Supreme Court Cases

1
Supreme Court Cases
2
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

• States not bound by Bill of Rights only
  protected from federal government intrusions into
  civil liberties
• 14th Amendment does not apply to State actions

3
Gitlow v. New York (1925)

• Court rules that State of NY violated free speech
  of a socialist party leader begins the doctrine
  of selective incorporation
• 14th Amendment applies civil liberties
  protections on State and local government actions
• Takes several decades to achieve

4
Freedom of Religion Cases

• Congress shall make no law respecting an
  establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
  free exercise thereof
• wall of separation first used by Jefferson
• 1947 Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing
  Township (NJ)

5
Religion and Schools

• Key case Lemon v. Kurtzman (1973)
• Must have secular purpose
• Neither advances or inhibits religion
• Avoids entanglement of government with religion
• Mitchell v. Helms (2000)

6
Religion and Schools

• Prayer and Bible readings
• Engel v. Vitale (1962)
• Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
• OHair v. Curlett (1963)
• Stone v. Graham (1980)

7
Religion and Schools

• Vouchers
• Mueller v. Allen (1983)
• Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

8
Religion and Schools

• Prayers/moments of silence at school events
• Lee v. Weisman (1992)
• Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2002)
• Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

9
Religion and Schools

• Creationism/Evolution
• Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
• Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
• Christmas Displays
• Lynch v. Donnelly (1985)
• Allegheny County V. ACLU (1987)

10
Religion and Schools

• Religious activities on campus
• Board of Education v. Mergens (1990)
• Good News Club v. Milford Central School District
  (2000)

11
Free Exercise of Religion

• Reynolds v. US (1879) doctrine of belief vs.
  action state can intervene to prevent or punish
  actions, even if actions are religiously motivated

12
Free Exercise of Religion

• Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) State must show
  compelling action to intervene
• US v. Lee (1982) taxes are a compelling reason
• Employment Division v. Smith (1982) drug use in
  religious practices can be banned by State
• Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
  (FL) (1983)

13
Freedom of Speech

• Absolute vs. restricted speech
• fighting words and threatening speech not
  protected (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942)
• Schenck v United States (1919) clear and
  present danger test
• Dennis vs. United States (1951) grave and
  probable danger test
• Yates v. United States (1957) distinction
  between advocacy of a belief and advocacy of an
  action
• Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) must connect the
  speaker to an action to convict of a crime

14
Freedom of Speech

• Symbolic Speech
• Tinker v. Des Moines ISD (1968)
• Texas v. Johnson (1989) burning flag was
  protected political speech Congressional
  attempts to make it a federal crime were also
  declared unconstitutional (US v. Eichman, 1990)
• Commercial Speech
• Dun Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders (1985)
  commercial speech not protected by 1st Amendment
  absence of malice does not apply

15
Freedom of the Press

• Near v. Minnesota (1931) Government prohibited
  to use prior restraint on publications.
• New York Times v. US (1971) prior restraint
  cannot be used in the name of national security
• Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) principal can use
  prior restraint on school publications

16
Freedom of the Press

• Libel and Slander
• New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) public
  officials must prove publications meant to damage
  reputations (absence of malice)
• Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) extended
  the absence of malice test to include public
  figures and celebrities test extended further in
  Westmoreland v. CBS (1982)
• Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) private
  citizens have to negligence and fault, not
  malicious intent Hustler Magazine v. Flint
  (1987) raises that standard very high, must prove
  actual damages were done to plaintiffs
  reputation by a factual error, not by opinion of
  the publication satirical claims not to be taken
  as fact are protected.

17
Freedom of the Press

• Trial publicity conflict between free press and
  fair trials
• gag orders on the press by judges
• struck down in Nebraska Press Association v.
  Stuart (1976) as prior restraint
• Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia (1980)
  greatly limits the ability of a judge to close a
  trial
• Judges can impose gag orders on trial
  participants
• shield laws are NOT 1st Amendment rights
  (Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972) states can pass
  shield laws with limited protection, but no
  federal law exists

18
Freedom of Speech/Expression

• Pornography protected, obscenity is not
  (Chaplinsky) difficulty in defining obscenity
• Roth v. United States (1957) Court attempts to
  define obscenity material must be utterly
  without redeeming social importance appealing to
  a prurient (unhealthy or morbid) interestthe
  average person, applying contemporary community
  standards, the material is deemed obscene.
• Problems?

19
Freedom of Speech/Expression

• Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) raised the burden of
  proof necessary to prevent obscenity by allowing
  claim of social commentary by the publishers
• Law enforcement and courts had to prove it was
  without any redeeming value whatsoever, which
  meant most obscenity cases were overturned,
  until.
• Miller v. California (1973) three part test
• 1. patently offensive
• 2. appeals to a prurient interest
• 3. lacks serious artistic or literary merit

20
Freedom of Speech/Expression

• Impact of Miller case
• Communities can restrict and define obscenity
• Only the most offensive pornography considered as
• obscene (i.e. involving minors)
• Restrictions to protect minors allowed
• Zoning permissible to restrict access
• Internet cases Court struck down ban on
  internet pornography (Reno v. ACLU, 1994),
  despite possible access by minors.

