Government and Politics AP Review

1. Government and Politics AP Review Important Supreme Court Cases For the most part, information in this PowerPoint is gleaned from www.oyez.org. Any quotations in the following slides are largely direct from the website or from the opinions of the justices as quoted by the website.

2. The Roberts Court Chief Justice John Roberts was 50 when he was sworn in as the chief justice, the youngest to hold the position since John Marshall in 1801. He was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2005. His short time in the Court of Appeals circuit make generalizations of his judicial outlook difficult but he tends to lean towards judicial restraint with tendencies to move beyond that from time to time. Justice Antonin Scalia is considered one of the most brilliant, explosive and controversial justices to sit on the bench and he was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. His tenure has followed a consistent path of a strict constructionism and of judicial restraint, though he calls himself an originalist or contextualist. Justice Anthony Kennedy was the last nominee to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. However, his confirmation was a contentious one because he was a substitute after the Senate rejections of Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg on ideological grounds. While introduced as a moderate conservative, interested in judicial restraint, he is more characterized today as a swing voter, likely to support the more liberal members of the Court as than the more conservative ones.

3. Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991. His confirmation hearing turned into show trial that centered on accusations of sexual harassment and it received nearly non-stop television coverage. The justice characterized the confirmation as a “high tech lynching.” Since his rather auspicious beginnings, he’s established a successful career as the most strident judicial restraint advocates in the Court’s history. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated to the Court by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The first female tenured law professor at Cornell Law School, she surprised opponents and advocates alike in her first years on the bench. Instead of steadily falling on the judicial activism side of things as many predicted, she has proven to go, depending on the facts of the case, in either the direction of the loose constructionist many thought she would be or of the strict constructionist, siding with Justice Thomas or good friend Justice Scalia. Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed to the Court by President Bill Clinton in 1994. His education stems from some of the top universities in the world – Stanford, Oxford and Harvard. He has built a career of a moderate jurist and tends to rule in a non-ideological sort of way, or at least as much as one can in his job. While his moderate nature has kept him from controversy, he does not shy away from it, as evident in his dissenting opinion with Bush v. Gore (2000) where he declared that the Court had no business weighing in on such an issue.

4. Justice Samuel Alito was nominated to the Court in 2005 by President George W. Bush. His nomination came out of the fiasco of the Harriet Myers nomination that the president was forced to withdraw. Justice Alito adheres to a principle of judicial restraint with what the Cato Institute labeled a libertarian streak, especially in cases dealing with the First Amendment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was appointed to the Court by President Barack Obama in 2009. She was the president’s first appointee and the first person of Latin heritage in the Court’s history. Judicially, she tends to favor more activism than some of her more conservative colleagues on the bench. She is an avid baseball fan and as a U.S. district court judge (nominated by President George H.W. Bush), she ruled on the 1995 Major League Baseball strike, in favor of the players. Justice Elena Kagan was appointed to the Court by President Barack Obama in 2010. She reversed a recent trend to nominate a judge – her career has been in law but she has never held a judicial post. The last Supreme Court justice to claim that was William Rehnquist, nominated by President Richard Nixon in 1972. With a lack of judicial decisions, it is difficult to determine, with certainty, how she will perform her duties. However, her career at Harvard University and as Solicitor General suggest she might be more of an activist.

5. Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)First Amendment – Establishment clause The facts: The case centers on two cases of bible reading and the recitation of prayer at a public school. One of the cases stemmed from Pennsylvania (Abington School District) and another from Baltimore. While one could be excused from such exercises with a note from the parent, professed atheists challenged the practice. The question: Did the policy violate the student’s religious freedom rights as detailed in the First and Fourth Amendments? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Schempp, 8 to 1. Justice Clark wrote the opinion of the majority. The Court ruled that the policy was both a violation of the Free Exercise and the Establishment Clause and the notion of the written note did not have anything to do with the schools’ attempt to enforce religious teachings, a violation of the Establishment Clause.

6. Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995)Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – Equal protection The facts: Adarand Constructors was a company vying for a federal contract to put in guardrails but due to a law requiring a certain amount of minorities and economically disadvantaged ownership of companies, the company was dismissed in favor a Mexican-American-owned company. The question: Does the selection or dismissal of a company solely on the basis of race a discriminatory practice and a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? The decision: The Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of Adarand Constructors. Justice O’Connor wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court ruled that such favoritism does amount to a violation of the equal protection clause and even in those cases where it is allowed, it must only be allowed on the basis of strict perimeter.

7. Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)Sixth Amendment – Right to counsel The facts: Mr. Argersinger was an indigent who was convicted for carrying a concealed weapon – against Florida law. However, though he was convicted and sentenced to 90 days in jail, he did not have an attorney during the whole of the trial. The question: Does the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee access to a lawyer in cases of misdemeanors? The decision: The Court ruled 9 to 0 in favor of Argersinger. Justice Douglas wrote the opinion for the Court. While Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) guarantee a lawyer to indigents in the event of serious cases, the justices agreed that such protection should be extended to any offense that could end in jail time.

8. Arizona v. United States (2012)Supremacy Clause The facts: The state of Arizona felt that the U.S. government was not enforcing key illegal immigration laws and passed S.B. 1070, signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer to tackle some of the state’s immigrant issues. The four parts of the law were one, make it a crime to be illegally in the U.S., two, make it a crime to seek work as an illegal immigrant, three, require law enforcement to ask suspects or those under question to prove legal status and four, allow for arrest, without warrant, of aliens believed to be here illegally. The question: Do federal immigration laws prevent Arizona from enforcing the provisions of the law? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of the United States, 5 to 3. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Court. Kennedy said that while provisions one, two and four were the domain of the federal government, it did say that Arizona was allowed provision three. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion to the striking down of the three outlawed provisions. Justice Elena Kagan was not a part of the consideration of the case.

9. Baker v. Carr (1962) The facts: Charles Baker and other Tennessee citizens declared that the way the state legislature reapportions was in violation of state law and ignored changes within the state. The question: Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over issues of legislative reapportionment? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Baker 6 to 2. Justice Brennan wrote the opinion for the majority. Because this was not a “political” question, the Court said that it could, as it has done in the past, weigh in on matters of state governance if constitutional improprieties were evident. The Court used the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a rational.

10. Benton v. Maryland (1968)Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – Double jeopardy The facts: John Benton was charged in the state on the crimes of larceny and burglary. Initially, he was found guilty only of burglary. However, when he appealed his conviction on the burglary, the new trail convicted him on both charges and he was imprisoned. The question: Did the Maryland conviction in line with the Fourteenth Amendment and the due process clause violate Mr. Benton’s protection against double jeopardy as afforded to him in the Fifth Amendment? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Benton, 7-2. Justice Marshall wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court had to confront an earlier ruling, Palko v. Connecticut (1937), that stated the Fifth Amendment clause on double jeopardy did not apply to the states. The Court overruled the previous case on the basis that, as Justice Marshall said in his opinion, the Fifth Amendment “represents a fundamental ideal.”

11. Betts v. Brady (1942) The facts: Mr. Betts was an indigent in Maryland where he was arrested for robbery. During the trail, Mr. Betts requested a lawyer be provided for him but the judged refused. He continued to serve as his own counsel while professing his innocence. The question: Does the decision of the judge violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which supports the right to counsel provision in the Sixth Amendment? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Brady. Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority. The answer was no, stating that the clause of “right to counsel” did not suggest that the states must provide a lawyer. Instead, it simply meant that the Court could not interfere with any attempt to secure representation.

12. Blakely v. Washington (2004)Sixth Amendment – Right to trial by jury The facts: Mr. Blakely was found guilty of kidnapping his wife. The sentence for such crimes in the state of Washington had been standardized at 53 months but the measure allowed for judges, in cases of extenuating circumstances, to add time as he saw fit. The judge brought the total sentence to 90 months, citing Mr. Blakely’s cruelty. Mr. Blakely, however, said the move away from the standard denied him his Sixth Amendment right to have the jury decide his sentence on the basis of the facts and that only. The question: Does any sentencing above the standard range require a jury’s approval or that such additional conclusions be made “beyond a reasonable doubt?” The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Blakely, 5 to 4. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court ruled that any time a sentence is handed down and it is beyond that of the standard length, it needs to be agreed upon by the jury and such facts tied to the case but be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The actions of the judge on the basis of his definition of “excessively cruel” undermines Mr. Blakely’s Sixth Amendment rights and the role and authority of the jury.

13. Board of Education v. Earls (2002)Fourth Amendment The facts: Chronologically, this is the second of two cases in this presentation on the legality of urinalysis and high school students (Vernonia School District v. Acton in 1995). In the Tecumseh (OK) School District, a drug policy required all those seeking participation in extracurricular activities must submit to a urinalysis. Two high school students protested, suggesting the policy infringed upon their Fourth Amendment rights. While the original court favored the school district, a Oklahoma Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the students. It said that the school must first demonstrate a wide-spread problem before they can act is such a way. The question: Is the school policy, requiring all students interested in extracurricular activities to submit to a drug test, in line with the Fourth Amendment? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of the school board, 5 to 4. Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court ruled that the reasonable attempts of preventing drug use in students and the students inherent minimal expectation of privacy renders the decision constitutionally sound and not in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court said, “In upholding the constitutionality of this policy, we express no opinion as to its wisdom.”

14. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)Fourteenth Amendment – Due process The facts: Mr. Hardwick was seen by a Georgia police officer engaged in an act of homosexual sodomy and was arrested on the basis of the state’s anti-sodomy laws. Mr. Hardwick challenged the constitutionality of the law and a state Court of Appeals agreed, much to the chagrin of state Attorney General Michael Bowers. The question: Does the constitution confer an inherent right for homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Bowers, 5 to 4. Justice White wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court said that while it has acted to protect rights in the past, it was only those rights not easily identifiable in the Constitution or were part of a deep and honored tradition in the United States. Since the act of sodomy did not apply to any of those exceptions, it ruled that the states could make its own laws in reference to that scenario.

15. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)First Amendment The facts: James Dale, an adult member of the Scouts and an Eagle leader, was dismissed by the Boy Scouts when it was discovered he was an homosexual and a gay rights’ activist. The Boy Scouts is a private, not-for-profit organization. Dale sued saying that the act was in violation of a New Jersey law preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in “places of public accommodation.” The state courts were split on whether the New Jersey law trumped the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment rights. The question: Does the New Jersey law on the notion of public accommodation violate the Scouts First Amendment rights? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts, 5 to 4. Chief Justice Rehnquist said yes, the New Jersey law violated the Boy Scouts First Amendment rights. Forcing the Scouts to accept Dale as a leader would equally compel the organization to send a message to its members of acceptance that violates its core values and beliefs.

16. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)First Amendment The facts: Brandenburg was a Ku Klux Klan leader who was making a speech when arrested by Ohio officials on the basis that he was encouraging acts of crime and violence to achieve political and industrial reform. It also suggested that the speech was an example of “criminal syndicalism.” The question: Did the Ohio anti-syndicalism law violate Brandenburg’s First Amendment rights to speech? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Brandenburg, 8 to 0 in a per curium decision. The Court said that the First Amendment allows for the teaching and advocacy of such beliefs and was constitutional as long as the acts of violence or criminal activity were not imminent. Without the imminent threat, the Ohio law was too broad and therefore, unconstitutional.

17. Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas (1954)Fourteenth Amendment – Equal protection The facts: Black students were segregated in public schools because of either de jure or de facto laws. This case was presented in conjunction with several other cases from throughout the South. The question: Does the segregation of school children solely on the basis of race constitute a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Brown, 9 to 0. Chief Justice Warren wrote the opinion for the Court. The Court decided that indeed, yes, the policy of segregation, first ruled constitutional in Plessey v. Ferguson (1896), was tantamount to a violation of the students rights detailed in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court explained that anything classified as separate but equal was inherently unequal and could not be justified in the realm of public education or in any other arena.

18. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)First Amendment – Appointments clause The facts: Given recent events of Watergate, the government sought to restrict unlawful or undemocratic influence by way of political campaign contributions. Contributions made to a campaign was limited and the Federal Election Commission was created to oversee and regulate these restrictions. The question: Did restrictions placed on individual contributions limit the rights of speech and association in accordance with the First Amendment? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Buckley, 7 to 1 in a per curiam decision. The Court issued two edicts on the topic of campaign contributions. First, any limit on the individual’s donation to a campaign was constitutional because the goal was to maintain a certain level of integrity and to eliminate some of the more unsavory practices of the past. However, with regards to limits on how much a candidate could spend in the course of their race, independent expenditures, there was no constitutional basis for such a restriction.

19. Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)First Amendment The facts: Jesse Cantwell and his son were Jehovah’s Witnesses preaching in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood when some Catholics were upset when they voluntarily listened to some anti-Catholic messages. The men were arrested for violating local ordinances and disturbing the peace. The question: Did the notion of disturbing the peace violate the Cantwells First Amendment rights of speech and the free exercise clause? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Cantwell, 9 to 0. The Court ruled that while it was proper for a community to set up civil codes and restrictions on disturbances, they could not solely on the grounds of religion. While the message being delivered may have been offensive, it could not be construed as dangerous or harmful.

20. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)Free exercise of religion The facts: The church was one that followed the Afro-Caribbean faith of Santeria and one of the components of the faith is animal sacrifice, followed by a feast where the animal is eaten. The city council of Hialeah, Florida, upon hearing of the arrival of the church, passed several ordinances to limit the practice of animal sacrifices. The question: Did the city ordinances against animal sacrifices violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, 9 to 0. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Court. The Court decided that the ordinances were unlawful because they specifically targeted the church and the religious practice within. Because of its singular application, the Court ruled there could be no justification of the ordinances.

21. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) The facts: Citizens United sought to enjoin the Federal Election Commission from applying the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film, Hillary: The Movie which questioned the senator’s qualifications to be president. The BCRA limited corporations from funding communications on elections from their own treasury. Additionally, the law required the movie to list all donors to the film when communication is not approved by the candidate it portends to support. Citizens United felt both provisions were unconstitutional but the District Court of the District of Columbia ruled that the Supreme Court McConnell v. FEC already approved the individual components of the BCRA. The question: There are four questions considered here: one, did the BCRA get a complete constitutional pass by McConnell v. FEC; does the disclosure of contributors an unconstitutional measure as this was not an example of a “campaign speech”; if no one candidate is supported, does the BCRA have grounds to regulate it; should documentaries be classified the same as political ads for the purpose of BCRA regulation? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, 5 to 4. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court ruled that any limit to the expression of people, even as a part of a corporation, was unconstitutional. A freedom of speech is no less important if it comes from a corporation.

22. Clinton v. Jones (1997)Separation of powers The facts: Paula Jones sued President Bill Clinton. She claimed that while as a state employee in Arkansas, she was forced to rebuff many advances from then-Governor Clinton and when she continued to reject the advances, was punished with by state supervisors. The president was able to get a grant from a district court saying that all matters relative to the case be postponed until the issue of his presidential immunity could be applied to the case. Once the immunity had been granted, the president hoped to dismiss the case altogether. The district judged denied the immunity request but did grant that the case could wait until after his presidency. On appeal, the 8th Circuit court agreed with the denial of a dismissal of the case but overturned the deferment of the proceedings, declaring it would provide an ad hoc immunity to the president, albeit, temporarily. The question: Is a sitting president, for reasons of separation of powers, allowed immunity from any litigation resulting from actions or accusations prior to becoming president? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Jones, 9 to 0. Justice Stephens wrote the opinion for the Court. The Court felt that no level of presidential immunity should protect a president from litigation save for some “highly unusual circumstances.” Respecting the presidency, the Court said that while the separation of powers is vital, it is does not necessarily prevent one branch from exerting control over another.

23. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996)Federal election campaign The facts: Prior to the 1986 senatorial campaign and the party selecting a candidate, the Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (CRFCC) initiated radio advertisements attacking the Democratic nominee. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) said the ads violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) on spending limits. The CRFCC declared the whole law unconstitutional and challenged it. The question: Does the FECA’s limits on campaign spending violate First Amendment rights when applied to a party’s independent spending and not connected to a particular candidate? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of the CRFCC, 7 to 2. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion of the majority. The Court ruled that as it applies here, any limits on campaign spending not connected to a particular candidate but made by the party independently is a violation of the First Amendment rights. In addendum, Justice Thomas went so far as to say that the entire law was unconstitutional.

24. Craig v. Boren (1976)Equal protection The facts: The state of Oklahoma passed a law prohibiting the sale of “non-intoxicating” beer to males under 21 and females under 18. Curtis Craig, a male between 18 and 21, as well as a vendor challenged the law as discriminatory. The question: By creating different drinking ages for males and females, did the state of Oklahoma violate the Fourth Amendment’s equal protection clause? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Craig, 7 to 2. Justice Brennan wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court ruled that the law made unconstitutional differentiation between male and female. Furthermore, the statistics on road fatalities that the state used to justified its law was insufficient to make such a distinction.

25. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990)Due process The facts: In 1983, Susan Cruzan was in an automobile accident that left her in a vegetative state, kept alive for several weeks being fed by a tube. When her parents ask that she be taken off life support, the hospital refused unless allowed to by a court. The Missouri Supreme Court upheld the state policy over the right to refuse treatment. The question: Did the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit Cruzan’s parents to refuse life support on her behalf? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of the director of the Missouri Department of Health, 5 to 4. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court’s main concern was the idea that the parents were acting on behalf of their daughter, a medically incompetent person, though no documentation existed saying this was the wish of Cruzan. Therefore, since it was reasonable that parents will not always act in the best interests of an “incompetent person” and such action would be irreversible, then the hospital’s decision was constitutional.

