 in favor of Rumsfeld