Supreme Court Cases

1. Supreme Court Cases

2. Atkins v. Virginia (2002) • Background/Facts • In 1996, after a day of drinking and smoking marijuana, 18 year old Daryl Renard Atkins and an accomplice abducted Eric Nesbitt, 21, from a local convenience store. They took him to an ATM and forced him to withdraw $200 before killing him. Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. The defense presented Atkins’s school records and stated that his IQ was 59, making him “mildly mentally retarded.” However, he was still sentenced to death in the Virginia court system. • Questions/Issues • Does the execution of someone who is mentally retarded qualify as “cruel and unusual punishment,” which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. • Decision • Yes. In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that the execution of mentally retarded criminals is “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. • Significance • This case is believed to have signaled the beginning of the end of the death penalty. The ruling stated that the Eighth Amendment should be interpreted in light of the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

3. Baker v. Carr (1962) • Background/Facts • Charles Baker, the plaintiff, was a resident of Shelby County Tennessee, which had not been reapportioned since 1901 following the 1900 census. In the 61 years since the last reapportionment, Shelby County grew substantially larger than other districts but still had the same number of representatives. Baker argued that he was not receiving “equal protection of the law” as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment. Baker and others sued Joe Carr, Tennessee’s Secretary of State. • Questions/Issues • Was this matter of reapportionment a “political question” and therefore not justiciable (not able to be resolved in federal courts)? • Was the lack of reapportionment a violation of Baker’s right to “equal protection of the law,” as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment? • Decision • The Court ruled that Baker’s case was justiciable due to the equal protection issues raised, but did not rule on the legality of the Tennessee districts. The Court remanded the case to the District Court for trial. • Significance • Within months, more than half the states faced lawsuits for reapportionment. All eventually were redistricted. The following year, in a separate case, the Court announced the standard of “one man, one vote.”

4. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) • Background/Facts • The 1896 Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson upheld the legality of ‘Jim Crow’ laws that segregated blacks and whites. In 1950, Oliver Brown tried to enroll his daughter in the local “white school.” The girl was denied admission because she was African American. Brown and the NAACP appealed to the US Supreme Court after a loss at the state level. • Questions/Issues • Does the segregation of students in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive minority students of the equal rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment? • Decision • Yes. The Court ruled that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate and segregated education facilities was inherently unequal. Racial segregation can lead, for example, to minority students feeling inferior to white students. • Significance • This ruling began the process of desegregating schools which allowed black students to receive the same education as white students.

5. Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission • Background/Facts • The conservative lobbying group Citizens United made a movie that questioned Hillary Clinton’s potential as president. The group wanted to advertise the film in apparent violation of the Bipartisan Campaing Reform Act, which prohibited “electioneering communication” within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. When the Federal Election Commission prohibited the advertising, Citizens United sued. • Questions/Issues • Did the FEC infringe on Citizens United’s free speech by banning advertising of the movie? • Decision • Yes. The Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through limitation if independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions. • Significance • This case gave corporation and unions the same constitutional rights to free speech as normal citizens. This allows large corporation and unions to push massive amounts of money into the political scene, potentially skewing elections.

6. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) • Background/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, Eliza Irene Sanford, 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. • Questions/Issues • Whether Americans of African Descent free or not were American Citizens. • Whether Congress had the power to ban slavery in territories. • Decision • The Supreme Court ruled that African Americans were not American citizens whether slave or free, and also that Congress lacked the power to ban slavery in US territories. • Significance • The Court’s decision exacerbated rising tensions between the north and south, outraged anti-slavery advocates, emboldened pro-slavery southerners to expand slavery in America, and strengthened support for the newly formed Republican Party in the north.

7. Furman v. Georgia (1971) • Background/Facts • A family discovered William Henry Furman burglarizing their home. In an attempt to flee, Furman tripped and fell, and his gun went off killing one of the family members. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Two other death penalty cases, Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas, were decided with this case. • Questions/Issues • Does the carrying out of the death penalty constitute cruel and unusual punishment directly violating the eighth amendment? • Does the sentencing violate Furman’s rights guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment not allowing him to pursuit life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? • Decision • The Supreme Court overturned the ruling stating the unless a uniform policy exists, the death penalty would be considered a cruel and unusual punishment. • Significance • The death penalty was suspended in the United States in 1976, but then in the Gregg v. Georgia case, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was allowed.

