Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Marbury v Madison (1803) • Big Idea: This case establishes Judicial Review • Pres. Adams appoints Marbury to magistrate position • Commission is not delivered and Jefferson(anti-fed) becomes Pres. • Marbury sues Sec. of State Madison to deliver commission • Justice Marshall ruled while Madison should have delivered the Judiciary Act of 1789 exceeded the courts authority • Court assumes power to declare acts of Congress and President Unconstitutional

McCulloch v Maryland (1819) • Big Idea: The court establishes the idea that implied powers exist (Supremacy Clause & Elastic Clause) • Federal Govt. created national bank and State of MD enacted law to tax bank operations • McCulloch was the casher in the Bank of the US and refused to pay tax • Justice Marshall ruled that bank was Constitutional and that the Supremacy Clause prevented state from taxing fed govt.

Gibbons v Ogden (1824) • Big Idea: Court defines “commerce” and “among many states” very broadly to make clear that Congress’s commerce power is far reaching • NY state law gave two individuals exclusive rights to operate steamboats in NY • Out of state steamboats were required to pay fees for special permit granting navigational privileges • In this case Gibbons challenged the Constitutionality of the NY Law • Court held that a special permit was invalid due to Supremacy Clause and Congress’s commerce power

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

Plessy v Ferguson (1896) • The Big Idea: Did state mandated racial segregation violate 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause? Court ruled that it did not violate as long as facilities were equal. • Homer Plessy mixed race took seat in a whites only rail car, arrested after refusing to move to car reserved for blacks. • Court establishes precedent of separate but equal facilities

Schenck v U.S. (1919) 9-0 • The Big Idea: Can 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech be denied if they create “clear and present danger”? • Charles Schenck mailed circulars to draftees suggesting the draft was motivated by capitalist system and the Conscription Program should be repealed. • Schenck was charged under the Espionage Act. • SCOTUS rules that words will “create a clear and present danger that they will bring about evils that Congress has the right to prevent.” • During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.

Korematsu v U.S. (1944) • The Big Idea: Pres. Roosevelt signs into law an Executive Order following attack on Pearl Harbor that allowed the removal of Japanese Americans who could be deemed “spies”. 110,000 men, women, and children are placed in prison camps throughout the west coast. • Korematsu remained in San Leandro, CA and challenged the law. • The court and Justice Black, found that in wartime compulsory exclusion is justified during circumstances of “emergency and peril” in order to protect against espionage.

Shelley v Kramer (1948) • Big Idea: Does the enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? • Facts of the case: The Kraemers were a white couple who owned a residence in a Missouri neighborhood governed by a restrictive covenant. This was a private agreement that prevented blacks from owning property in the Kraemers' subdivision. The Shelleys were a black couple who moved into the Kraemers neighborhood. The Kraemers went to court to enforce the restrictive covenant against the Shelleys. • State courts could not constitutionally prevent the sale of real property to blacks even if that property is covered by a racially restrictive covenant. Standing alone, racially restrictive covenants violate no rights. However, their enforcement by state court injunctions constitute state action in violation of the 14th Amendment. • Although restrictive covenants did not fall under constitutional protection, state enforcement of such covenants violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Brown v Board of Education (1954) • The Big Idea: Unanimous decision the Court rules that school segregation violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Separate but Equal is “inherently unequal”. • Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children. Case was decided together with Briggs v Elliott and Davis v County School Board of Prince Edward County • Racial segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on minority children.

Mappv Ohio (1961) • Big Idea: Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?) • Facts of the case: DollreeMapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. • In a 6-3 decision for Mapp, The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. This was an historic -- and controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.