26. De Jonge v. Oregon (1937)Due process The facts: During a meeting of the local chapter of the Communist Party, Dirk De Jonge was speaking when police raided the function and arrested De Jonge on the grounds of criminal syndicalism – the act of speaking to encourage violence, criminal activity, sabotage or other illegal activity seeking political or industrial change. After being convicted, De Jonge asked for an acquittal due to lack of evidence to the charge. However, the Oregon Supreme Court said by the fact that he presided over a meeting of an organization, the Communist Party, whose teachings include criminal syndicalism, he was indeed guilty. The question: Did Oregon’s criminal syndicalism law violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of De Jonge. Chief Justice Hughes wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court ruled that the Oregon law violated the due process clause as well as sacrificed De Jonge’s First Amendment rights of speech and peaceful assembly. The measure of De Jonge’s offense must be measured by what he said, not the auspices for the meeting of the Communist Party – what he said did not constitute any violation of the limits to free speech.

27. Dickerson v. United States (2000)Miranda warnings The facts: While being questioned about a robbery he was connected with, Charles Dickerson voluntarily admitted to serving as a getaway driver in a series of robberies. He was arrested and charged but dispute arose out of the timing of his voluntary testimony, whether it was before or after being advised of his Miranda rights. During the trial, Dickerson requested his testimony be ruled inadmissible because he was not read his rights. However, the government argued that he waived his rights and under law, testimony can be admissible if given voluntarily, whether rights are read or not. While a district court granted Dickerson’s motion, a court of appeals favored The question: Can an act of Congress, the law evoked by the government, overrule Miranda rights and its restrictions on the kind of evidence that can be used based on testimony while in custody? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Dickerson, 7 to 2. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court said that the Congress had no authority to overrule or supersede the elements of the Miranda rights and its application. Justices Thomas and Scalia, in dissent, lambasted the majority saying the decision gave “needless protection to foolish (but not compelled) confessions.”

28. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)Second Amendment The facts: The District of Columbia gun laws were some of the strictest in the country, requiring a complete ban on most weapons and a strict registration process on legal guns. Furthermore, the laws mandated that all legal guns must be kept unloaded and disassembled. Private gun owners declared the laws violated their Second Amendment rights but a D.C. trial court said the Second Amendment only applied to militias like the National Guard and not applicable to private citizens. A U.S. court of appeals in D.C. said the Second Amendment protects the plaintiffs though petitioners said that nothing is banned but regulated and because D.C. is a “federal enclave” and not a state, the same protections do not apply. This was the first time in seventy years that the Court dealt with the issue of the Second Amendment right to own weapons. The question: Do the District of Columbia gun regulations violate the private citizen’s Second Amendment rights? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Heller, 5 to 4. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority. In essence, the Court said that the Second Amendment, based on future interpretations and rulings on the state level, did protect private ownership of guns. In dissent, Justices Stephens and Breyer argued that the Second Amendment only afforded militias the right to have weapons.

29. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)Fifth Amendment, Missouri Compromise The facts: From 1833 to 1843, Dred Scott, a slave, lived with his master in Illinois (a free state) and Wisconsin, a portion of the Louisiana Territory ruled free according to the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Scott sued in a Missouri court saying he residence in a free territory made him free. His master argued that Scott was not a citizen, in accordance to Article III and ergo, could not sue for his freedom. The question: Was Dred Scott free or slave? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Sandford, 7 to 2. Chief Justice Taney wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court ruled that Articles III and IV disqualified Scott as a citizen and only Congress can confer citizenship. The Court further declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. The impact of the decision implied that slavery could exist anywhere – no state or territory could forbid slavery within its borders.

30. Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004) The facts: Michael Newdow’s daughter attended the Elk Grove Unified School District in California. The school recited the Pledge of Allegiance every day, including the “under God” part, added by Congress in 1954. Mr. Newdow stated that, even if voluntary and not required to stand, the pledge and the “under God” was a violation of the Establishment Clause. While a district court threw out the case because Mr. Newdow did not have custody of his daughter , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that both the pledge in school and congressional addendum in 1954 were unconstitutional. The question: Does Mr. Newdow have a standing to bring suit on behalf of his daughter? Does a school district’s compulsory policy of teachers leading willing students in the pledge violate the Establishment Clause? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of the school district, 8 to 0. Justice Stephens wrote the opinion for the Court. The Court ruled that Mr. Newdow did not have a standing to sue on behalf of his daughter as he did not have custody. Therefore, the Court never ruled on the constitutional question. However, Justices O’Connor and Thomas, in a concurring opinion, stated that the school district’s actions were constitutional.