8. Gibbons v. Ogden • Background/Facts • Ogden was allowed the right of being able to navigate steamships between New York and New Jersey. Ogden sued Gibbons because he was using steamships from New York to New Jersey and Gibbons appealed citing an Act of Congress that states, “An act for enrolling and licensing ships and vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same.” Meaning that this act had greater power than did the state of New York. • Questions/Issues • Does a state have the right to grant a right to use state waterways even though this ruling is inconsistent with federal law? • Does a state have the power to regulate some phases of interstate commerce? • Decision • A state does not have the right to grant a right to use state waterways even though this ruling is inconsistent with federal law • No, it can’t because we are in need of national uniformity and be prescribed to a single authority. • Significance • Gave all power of interstate commerce to the National government and not to the states affecting how business is done.

9. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) • Background/Facts • Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor in Florida. At trial, he asked for a lawyer because he couldn’t afford his own, and was denied because Florida law only permitted counsel for capital offenses. Gideon lost the trial, and was sentenced to five years in jail. Gideon’s initial appeal was denied, and he then filed a handwritten petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. • Questions/Issues • Does the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment apply to defendants in state courts? • Does this trial conflict with Betts v. Brady (1942), which held that refusal to appoint counsel to a defendant did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? • Decision • Yes. Yes. Betts v. Brady was overruled. The Court held that counsel should be provided at a state level through the Sixth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. • Significance • Everyone has a right to have a lawyer and counsel in all cases, both state and federal.

10. Gitlow v. New York (1925) • Background/Facts • Benjamin Gitlow, part of the left wing of the Socialist Party, was arrested for handing out a “left-wing manifesto” that called for socialism to be implemented through any class action. Gitlow had violated a state criminal anarchy law that punished anyone who advocated the overthrow of the government by force. Gitlow argued that since there was no action resulting from the manifesto, he should not be convicted. • Questions/Issues • Does New York’s law punishing the promotion of overthrowing the government by force violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment?. • Decision • No. The court ruled that states have the power to punish persons who promote the overthrow of the government. • Significance • The case showed that the state was allowed to forbid freedom of speech and publication if that speech led to the endangerment of the public, even if what is said doesn’t create “clear and present danger.” It has been called the “dangerous tendency” test. A legislature can choose to prohibit an entire class of speech if it is deemed too dangerous. • More broadly, although Gitlow lost, because the Court acknowledged a free speech right under the 14th Amendment, the case started the incorporation of the First Amendment as a limit on state governments

11. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) • Background/Facts • Estelle Griswold, executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, was found guilty and fined $100 for providing information to married couples about contraception, illegal under Connecticut law. Griswold appealed, claiming the law violated the U.S. Constitution. • Questions/Issues • Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? • Decision • Yes. Although the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, together the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute, because it conflicted wiith the exercise of this right, was declared null and void. • Significance • Over the next 10 years, the Court expanded the right to privacy beyond the marital bedroom, ruling that the state could not ban the use of contraceptives by anyone, and that the state could not ban most abortions (Roe v. Wade, 1973).

12. Grutter v. Bollinger • Background/Facts • When The University of Michigan Law School denied admission to Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan with high test scores and GPA, she sued, saying that they did not let her in based on her race. Grutter argued that the university used race as a predominant factor in admissions and accepted minorities even when other applicants had better qualifications. • Questions/Issues • Did the university violate the 14th amendment by denying Barbara Grutter admission? • Decision • No, using race as one of many factors in admissions decisions in not unconstitutional. The University of Michigan lists race as a “potential plus factor,” not as the sole cause of admission. The court also recognized diversity as “compelling interest” for the state. • Significance • Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the position in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which allowed race to be a factor in admissions decisions as long as the school is not filling quotas. The Court also said that they expect in the next 25 years there will be a “colorblind” policy for schools and there will be no need to try to get a diverse population of students.

13. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States • Background/Facts • Despite several landmark court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Acts such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, segregation was still a part of life in areas of the southeastern United States. The Heart of Atlanta Motel refused to allow black Americans to stay there and was charged with violating Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title II “forbade racial discrimination by places of public accommodation if their operations affected [interstate] commerce. • Questions/Issues • Did the Heart of Atlanta Motel affect interstate commerce? • If so, would it be required to accept the business of all races?. • Decision • Yes; the motel was located near interstates 75 and 85, as well as two major highways. Also, the Supreme Court noted that around 75% of the motel’s tenants came from out of state. Because of this, the Court ruled that the motel “clearly affected interstate commerce.” • Yes; the motel was required to accept the business of all races. • Significance • The decision handed down by the Supreme Court upheld the power of the Interstate Commerce Clause and reaffirmed the authority of Congress to enact civil rights legislation against privately owned businesses. It also set a precedent that protected future civil rights protections.