Escombedov Illinois (1964) • Big Idea: Was Escobedo denied the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment? • Facts of the case: Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning. Over several hours, the police refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo's lawyer sought unsuccessfully to consult with his client. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder. • Yes. In a 5-4 decision for Escobedo, Justice Goldberg, in his majority opinion, spoke for the first time of "an absolute right to remain silent." Escobedo had not been adequately informed of his consitutitonal right to remain silent rather than to be forced to incriminate himself. The case has lost authority as precedent as the arguments in police interrogation and confession cases have shifted from the Sixth Amendment to the Fifth Amendment, emphasizing whether the appropriate warnings have been given and given correctly, and whether the right to remain silent has been waived.

Miranda v Arizona • Big Idea: Do the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect? • This case represents the consolidation of four cases, in each of which the defendant confessed guilt after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation. • On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel. • Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place. Such safeguards include proof that the suspect was aware of his right to be silent, that any statement he makes may be used against him, that he has the right to have an attorney present, that he has the right to have an attorney appointed to him, that he may waive these rights if he does so voluntarily, and that if at any points he requests an attorney there will be no further questioning until the attorney arrives.

Tinker(7) v Des Moines(2) (1969) • The Big Idea: Do schools have the ability to limit 1st Amendment free speech provision if conduct would interfere with appropriate school discipline. • Tinker siblings wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War during the holiday season. • Upon learning about the bands school officials asked them to be removed or the siblings would face suspension. Students wore them and were suspended until after NYE. • SCOTUS rules in favor of the students while stating that schools have the ability to place “limitations of free speech” if found to interfere with appropriate school discipline. In this case the principals had failed to do so.

Tinker v Des Moines (1969) • Big Idea: Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment? • Facts of the case: In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting in the home of 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They decided to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and to fast on December 16 and New Year's Eve. The principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension. On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The following day, John Tinker did the same with the same result. The students did not return to school until after New Year's Day, the planned end of the protest. Through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students' right of expression and sought an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students. The district court dismissed the case and held that the school district's actions were reasonable to uphold school discipline. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision without opinion. • Yes. Justice Abe Fortas delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority. The Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. The Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school. In this case, the school district's actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference. • In his concurring opinion, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that children are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of First Amendment rights. Justice Byron R. White wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he noted that the majority's opinion relies on a distinction between communication through words and communication through action. • Justice Hugo L. Black wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time. Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties, so the school district was well within its rights to discipline the students. In his separate dissent, Justice John M. Harlan argued that school officials should be afforded wide authority to maintain order unless their actions can be proven to stem from a motivation other than a legitimate school interest.

Minersville SD v Gobitis (1940) • Big Idea: Did the mandatory flag salute infringe upon liberties protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments? • Facts of the case: Lillian and William Gobitas were expelled from the public schools of Minersville, Pennsylvania, for refusing to salute the flag as part of a daily school exercise. The Gobitas children were Jehovah's Witnesses; they believed that such a gesture of respect for the flag was forbidden by Biblical commands.***Note: Scholars have noted that while the Court spelled their name "Gobitis," the proper spelling is actually "Gobitas.“*** • No. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court declined to make itself "the school board for the country" and upheld the mandatory flag salute. The Court held 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 flag, the Court found, was 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.“ • Upheld mandatory flag salute against First and Fourteenth Amendment challenge. Overturned in 1943.

Roe v Wade • Big Idea: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? • Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall. • 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.

Engel v Vitale (1962) • Big Idea: Establishment of Religion, does it apply in non-denominational settings? • The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. • Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment? • Court rules that neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion. • First in a series of cases in which the court used the establishment clause to eliminate prayer in a number of public ceremonies.

U.S. v Nixon (1974) • The Big Idea: Executive Privilege, could the Pres. use Executive Privilege to avoid providing information or documents? • Watergate Scandal, in June of ‘72 months prior to general election 5 burglars broke into Democratic National Headquarters in DC. • Nixon attempted to avoid subpoena that would force him to hand over taped conversations and documents perhaps linking the Pres. to the break in. • 9-0 decision, neither doctrine of separation of powers, nor even the need for confidentiality can by itself justify absolute presidential privilege. • Even the President should not be completely confidential outside of military or diplomatic affairs.