31. Engel v. Vitale (1962)Establishment of religion The facts: The Board of Regents of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer to start each school day. It was a bland, ecumenical prayer meant to dissolve a political issue. The question: Does the reading of a non-denominational prayer violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Engel, 6 to 1. Justice Black wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court said that neither the fact the prayer was voluntary or non-denominational made it constitutional. This decision would be used to target all prayers that were traditionally a part of public ceremonies. It remains a very unpopular decision with many Americans.

32. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)Right to counsel The facts: Danny Escobedo was held for questioning, being refused a lawyer and refusing his lawyer a chance to see his client. Mr. Escobedo ultimately confessed to murder. The question: Was Mr. Escobedo denied his Sixth Amendment rights to counsel? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Escobedo, 5 to 4. Justice Goldberg wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court used the term “absolute right to remain silent.” Mr. Escobedo was not informed of his constitutional rights of remaining silent. Since the case, the power of it as precedent on the issue of interrogation and confessions have shifted from the Sixth to the Fifth Amendment.

33. Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2012) The facts: In 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act, a measure to mandate health coverage of all American citizens through, in part, an individual mandate, requiring all people to have and therefore pay for health coverage. Almost immediately, various states sued the U.S. government for what they perceived to be an over-extension of congressional authority. The states further argued that the Medicaid expansion was unconstitutionally coercive and that the individual mandate violated state sovereignty. The government suggested that it does have the right to mandate coverage through the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause. The question: Does the government’s attempt at a nationalized health care program violate the powers of the federal government, particularly the Congress? Is the law in question in keeping with the commerce and necessary and proper clauses? The decision: The Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of the Department of Health and Human Services. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court found that the government was not overextending its authority by demanding citizens to buy health insurance under the Taxing and Spending Clause. However, it said that the government could not coerce the states into compliance by withholding Medicaid payments.

34. Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)Due Process clause, Equal Protection clause The facts: The military had a rule saying that wives of military members were automatically considered dependents but if the military personnel was a woman and the spouse a man, then the man must depend on at least of half of their support on their wife. Shannon Frontiero was a lieutenant who sought to have her husband listed as a dependent but was refused. The question: Did the different qualifications for men and women to be dependent violate the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Frontiero, 8 to 1. Justice Brennan wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court said the military policy was a clear violation of the due process clause in that it set standards solely delineating male from female and that was unconstitutional.

35. Furman v. Georgia (1972)Eighth Amendment The facts: Mr. Furman was burglarizing a home when he was discovered by an owner of the home. In an attempt to flee, he tripped, fell and his gun went off, killing a member of the household. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The question: Does the death penalty violate the cruel and unusual punishment elements of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Furman, 5 to 4 in a per curiam decision. There were over 200 pages of concurrence and dissent. While Justices Marshall and Brennan felt that the practice was unconstitutional without qualifications, the other justices would not rule it forbidden out of hand. Instead, the other justices felt the sentence in this case was capricious and possibly racially motivated. In writing their opinions, the Court asked states to reconsider the perimeters of capital punishment laws.

36. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)Article I, section 8, clause 3 The facts: The state of New York controlled a monopoly over sea-faring transportation between it and New Jersey, requiring New Jersey boats to pay an extra fees in order to sail the waters between the two states. The steamboat owner, Mr. Gibbons, challenged the monopoly. The question: Did New York attempt to exercise a power, regulation of interstate commerce, that was reserved for the U.S. Congress? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Gibbons, 6 to 0. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion for the Court. The Court ruled that New York violated the Supremacy clause by infringing upon congressional authority. In his opinion, Justice Marshall included the sea traffic as a part of the definition of “commerce.”

37. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)Right to counsel The facts: Mr. Gideon was charged in Florida with breaking and entering. Lacking the money for a lawyer, he asked the court for one but it refused, saying it was only required to do so for indigents in capital cases. Mr. Gideon defended himself but not well. He was convicted and sentenced to five years in a state prison. The question: Did the Florida state court violate Mr. Gideon’s right to a fair trial and due process of law in accordance to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Gideon, 9 to 0. Justice Black wrote the opinion for the Court. Overruling Betts v. Brady (1942), the Court said the state court was required to provide representation, if one can not afford one. Furthermore, it declared the right to counsel a fundamental right as detailed in the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black concluded that “lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.”