14. Korematsu v. United States • Background/Facts • Fred Korematsu was an American citizen of Japanese ancestry. When the U.S. Government ordered the internment of Korematsu and tens of thousands of other Japanese-Americans during World War II, he sued. • Questions/Issues • Did the government violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, by singling out a racial group and forcing them to leave their homes? • Decision • No. The Court ruled that the unusual demands of wartime justified the decision, although it also said that distinctions based on race are “inherently suspect” and must withstand “strict scrutiny.” • Significance • The strict scrutiny rule endures, despite Korematsu’s loss in the case. The U.S. Government eventually apologized and compensated survivors. In 1998, Korematsu was awarded the National Medal of Freedom.

15. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) • Background/Facts • Pennsylvania law allowed the state to provide funding for teacher salaries, textbooks, and other resources in non-public schools. Lemon, believing this violated the Separation between Church and State established by the First Amendment, filed the case against Kurtzman, the superintendent of public schools in Pennsylvania. • Questions/Issues • Did the Pennsylvania law violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (which established the Separation of Church and State) by providing state aid to church-affiliated schools? • Decision • Yes. The Court ruled that laws dealing with religious establishment must have a secular legislative purpose, must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and must not support an excessive relationship between Church and State. • Significance • This case established the three part Lemon Test, explained above, which tests to see if laws related to religious establishments are constitutional. The Lemon Test, still used today, serves to regulate the Federal Government’s involvement in matters of religion.

16. Mapp vs. Ohio • Background/Facts • Police were tipped that they would find illegal bombing and gambling equipment at the home of DollreeMapp in 1957. Police officers searched the house without permission or a search warrant and found and confiscated Illegal pornographic material. • Questions/Issues • Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? • Did the police violate the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure by searching the House? • Does the 14th amendment apply the bill of rights to state activities? • Decision • The Court dismissed 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." • Significance • Set forth the “fruit of the poison tree” doctrine and necessitated the creation of complex rules of evidence.

17. Marbury v. Madison • Background/Facts • Toward the end his presidency, John Adams appointed 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace in an attempt to take control of the judiciary before the elected Thomas Jefferson took office. One of the appointed justices was William Marbury. The appointments were approved by Congress but the commissions were not delivered before Adams left office. After Jefferson was sworn in, he refused to deliver the commissions and claimed they were invalid because they were not delivered by the end of Adam’s term. Marbury appealed directly to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to force Jefferson to deliver the commissions. • Questions/Issues • Was Marbury entitled to his appointment? • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and determine their constitutionality?. • Decision • Yes to both. The Court decided that Marbury was entitled to his commission and that the Supreme Court had the power to review acts of Congress. • Significance • This case established the power of judicial review, in which the Supreme Court can review acts of the Legislative and Executive branches and determine whether or not they are constitutional. This is a key component of the checks and balances system.

18. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) • Background/Facts • In 1816, the Second Bank of the US was proposed, and shortly after, a branch was opened in Baltimore. This branch caused upset because it brought competition, seemed to be corrupt, and held too much power. Many believed that Congress did not have the authority to establish a bank, so in 1818, Maryland passed a tax that charged an annual fee of $15,000. McCulloch, the bank’s cashier, refused to pay the tax. • Questions/Issues • Whether Congress had the authority under the Constitution to commission a national bank • If so, whether the state of MD had the authority to tax a branch of the national bank operating within its borders. • Decision • Congress had the authority to establish the national bank • MD did not have the power to tax the national bank within its borders. • Significance • States cannot pass laws that interfere with laws passed by Congress.