Gross v Lopez (1975) • Big Idea: Did the imposition of the suspensions without preliminary hearings violate the students' Due Process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment? • Facts of the case: Nine students at two high schools and one junior high school in Columbus, Ohio, were given 10-day suspensions from school. The school principals did not hold hearings for the affected students before ordering the suspensions, and Ohio law did not require them to do so. The principals' actions were challenged, and a federal court found that the students' rights had been violated. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. • Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that because Ohio had chosen to extend the right to an education to its citizens, it could not withdraw that right "on grounds of misconduct absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct ha[d] occurred." The Court held that Ohio was constrained to recognize students' entitlements to education as property interests protected by the Due Process Clause that could not be taken away without minimum procedures required by the Clause. The Court found that students facing suspension should at a minimum be given notice and afforded some kind of hearing.

Baker v Carr (1962) • Big Idea: The Court was forced to decide if it had jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment • Caused by population shifts within the state Baker argued that “one person should equal one vote” and that districts should be apportioned in a balanced fashion • The Court ruled that this was not a “political question” and ruled that Tenn. would have to redistrict and allow districts to be similar in population • Had the court ruled that the case included “political questions” it would not have had the jurisdiction to rule

New Jersey v TLO (1944)

Hazelwood SD v Kulmeier (1944)

Texas v Johnson (5-4) (1989) • The Big Idea: Is flag burning protected under Freedom of Speech provision of 1st Amendment. • Greg Johnson burns American flag in front of Dallas City Hall to protest Regan administration policies. He is sentenced to 1 year in jail and $2,000 fine under Texas flag desecration law. • In a 5-4 decision the court rules that Johnson is entitled to 1st amendment rights and burning of a flag was protected expression. • The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression does not justify prohibition of speech.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v U.S. (1964) 9-0 • The Big Idea: Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by places of public accommodation if their operations affected commerce. • The Heart of Atlanta Hotel refused to accept black Americans and was charged with a violation of Title II. • The court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed constitutional muster. • The court concluded that places of public accommodation had no “right” to select guests as they saw fit free from governmental regulation.

Loving v Virginia (1967) • Big Idea: Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? • Facts of the case: In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years). • Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

Lee v Weisman (1992) • Big Idea: Do clergy who offer prayers at official public school ceremonies violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? • Providence, Rhode Island, Robert E. Lee, a middle school principal, invited a rabbi to speak at his school's graduation ceremony. • Weisman sought a temporary restraining order in District Court - but was denied. • In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that government involvement in this case creates "a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school.“ • The cornerstone principle of the Establishment Clause is that government may not compose official prayers to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government.

Yates v U.S. (1957) • Big Idea: Did the Smith Act violate the First Amendment? • Facts of the case: Fourteen leaders of the Communist Party in the state of California were tried and convicted under the Smith Act. That Act prohibited willfully and knowingly conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the government by force. This case was decided in conjunction with Richmond v. United States and Schneiderman v. United States. • In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court reversed the convictions and remanded the cases to a District Court for retrial. The Court interpreted the Smith Act in the following manner: First, the term "organize" was construed to mean the creation of a new organization, making the Act inapplicable to subsequent organizational acts. Second, the Court drew a distinction between the "advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow as an abstract principle" and the "advocacy and teaching of concrete action for the forcible overthrow of the Government." The Court recognized that instances of speech that amounted to "advocacy of action" were "few and far between."