21
Freedom of Assembly and Petition

• Right to assemble free of government oversight or
  harassment reinforced with NAACP v. Alabama
  (1958) groups can assemble for protests as long
  as no violence is threatened
• Permits for parades/demonstrations allowable (Cox
  v. New Hampshire, 1941), but cannot be withheld
  from groups that advocate unpopular or minority
  views (Collins v. Smith, 1982)

22
Defendant Rights

• 4th Amendment protects citizens from illegal
  search and seizures of evidence
• Weeks v. US, (1914) evidence gained without a
  warrant cannot be used in trials (the
  exclusionary rule) applied only to federal law
  enforcement.
• Wolf v. Colorado (1949) citizens are protected
  from arbitrary intrusions by local law
  enforcement but protections not specific 4th
  Amendment does not apply (5 to 4 vote)
• Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Exclusionary rule applied
  (or incorporated) to the States, used
  dissenting opinions from Wolf to make the case

23
Defendant Rights

• Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
• 1. inevitable discovery (Nix v. Williams,
  1984)
• 2. good faith exception a flawed warrant is
  not
• grounds for suppression of evidence if
  police
• were unaware of the flaw (US v. Leon,
  1984)
• 3. hot pursuit no warrant needed to arrest
  and
• seize evidence if in pursuit of an
  arrest
• 4. in plain sight no warrant needed if
  evidence
• is clearly visible to law enforcement
  officer

24
Defendant Rights

• 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy
  and self-incrimination
• Double jeopardy does not prevent a separate
  sovereignty from prosecuting again for the same
  offense (Heath v. Alabama, 1985). Thus, federal
  law enforcement can prosecute for a crime already
  tried at the State level.
• Also, one act involving multiple violations of
  the law can be tried more than once if different
  evidence is used

25
Defendant Rights

• Self-incrimination defendants have a right not
  testify against themselves
• Confessions made without legal counsel and
  available rights are inadmissible in court
  (Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964)
• This right must be made clear to criminal
  suspects (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966), or
  statements cannot be used.

26
Defendant Rights

• 6th Amendment ensures a fair criminal process
  against the accused.
• Defendants are given the right of
• 1. confrontation and cross-examination of
• witnesses
• 2. to be informed of the charges against
  him/her
• 3. a speedy public trial by jury in criminal
  cases
• 4. provision of legal counsel if unaffordable
  by
• accused (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963).

27
Defendant Rights

• 8th Amendment prevents excessive fines,
  excessive bail, and cruel and unusual
  punishment.
• Furman v. Georgia, 1972 struck down capital
  punishment if arbitrarily applied also if jury
  not given adequate or complete instructions
  capital offense laws must be standardized and
  clearly defined.
• Gregg v. Georgia, 1976 capital punishment not
  in itself cruel and unusual if It meets clear
  guidelines.
• Latest developments

28
Implied Rights

• Those rights not found directly in the
  Constitution but are considered rights of
  citizenship, i.e. to travel, to an education
• The right of privacy
• Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 citizens have a
  right to privacy in the home and (later) in
  personal matters.

29
Abortion

• Roe v. Wade, 1973 based on right of privacy,
  abortion allowed under the trimester test
• Months 1 3 State cannot prevent or intervene
  in abortion decision
• Months 4 6 States can regulate, but not
  prohibit, right to an abortion (i.e. consent of
  parent/spouse)
• Months 7 9 States can prevent abortion,
  unless health of mother is endangered definition
  of health has not been defined by the court.

30
Abortion

• Modifications of Roe decision
• Parental and/or spousal notification upheld, in
  several cases from 1979 to 1992.
• Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
  State can impose limitations, such as viability
  tests, but it cannot create an undue burden.
• Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) Upheld 24
  hour waiting period, mandatory information on
  alternatives, parental notification and consent.

31
Civil Rights

• 14th Amendment provides protection of the due
  process of law and the fair treatment as a
  citizen by the government.
• Government cannot classify citizens into groups
  unless
• 1. it has a compelling interest to do so
• 2. it is a reasonable classification
• 3. the grouping is inherently suspect and
  must
• pass scrutiny
• Concept of scrutiny

32
Race

• US. v. Cruikshank (1876) Neither US Congress
  or the Constitution can extend equal rights to
  citizens only the States can do so. The Civil
  Rights Cases (1883) further limited Congress in
  dealing with States or individuals
• Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) separate but equal
  doctrine established in public transportation and
  facilities. Extended to public education in 1898
  (Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education).
  Later applied to other racial minorities.