19. McDonald v. Chicago • Background/Facts • Prior to this case, several law suits were filed against Chicago, IL challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court ruled on District of Columbia v. Heller. In the case, the Supreme Court decided that a D.C. handgun ban violated the Second Amendment.  The Court reasoned that the law in question was ratified under federal authority and, because of this, the Second Amendment was applicable.  In the McDonald v. Chicago case, the plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also be applicable to the states. • Questions/Issues • Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses? • Decision • The Court reversed the lower court, ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense applicable to the states, basing its ruling on its earlier decision in the Heller case. • Significance • In DC (a federal district) v. Heller, the Court ruled that the ban on handguns violated residents’ Second Amendment right; however, individuals of the states did not know if the same went for them.  McDonald v. Chicago addressed this issue and concluded that an individual of any state had the right to own a handgun under the Second Amendment.

20. Miller v. California (1973) • Background/Facts • In 1971 Marvin Miller sent out a mass mailing brochure advertising the sale of pornographic books to California residents. Miller was convicted for violating the California statue which prohibits the distribution of “obscene” material. This case is a counterpart to the previous case supreme court case Roth vs. United States, which was the first to elaborate on the definition of “obscenity.” • Questions/Issues • Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech? • Decision • The Court ruled that obscene materials are not protected under the First Amendment. The court also modified the system deciding if something is considered obscene. The new guidelines “(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find the work, appealing to the prurient interest (b) whether the work describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct defined by the applicable state law, (c) whether the work lacks serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.” • Significance • The revised guidelines help prosecutors determine what is considered obscene. The Miller test has proved to be a strong test unrefined until 2003 where states could impose stricter laws on child pornography.

21. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) • Background/Facts • In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was charged of rape, kidnapping, and robbery. He was not informed of his rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination. Miranda was then questioned in a two-hour interrogation and confessed to the crimes. At trial, the only evidence against him was his own confession. He was convicted and sentenced to a long prison term. His conviction was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court, and Miranda appealed to the U.S Supreme Court. • Questions/Issues • Was the failure to inform Miranda of his rights against self-incrimination and to be represented by an attorney a violation Constitution's Fifth and Sixth Amendments? • Decision • The Supreme Court overruled the Supreme Court of Arizona, declaring that not stating Miranda’s rights was an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth and Sixth amendment, which ensure that arrested suspects understand their rights before being questioned. • Significance • The “Miranda Rights” used today are a direct result of this case. They are in place to ensure protection against self-incrimination and the right to an attorney which are outlined in the Fifth and Sixth amendments.

22. Near v. Minnesota (1931) • Background/Facts • Jay Near, publisher of the Saturday Press in Minneapolis, claimed that gangsters were controlling the city and that the police chief and other officials were failing to act against the illegal activity. Near was convicted and his paper shut down, under a Minnesota Gag Law that prohibited publication of hateful or defamatory information. • Questions/Issues • Did Near’s conviction deprive him of liberty without due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment? • Decision • Yes. The Court struck down the Minnesota law, saying the press should be free from “prior restraints” on publication. • Significance • The decision established that the First Amendment’s freedom of the press was “incorporated” through the Due Process Clause to protect the press against censorship.

23. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) • Background/Facts • In 1964, The New York Times printed an advertisement, explaining that the arrest of Dr. Marin Luther King occurred only to disrupt his civil right efforts. When the city commissioner of Montgomery, L.B. Sullivan, discovered the ad, he sued The New York Times for libel. During the court proceedings, some of the newspapers claims were found to be false. • Questions/Issues • Does the First Amendment protect freedom of speech when the speech is misguided, misleading or factually wrong? • Is the libel law used in Alabama at the time (Sullivan did not need to prove that he was harmed by the ad) an infringement on the First Amendment? • Decision • The court ruled unanimously in favor of The New York Times; the First Amendment protects any published statement, even false ones. However, should any newspaper act with “actual malice”, or if they intentionally used false facts, they would not be protected. • Significance • The upholding of the First Amendment in this case helps to maintain the freedom of the press. If the newspapers were required to check the accuracy of every political statement that they used, they would be severely restricted.

24. New York Times v. United States (1971) • Background/Facts • The Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The study, which came to be known as The Pentagon Papers, showed that the government had lied about the beginnings of the Vietnam War. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. • Questions/Issues • Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press? • Decision • Yes. The Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. Court members argued that the vague word "security" should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." The Court reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified. • Significance • The decision reinforced the Court's stance against prior restraint and has often been noted in subsequent prior restraint cases. In other words, the Court would not be favorably disposed to stifling the press on the order of the government unless the nation’s security was directly at risk.