Dennis v U.S. (1966) • Big Idea: Does the indictment charge a conspiracy to defraud the United States Government consistent with 18 U.S.C. 371? 2. Is section 9(h) of the Taft- Hartley Act a bill of attainder in violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution? 3. Did the trial court err in denying the defense's request for access to grand jury testimony of prosecution witnesses or in camera inspection of the testimony? • Facts of the case: Raymond Dennis and others were members of the Communist Party; they were also officers and members of the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers. They filed false affidavits between 1949 and 1955 to satisfy the stipulations of 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which required all union officers to submit non-Communist affidavits. The union officials retained their Communist Party affiliations, filed the affidavits, and enabled the union to use the services of the National Labor Relations Board. The union officers were indicted by the United States District Court for conspiracy to fraudulently obtain the services of the National Labor Relations Board. • Yes, not addressed, and yes. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the indictment properly charged a conspiracy to defraud the United States Government under 18 U.S.C. 371. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Abe Fortas, argued that the conspiracy of filing the false affidavits was intentional and that the events of filing the affidavits and using the NLRB facilities together were a "concert of action" with the purpose of defrauding the Government. The Court refused to hear the question of the constitutionality of 9(h) as the union officers' attempt was to circumvent the law. The relevant standard, according to Fortas, is that the Court will not hear a constitutionality claim to supplant a "voluntary, deliberate, and calculated course of fraud and deceit," as conspiracy to defraud is not an appropriate way to challenge acts of government. The Court also held that the defense should have been allowed access to the grand jury minutes containing the prosecution witnesses' testimonies with an opportunity to question the witnesses regarding their statements. The majority opinion maintained that the union officers exceeded the particularized need standard that is used to evaluate access to grand jury testimony, and thus access should have been granted to the defense, especially as an evaluation is best made by a defense advocate and not a trial judge during in-camera inspection. Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo L. Black joined this part of the majority opinion but dissented from the remainder. The Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Bush v Gore (2000) • The Big Idea: Equal Protection Clause guarantees that ballots can not be devalued by “later arbitrary and disparate treatment” • Following 2000 election in Florida in December the Florida Supreme Court ordered the circuit court of Lean Co. to tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade Co. • Also ordered that every county in Fla. Begin manually recounting all “under votes”(no vote for Pres.) • Gov. Bush and Cheney filed for a stay on the Fla. S. Court decision • 7-2 decision that Fla. Courts recount was unconstitutional, different standards from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county

New York Times v U.S. (6-3) (1971) • The Big Idea: “Pentagon Papers” case. Could the New York Times publish classified Pentagon information because of 1st Amend. Freedom of Press • In 1967 Defense Dept. commissioned a report to investigate US involvement in Indochina. The 2.5 million word classified doc was obtained by the New York Times. The Times began to publish a portion in 1971. • Government filed for restraining order, which stopped the publishing of further articles regarding the papers. • SCOTUS rules in favor of New York Times citing support of clear “superiority” of the First Amendment.

Planned Parenthood v Casey • Big Idea: Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade? • The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement. • In a bitter, 5-to-4 decision, the Court again reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard 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." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement. The opinion for the Court was unique: It was crafted and authored by three justices.

Romerv Evans (1996) • Big Ideas: Does Amendment 2 of Colorado's State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? • Facts of the case: Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Following a legal challenge by homosexual and other aggrieved parties, the state trial court entered a permanent injunction enjoining Amendment 2's enforcement. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. • Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that Amendment 2 of the Colorado State Constitution violated the equal protection clause. Amendment 2 singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that oftentimes a law will be sustained under the equal protection clause, even if it seems to disadvantage a specific group, so long as it can be shown to "advance a legitimate government interest." Amendment 2, by depriving persons of equal protection under the law due to their sexual orientation failed to advance such a legitimate interest. Justice Kennedy concluded: "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

Lemon v Kurtzman (1971) • Big Idea: Can states provide funds for non-public schools, without violating the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment? • Both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island adopted statutes that provided for the state to pay for aspects of non-secular, non-public education. • Do statutes that provide state funding for non-public, non-secular schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? • Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the opinion for the 8-0 majority. The Court held that a statute must pass a three-pronged test in order to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. • Does it have secular purpose? • Does it advance or inhibit religion? • Can’t create excessive entanglement with religion?