33
Race

• Education Court began eroding separate but
  equal in education prior to Brown case.
• Gaines v. Canada (1938) States cannot deny
  blacks entry into higher education by paying
  tuition to schools that accept black students
• Sweatt v. Painter (1950) Creation of a law
  school for blacks by UT still denied equality to
  black students
• McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher
  Education (1950) separate treatment of black
  graduate students unconstitutional.

34
Race

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954) banned
  segregated schools, and Brown v. Board of
  Education (1955), often called Brown II, ordered
  schools integrated with all deliberate speed.
• de jure segregation vs. de facto segregation.
• Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. Of Education
  (1971) approved court-ordered busing to balance
  the schools busing between districts was
  declared unconstitutional if no discriminatory
  intent was found (Milliken v. Bradley, 1974).

35
Race

• Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas
  (1954) segregation by race inherently unequal
  and a violation of the 14th Amendment right of
  its citizens to fair and equal treatment by the
  government basis for most civil rights cases to
  come
• Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, bans
  discrimination in hotels (Heart of Atlanta Motel
  v. US, 1964) and restaurants (Katzenbach v.
  McClung, 1964). Based on the Commerce Clause
  (Article I, Secton 8, Clause 3) and Gibbons v.
  Ogden.
• Civil Rights Act of 1968 banned discrimination in
  housing and apartment rentals

36
Race

• Affirmative Action in College Admissions
• Beginning in 1971, race became a factor in
  government contracts and in college admissions
• Opponent challenges began contesting its use as
  a violation of Equal Protection Clause of the
  14th Amendment and reverse discrimination
  supporters said it promoted diversity and made up
  for past discriminatory practices
• Regents of University of California v. Bakke
  (1978) declared racial quotas unconstitutional
  but stated race can be used as a factor in
  admissions

37
Race

• Affirmative Action in College Admissions
• Rulings somewhat mixed preferences granted if
  narrowly tailored to achieve goal of diversity
• Hopwood v. Texas (1996) found UT Law School use
  of race unconstitutional, resulting in the 10
  rule!
• Two concurrent cases involving University of
  Michigan Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), upheld
  diversity as constitutional but adding points or
  preferential treatment to minority applicants to
  college violate Equal Protection Clause (Gratz v.
  Bollinger, 2003).
• CONFUSED???

38
Race

• Affirmative Action in Government Contracts
• The rulings were often contradictory, but if the
  affirmative action plan was meant to remedy past
  practices, usually it was upheld, particularly in
  private businesses. However, such program had to
  pass the strictest scrutiny tests.
• Example of one that passed Metro Broadcasting
  Inc v. FCC (1990) upheld program to increase
  minority ownership in broadcasting.
• Ones that failed Richmond v. J.A, Croson Co.
  (1989) and Adarand v. Pena (1995) denied use of
  government set-asides in contracting.

STILL CONFUSED???
39
Race

• Voting rights based on race guaranteed in 15th
  Amendment and reaffirmed by the Voting Rights Act
  of 1965. Barriers to voting existed to deny
  minority participation.
• Districting to dilute or deny minority voting
  rights unconstitutional Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
  with one man, one vote), and Allen v. State
  Board of Elections (1969).
• Poll taxes in federal elections banned by 24th
  Amendment, and in State elections in Harper v.
  Virginia State Board of Elections (1966).

40
Race

• Districting to create majority-minority
  districts mandated under 1990 Voting Rights Act.
  Led to oddly shaped districts based solely on
  racial factors.
• Shaw v. Reno (1993) declared such districts
  unconstitutional if they were too egregious,
  bizarre, or irregular to be based on anything
  other than race. Miller v. Johnson (1995)
  further denied race as sole basis of districting.
  Bush v. Vera (1996) did the same for State
  legislative districts.

41
Gender

• Muller v. Oregon (1908) set the precedent that
  women could be treated differently under the law
  in the area of employment. Courts supported the
  idea of women as not under a different
  classification in need of government scrutiny
  and protection, like race.
• Reed v. Reed (1971) stated discrimination based
  on gender violation of Equal Protection Clause
• Beginning in 1970s, Court re-interpreted the 14th
  Amendment to create two part test
• 1. classification has legitimate purpose
• 2. no arbitrary requirements placed upon female
  
• applicants

42
Gender

• Title IX of the 1972 Education Act
• States that any institution receiving federal
  funding must create equal opportunities for
  female participants.
• Also bans discrimination based on gender in
  educational institutions.
• Sports in schools is where it has often been
  applied. Unclear as to what this means equal
  number of participants or equal number of sports.

43
Gender

• You-Know-What Harassment
• Courts have ruled that it can be defined as a
  hostile workplace environment (Meritor Savings
  Bank v. Vinson, 1986), violating the Equal
  Protection Clause.
• Harris v. Forklift Systems (1994) expanded
  definition of harassment due to workplace
  environment.
• Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) made
  employers liable for harassment due to
  environment or conduct of employees.
• Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999)
  applies Faragher to schools