25. Oregon v. Smith (1990)(Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith) • Background/Facts • Alfred Smith was a counselor at a private drug rehab clinic who was fired from the clinic because he used peyote, an illegal drug under Oregon law, as part of his religious ceremonies as a member of the Native American Church. Smith then filed for unemployment compensation but was denied because his dismissal was a work-related misconduct. When the Oregon Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Smith, the state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. • Questions/Issues • Did the state violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First amendment by including religious peyote use within its general criminal prohibition on use of that drug, • Can a state deny unemployment benefits to persons fired from their job because of such use? • Decision • No. Yes. The Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey generally applicable laws. • Significance • Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so. Congress subsequently passed a law granting special privileges to religious land owners.

26. Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) • Background/Facts • In 1890 Homer Plessy was a black man and after refusing to sit inside of a black railcar, he attempted to sit in a white only railcar. He was quickly arrested for violating “separate but equal” rail car rules. Plessy went to court stating that this event was against his 13th and 14th amendment rights. • Questions/Issues • Can states constitutionally enact laws stating that different races are to use separate but equal facilities? • Is this an infringement on the 13th and 14th amendment? • Decision • Yes, the states can constitutionally enact “separate but equal” legislation in regards to public facilities ruled by justice John D. Ferguson. • Significance • Was the cause of years of racial discrimination and inequality for years to come that eventually led to the Civil Rights Movement.

27. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke • Background/Facts • Allan Bakke applied twice to The University of California Medical School at Davis and was rejected both times. UC Davis practiced affirmative action, in which 16 places in a class of 100 were reserved for qualified minorities. Bakke’s college GPA and test scores exceeded all of minority students accepted both years he applied. Bakke took his case to court, claiming he was denied admission solely because of his race. • Questions/Issues • Did the University of California violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment in denying Bakke? • Decision • The Court decided that the strict racial quota system was unconstitutional, but that the school could consider race as one of many factors in the admissions process. • Significance • This was the first major case to address the issue of “reverse discrimination.” In it, the Court established “strict scrutiny” as the level of review for race-based admissions programs used by colleges and universities.

28. Roe v. Wade (1973) • Background/Facts • In 1970, Jane, Roe, an unmarried pregnant woman in Texas, filed suit against Wade, the district attorney of Texas challenging the legality of a Texas law prohibiting abortion. She argued that the law violated, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The state argued that it had an obligation to protect the fetus during pregnancy, which superseded Roe’s rights. • Questions/Issues • Does the Constitution guarantee an individual right to privacy? • Does the state’s responsibility to regulate abortion in order to protect a fetus supersede a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy? • Decision • The Court favored Roe and stated that, in some cases, a woman’s choice to have an abortion is protected by her right to privacy, and that the Fourteenth Amendment applied that right to state actions. • Significance • The case intensified the debate on abortion. Today, many protests are held against abortion such as the March for Life in Washington D.C. every year. With this court case, the debate on abortion became a national issue rather than a state issue.

29. Roper v. Simmons (2005) • Background/Facts • Christopher Simmons, 17 at the time, planned and executed the murder of Shirley Crook with two younger friends in 1993 • Questions/Issues • Does the execution of minors violate the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" found in the 8th Amendment and applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment? • Decision • Yes. The Court ruled that standards of decency have evolved so that executing minors is "cruel and unusual punishment." The majority cited a consensus against the juvenile death penalty among state legislatures, and its own determination that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for minors. • Significance • In this ruling, the Court effectively reversed its 1989 decision in Stanford v. Kentucky, which held that executing minors was not unconstitutional.

30. Roth v. United States • Background/Facts • In 1957, a book store owner named Samuel Roth was convicted for selling “obscene and filthy” materials through the mail for advertising purposes in New York. This case was combined with David Alberts’ conviction of posting photos of nude women in California. Both cases were given a writ of certiorari. • Questions/Issues • Did either California’s or the Federal obscenity restrictions, prohibiting the sale or transfer of obscene materials through the mail, infringe upon the freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment? • Decision • The Supreme Court ruled the obscenity was not "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press“, or not protected within the First Amendment. Roth and Alberts were both convicted on the original charges. • Significance • The Court said the test to determine obscenity was “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material … appeals to prurient interest.” The Court later redefined its definition of obscenity in Miller v. California, identifying it as that which lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

31. Schenck v. United States (1919) • Background/Facts • Charles Schenckwas the secretary of the American Socialist Party. Because he was against the draft leading up to World War I, he encouraged young men to resist it through leaflets that he distributed throughout the country. Schenck was arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for violating the Espionage Act, which made it a crime to obstruct the draft. • Questions/Issues • Were Schenck’s political statements protected by the free speech section of the First Amendment? • Decision • No. The Court upheld Schenck’s conviction. • Significance • This case established “clear and present danger” test. In Schenck’s case, the Court ruled that speech can be limited if itprovokes a “clear and present danger” of substantive evils.