Buckley v Valeo (1976) • The Big Idea: Are campaign contributions a form of free speech? • Following Watergate efforts are made to clean up elections. Pres. Ford signs into law the creation of the Federal Election Campaign Act placing limits on individual campaign contributions. • In a per curiam opinion (collective opinion) the SCOTUS struck down limits on spending by campaigns and citizens. Precedent of campaign contributions as part of free speech is established. • Per curiam decisions are issued when it is viewed as a non-controversial issue • The case has become the basis for all campaign finance reform discussion most importantly Citizens United v FEC (2010) in which the court held that both unions and corporations could also spend unlimited money during elections..

Clinton v City of New York (1998) • The Big Idea: Line Item veto, can Pres. Accept portions of a bill while rejecting other portions? • Case consolidated a number of cases disputing President’s ability to use Line Item Veto Act of 1996 • The Court found that the President has to reject or accept and entire bill and in order for line item veto to be in place a Constitutional Amendment would need to be ratified

Barron v Baltimore (1833) • The Big Idea: Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment • Barron was co-owner of profitable wharf, as city developed the harbor filled with sand, depriving Barron of deep water that had been key to success • Sued the state of MD citing the takings clause of the 5th Amendment (personal property cannot be taken without just compensation) • Marshall court determined that the takings clause along with all other portions of the Bill of Rights did not have to be applied by the states. • Later 14th Amendment (1868) enforces idea that states and fed govt. are bound by Constitution

Gregg v Georgia (1976) • The Big Idea: The 8th and 14th Amendment. Death Penalty didn’t violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed • Gregg found guilty of armed robbery and murder, challenges death penalty as “cruel and unusual” punishment. • Georgia uses a “bifurcated” 2-step proceeding which the court deems appropriate. (guilt-penalty)

Wesberry v Sanders (1964) • The Big Idea: Violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. The court ruled that the different sized districts were unconstitutional because they devalued votes in larger districts. • 5th Congressional District was 2-3 times larger than some other districts in the state (Baker v Carr 1962 established precedent) • Court held that Georgia’s apportionment discriminated against the voters. “no right is more precious”

U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) • The Big Idea: Chinese Exclusion Act denied citizenship to Chinese citizens. Does Naturalization apply to all people born in the U.S.? • Wong Kim Ark born in S. Francisco, travels to China at age of 21 and upon return to the U.S. is denied entry into the country on the ground that he was not a citizen. • Court decided that government cannot deny naturalization to person born in the U.S. due to the 14th Amendment, it applies to all people born in the U.S. Establishes precedent for future immigration cases.

Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenberg Bd. of Ed. (1971) 9-0 • The Big Idea: Did Federal Courts have the constitutional power to authorize, oversee, and produce remedies for state imposed segregation? • The Charlotte-Mecklenberg school system operated schools with approximately 14,000 black students in schools with 99% black populations. • The court held that once violations of previous mandates directed at desegregating schools had occurred the courts power to remedy past wrongs were “broad and flexible”. • The Court ruled that 1) remedial plans were to be judged by their effectiveness, and the use of mathematical ratios or quotas were legitimate "starting points" for solutions; 2) predominantly or exclusively black schools required close scrutiny by courts; 3) non-contiguous attendance zones, as interim corrective measures, were within the courts' remedial powers; and 4) no rigid guidelines could be established concerning busing of students to particular schools.