38. Gitlow v. New York (1925) The facts: Mr. Gitlow was arrested for handing out “a left-wing manifesto” under the state anarchy law, punishing one who pushed for the overthrow of the government. Mr. Gitlow said that since no such action took place, there was no basis for his indictment but the state responded that anyone advocated such as ideas were guilty, whether violence followed or not. The question: Does the New York anarchy law and forbiddance of speech that advocates the overthrow of the government violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment? The decision: The case represents a threshold issue. The Court said the Fourteenth Amendment applies the due process clause to the states. Regarding the specifics of the case however, New York can limit speech that has a tendency to cause dangerous actions even if the speech itself presents no imminent danger. As long as classifications of what is dangerous or not is reasonable, the Court will uphold state actions.

39. Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)18 U.S. Code 801 The facts: In accordance with the 1994 Oregon law Death with Dignity Act, doctors were allowed lethal doses of controlled substances to give to terminally ill patients. The government said the practice was in violation of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and threatened to take their licenses. Oregon sued and the court and the Ninth Circuit concurred with the state of Oregon. The question: Did the Controlled Substance Ban prevent doctors from using such paraphernalia in the course of their practice? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Oregon, 6 to 3. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court ruled that Oregon was not in violation of the act because the purpose of the doctor was not illegal drug dealing but medical practice.

40. Gonzales v. Raich (2005)21 U.S. Code Section 801 The facts: In response to a 1996 California law that allowed for the medicinal use of marijuana, the government declared the law in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, which bans the possession of the drug. The Drug Enforcement Administration confiscated large quantities of the “legal” marijuana but those arrested sued, saying the commerce clause the government used as justification exceeded the government’s authority. The Ninth Circuit Court said Congress’ power was only over interstate commerce, not intrastate. The question: Does the Controlled Substances Act exceed Congress’ power with regards to the commerce clause relative to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Gonzalez, 6 to 3. Justice Stevens wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court ruled that no, the Congress had not overstepped its authority because the drug use, however legitimized by the state of California, was part of a national marijuana market and with the passage of the state law, it impacted the national supply and demand for marijuana throughout the country – therefore, making it subject to congressional oversight and authority.

41. Gregg v. Georgia (1976)Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual punishment The facts: Mr. Gregg was tried and convicted on charges of burglary and murder and sentenced to death. He claimed that the sentence was “cruel and unusual punishment” and therefore, a violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case was part of four other cases on the same subject. The question: Does the death penalty constitute cruel and unusual punishment as forbidden in the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Georgia, 7 to 2. Justice Stewart wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court agreed that the state’s usage of the death penalty was not a violation and if used properly and with caution, as the state of Georgia did, then it could serve as a deterrent.

42. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)Due process The facts: Estelle Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and her medical director were arrested and convicted for espousing, to married couples, the notion of contraception. The question: Does the Constitution protect the privacy rights of married couples seeking instruction and advise on the use of contraceptives? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Griswold, 7 to 2. Justice Douglas wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court said that while the Constitution does not specifically address the notion of privacy but does hint at a space that each individual deserves and within and from that, the Court derived privacy. A combination of the First, Third, Fourth and Ninth Amendments creates a new right – the right of privacy for marital couples.

43. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)Equal protection clause The facts: Barbara Grutter attempted to enroll at the law school at the University of Michigan and while her qualifications were exemplary, the school admitted that race was a contributing factor in order to achieve a well-diverse student body – a greater good for the university. While a district court ruled that the university’s concerns were not legitimate enough to warrant such a policy, the Court of Appeals used University of California v. Bakke (1978) as precedent for the constitutionality of affirmative action policies. The question: Does the entrance qualifications for the University of Michigan Law School violate the equal protection clause under the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Bollinger, 5 to 4. Justice O’Connor wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court ruled that the school’s entry process is meant to create a greater good and does no excessive harm to nonminority students. Furthermore, since the race of a candidate is only one part of entry process, nothing was being done on race alone – something that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.

44. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)Due process The facts: Yaser Hamdi was an American citizen arrested in Afghanistan by the U.S. military for fighting with the Taliban. He was detained as an “enemy combatant” in Virginia. Mr. Hamdi argued that as an American citizen, his Fifth Amendment rights of due process were being violated however, the government responded, saying that during wartime, the executive branch has the power to label someone an enemy combatant and ergo, could restrict their liberties. While a district court overturned the decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said the separation of powers allow the Executive and Legislative branches powers to operate a war that the judicial could not – therefore, the Court should cede to the executive on this issue. The question: There are two questions here. One, does the government violate Mr. Hamdi’s Fifth Amendment rights when it holds him indefinitely? Second, does the separation of powers clause excuse the judicial from deferring to the Executive for defining what is a “non-combatant.” The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Hamdi, 8 to 1. Justice O’Connor wrote the opinion for the majority. A very divided Court said yes and no on separate issues. First, Mr. Hamdi’s Fifth Amendment rights could not be waived by the labeling of him as an “enemy combatant.” Secondly, the Court also rejected the notion of the separation of powers preventing the judiciary from hearing the case.