32. Terry v. Ohio (1968) • Background/Facts • John Terry and two other men were observed by a police officer for several minutes. The officer subsequently searched the men based on the premise that they were showing suspicious behavior. He found concealed weapons on two of the men including Terry. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail. • Questions/Issues • Was the search without a warrant, and seizure of Terry and the other men, a violation of the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure? If the search did violate the 4th Amendment, could the weapons seized be used as evidence against Terry? • Decision • The weapons could be introduced as evidence because the search and seizure done was not a violation of the 4th Amendment because it was justifiable based on of the observations of suspicious behavior of Terry and the other men. • Significance • Although this case shows a reasonable search and seizure it helped determine the difference between a reasonable search and seizure, and that which is based solely on a “hunch”. The latter is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

33. Texas v. Johnson (1989) • Background/Facts • Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside the convention center during the 1984 Republican Convention in Dallas, Texas, to protest the policies of President Reagan. Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of a Texas statute. He appealed, arguing that his actions were protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. • Questions/Issues • Whether flag burning constitutes "symbolic speech" protected by the free-speech clause of the First Amendment. • Decision • The Court held that flag burning constitutes a form of "symbolic speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. The Court noted that the even though the flag is a symbol of our country, freedom of speech protects actions that society may find offensive. • Significance • The Court's decision nullified similar laws that were in force in 48 of the 50 states. Since then, Congress has unsuccessfully considered a constitutional amendment to make flag-burning illegal.

34. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) • Background/Facts • In 1965, John Tinker, his sister Marybeth, and a friend were sent home from school for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. After the District Court ruled against them, they appealed to the Supreme Court.. • Questions/Issues • Does a prohibition against wearing armbands in public school, as a way of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment?. • Decision • In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that students in public schools are allowed to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The Court agreed that the students’ protest was passive and unaccompanied by any form of disorder or disturbance on their part. Therefore, the school’s disciplinary actions had been unwarranted. • Significance • The Tinker case is still used today by courts to determine whether a school’s disciplinary actions violate a student’s First Amendments right. This case was the first time that the Court articulated standards for safeguarding public school students' free speech rights.

35. United States v. Eichman (1990) • Background/Facts • Eichmanwas prosecuted under the federal Flag Protection Act for setting fire to American flags. Eichmanstated that the Act violated the First Amendment, and courts in Washington State and in the District of Columbia agreed. The United States Government then appealed to the Supreme Court. • Questions/Issues • Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment? • Decision • In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that flag burning was a form of expression protected under the First Amendment. • Significance • As a consequence of the Court's decision, the House of Representatives voted to adopt proposed constitutional amendments banning flag desecration in 1990, 1995, 1997, and 2000. However, the amendment has never received the necessary two-thirds approval in the Senate.

36. United States v. Nixon • Background/Facts • Men were caught trying to bug the Democratic National Headquarters in what came to be known as the Watergate Scandal. It came to light that there had been a cover up to protect others involved in the break-in. It became clear that top members of the Nixon administration were involved. During the investigation, tapes recording conversations between President Nixon and his advisors were subpoenaed. However, Nixon refused to release all of the tapes, claiming they were protected under executive privilege. • Questions/Issues • Does the separation of powers created by the Constitution give the president an executive privilege and is that executive privilege absolute? • Does the claim of executive privilege undermine the guarantees set out in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments (due process; speedy and public trial, process for obtaining witnesses)? • Decision • The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Nixon and he was ordered to turn over the tapes. On the issue of executive privilege, the Court agreed that the President deserves great deference, but the privilege is not absolute and should be balanced with other Constitutional rights. • Significance • The tapes showed the Nixon was, in fact, involved in the cover up of the Watergate break-in. Soon after, under threat of an impending impeachment, Nixon resigned. The case showed that the President was not above the law, affirmed the Judicial branch's authority to check the Executive branch, and clarified when the President can invoke executive privilege..