Regents of Univ. of California v Bakke (1978) 1-8 • The Big Idea: Can race be used as a criterion for admission decisions in higher education? • Allan Bakke, 35 yr. old white man had twice applied for admission to the Univ. of Cal. Med. School. The school reserved 16 spots out of 100 for qualified minority students in effort to remedy long withstanding minority exclusions from the medical profession. • The court was asked if the University violated the 14th Amend. Equal Protection Clause and Civil Rights Act of 1964 by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in repeated rejection of Bakke’s application • Court managed to minimize white opposition while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action. • No clear cut decision by the court. • 4 judges contended that any racial quota system supported by govt. violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Justice Powell wrote the opinion and only cited the 14th Amendment. • Justice Powell joined the dissenting opinion as well contending that race was permissible as one of several admission criteria

Adarand v Pena (1995) 5-4 • The Big Idea: Can race be used in compensation programs that are truly based on disadvantage rather than race? • Adarand Construction submitted the low bid on a highway construction project funded by the US Dept. of Transportation. Under the terms the prime contractor would receive additional $ if it hired small businesses controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.” Another sub-con was awarded the work as a certified minority business. • The court was asked if presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and favored treatment violated the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. • The court ruled that race is not a sufficient condition for presumption of disadvantage and the award of all race based classifications must be judged under “strict scrutiny”

Gratz v Bollinger (2003) 6-3 • The Big Idea: Can race be used in undergraduate admission in order to achieve greater diversity on campus? • Gratz applied to the U of M College of Literature and was denied admission. • The University admitted to using race as a factor in admissions decisions because it served a “compelling interest in achieving diversity among the student body”. • The court was asked if Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amend. and Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 was violated. • The court ruled that use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violated both. Reasoned that distribution of 20 points, 1/5th of the points needed was not “narrowly tailored” and did not provide individual consideration Justice Powell contemplated in the Bakke case.

Gitlow (2) v New York (7)(1925) • The Big Idea: Can the government limit Free Speech if the publication has tendency to result in action dangerous to public security. • Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for distributing copies of a “left wing” manifesto calling for establishment of socialism through strikes. • Gitlow was convicted under a state criminal anarchy law. • The court held that a state may forbid free speech if they have a tendency to result in danger. Known as the “dangerous tendency” test, defendant can be punished even if speech created no danger at all.

New York Times v Sullivan (1964) 9-0 • The Big Idea: Are 1st Amendment rights protected in times when false statements are made about public official? • A full page ad in the NY Times alleged the arrest of MLK Jr. in AL, was part of a campaign to destroy King’s efforts to integrate facilities and urge African Americans to vote. • L.B. Sullivan filed a libel action against the newspaper claiming the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. • Under AL law he did not have to prove he had been harmed and was awarded $500,000 judgment. • SCOTUS ruled that 1st Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice

Brandenburg v Ohio (9-0) (1969) • The Big Idea: The court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless speech is directed to inciting, and likely to incite, imminent lawless action. • Brandenburg was a KKK leader in rural Ohio. Brandenburg was arrested at a rally under Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute • The Court had to decide if Brandenburg’s right to free speech protected by 1st and 14th Amendment was violated. • SCOTUS rules in favor of Brandenburg and institutes a two pronged test to evaluate future cases (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”.

Miller v California (5-4) (1973) • The Big Idea: Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected by the 1st Amendment freedom of speech. • Miller conducts a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of “adult material”. Some unwilling recipients initiate the legal proceedings. • In 5-4 decision the court held that obscene materials did not enjoy 1st Amendment protection. • SCOTUS develops three-part test • (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." .

Boy Scouts of America v Dale (2000) • Big Idea: Right of Expression, do organizations have to be inclusive if behavior goes against value’s it wishes to instill • The Boy Scouts of America revoked former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster James Dale's adult membership when the organization discovered that Dale was a homosexual and a gay rights activist. • The Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, asserted that homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the values it was attempting to instill in young people. • Does the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders? • 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist gives the Boy Scouts of America a constitutional right to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders.

Zelman v Simmons-Harris (2002) • Big Idea: Do School Voucher Systems violate Establishment Clause of First Amendment? • Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program provides tuition aid in the form of vouchers for certain students in the Cleveland City School District to attend participating public or private schools of their parent's choosing. • Does Ohio's school voucher program violate the Establishment Clause? • In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the program does not violate the Establishment Clause. • Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the "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 residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice."

Landmark Supreme Court Cases