45. Harmelin v. Michigan (1991)Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment The facts: Ronald Harmelin was convicted under Michigan law for possessing over 650 grams of cocaine and sentenced to life without parole. Mr. Harmelin challenged the conviction as cruel and unusual and disproportionate to the crime committed. Additionally, he said the sentence was handed out without considering the fact that he had no prior felonies. The question: Does a mandated sentence that does not consider outside factors a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual clause? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Michigan, 5 to 4. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court said the Eighth Amendment makes no comment to specificity on guarantees of proportionality of sentences. Furthermore, the clause is to protect against unusual forms of punishment and not against particularly cruel ones. While the sentence may have been cruel, being placed in prison for life is not very unusual.

46. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)First Amendment – Freedoms of Speech and Press The facts: A school newspaper at Hazelwood East High School, the Spectrum, prepared a couple of articles for publication that the school principal deemed inappropriate and ordered the articles out of the issue. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former students brought the case to court. The question: Did the principal’s actions violate the students’ First Amendment rights? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Hazelwood School District, 5 to 3. Justice White wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court declared that the student’s First Amendment rights are superseded by the principal’s responsibility to the culture and effectiveness of the school and anything that hinders that cannot be allowed. In short, there is a limited expectation of constitutional rights for students while attending public schools.

47. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II The facts: The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia would not allow blacks to stay there – in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which forbade discrimination “by places of public accommodation.” The question: Did Congress, in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, violate the Commerce Clause powers in denying the hotel’s rights to choose their own customers? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of the U.S., 9 to 0. Justice Clark wrote the opinion for the Court. The Court struck down the notion of the use of the Commerce clause, stating the Congress could regulate local commerce and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had previously been ruled constitutional. According the Court, Title II was only for those businesses that have a substantial impact or influence on interstate commerce in the region. The hotel possessed no “right” to pick and choose its customers, free from government regulation.

48. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)Articles I and II; Federal Trade Commission The facts: President Herbert Hoover appointed and the Senate confirmed William Humphrey as a commissioner within the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). However, when President Franklin Roosevelt come to office, he fired Mr. Humphrey based on his ideas that ran counter to the new president. Mr. Humphrey died shortly after his dismissal but the executor of his will sued because FTC by-laws only allowed dismissal from incompetence. The executor sued for lost wages. The question: Did section 1 of the FTC’s charter interfere with the constitutional power of the executive? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of the U.S., 9 to 0. Justice Sutherland wrote the opinion for the Court. The Court said that dismissal solely on the grounds of ideology was not permitted, explaining further that the president was not meant to have unlimited power to dismiss members of the government. It also argued the government’s attempt at pointing out precedent, Meyers v. United States (1926), where the Court upheld the president dismissing executive office members. Here, the person in question fulfilled a position created by Congress and who possessed quasi-legislative and judicial functions.

49. Hurley v. Irish American Gay Group of Boston (1995)First Amendment – Speech and Assembly The facts: The South Boston Allied War Veterans Council was given permission to hold a St. Patrick’s Day Parade but did not allow the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bi-sexual Group of Boston (GLIB) to participate. A Massachusetts court said the Veterans’ Council must include GLIB in the proceedings but the Council said it violated their right to free speech by forcing GLIB upon a private organization. The question: Was the Massachusetts court’s decision a violation of the Council’s First Amendment right to free speech? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Hurley, 9 to 0. Justice Souter wrote the opinion of the Court. The Court said the Massachusetts ruling was forcing a private group to espouse something, with the inclusion of GLIB, that it has no desire to espouse – a violation of the Council’s First Amendment right to speech.

50. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)First Amendment – Speech, Press and Assembly The facts: In a 1983 issue of Hustler, a parody was published showing Rev. Jerry Falwell, a fundamentalist minister and political figure, in a drunken, incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse. Rev. Falwell sued on the basis of libel, invasion of privacy and the infliction of emotional distress. An initial ruling awarded Rev. Falwell $150,000 in damages but Hustler editor, Larry Flynt, appealed the ruling. The question: Does the protection of the First Amendment allow for the blatantly offensive, public attack of a public official? The decision: The Court ruled in favor of Hustler Magazine, 8 to 0. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the Court. The Court said, in this instance, protecting free speech took priority over the state protecting the reputation of a public figure as long as the speech was never meant to convey actual facts.