Supreme Court Cases Marbury v Madison- 1803

Supreme Court Cases

Marbury v. Madison- 1803

Historical/Landmark Cases Marbury v. Madison- 1803 ◦ Establishment of Judicial Review ◦ Court declared a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional thereby declaring the Court’s power to find acts of Congress unconstitutional CJ Marshall had 3 questions: Was Marbury entitled to the commission? Yes Does he have redemption? Yes Can the S. C. help him? No because section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional because it adds power to the Court through legislation and not an amendment

Historical/Landmark Cases Mc. Cullough v. Maryland (1819) ◦ Article 1, section 8, Necessary & Proper Clause * National Supremacy- * use of implied powers ◦ Declared the Maryland law unconstitutional because “the power to tax implies the power to destroy” Gibbons v Ogden (1824) ◦ Deals with establishment of the supremacy of the National government. Broadly interpret Article 1 Section 8 to permit the national government to regulation trade, travel, and navigation between the states

Historical/Landmark Cases Barron v. Baltimore (1833) ◦ 5 th amendment (eminent domain) did not apply to states but only to the Federal Government ◦ Bo. R’s won’t be incorporated until the 14 th Amendment is incorporated

First Amendment Cases- Speech Schenck v. US (1919) ◦ Freedom of Speech ◦ Court limits free speech in time of war establishes the “clear and present danger” test ◦ There are limits on liberties and rights

First Amendment Cases- Speech Gitlow v. New York (1925) ◦ Landmark case but not the first to incorporate ◦ For the first time the Court decided whether the 1 st and 14 th amendments had influence on state laws ◦ Used what came to be known as selective “incorporation” doctrine in which 1 st Amendment rights could be incorporated through the 14 th Amendment

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) ◦ “armband” case ◦ Freedom of speech extends to students ◦ Protects symbolic speech U. S. v. Eichman (1990) ◦ Flag Protection Act violates the 1 st Amendment. ◦ Even though flag burning may be disagreeable and offensive it is a freedom of speech

First Amendment Cases- Speech NYT v. Sullivan (1963) ◦ Freedom of speech ◦ Have to prove there is intent of malice NYT v. US (1971) ◦ Reaffirmed the prior restraint doctrine established in Near v. Minnesota ◦ The Court refused the halt publication of the Pentagon Papers (detailed critical account of US involvement in Vietnam) Truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) ◦ Freedom of speech ◦ SC sided with the school district curtailing the freedom previously stated in Tinker precedent ◦ Schools can censor speech when the speech is part of an educational activity under reasonable educational justification ◦ As long as student produced material not affiliated with classroom activities, the rights to produce would be protected

Reno v. ACLU (1997) ◦ Court repeals parts of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ◦ Precedent: extends 1 st Amendment rights to the internet

First Amendment Cases- Religion *Not in packet West Virginia Board of Ed. V. Barnette (1943) ◦ Court ruled that compulsory flag salute violated the 1 st Amendment’s exercise of religion clausetherefore is unconstitutional Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) ◦ Precedent- Court decided that moments of silence were unconstitutional because the government is promoting religion. ◦ Why can we have moments of silence at CHS?

First Amendment Cases- Religion Engel v. Vitale (1962) ◦ Freedom of religion ◦ Precedent: Court outlawed even on a voluntary basis the use of prayer in public schools

First Amendment Cases- Religion Lemon v. Kurzman (1971) ◦ Created the LEMON test which involves the constitutionality of state laws providing aid to church-supported schools State law about aid to education must meet 3 criteria Purpose of aid must be secular Its primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion It must avoid “excessive entanglement of government with religion” (purposely vague)

First Amendment Cases. Association Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) ◦ Court upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to exclude homosexuals based on freedom of association and speech

First Amendment - Obscenity Roth v. US (1957) ◦ Roth encouraged people to buy his materials through the use of mailings and is arrested ◦ Court rules that obscenity is not protected by the 1 st Amendment and disregard the “Hicklin standard” (Hicklin is derived from English common law which stated: the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall… problem is this is a child standard) ◦ Creates Roth standard: Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest” – very vague 1953 Jacob Ellis v. Ott- it’s a national standard Miller v. CA (1973)- similar to Roth except includes videos, revises Roth to what it is today Average person applying community standards would find it of prurient interest Whether it offends the senses of the normal person Lacks SALP: scientific, literary, artistic, or political value

First Amendment - Obscenity Other notable cases: ◦ Jenkins v. GA (1974)- showed the movie “Carnal Knowledge” in movie theater… got in trouble… SC ruled that 1 st and 14 th Amendment rights were violated… GA misapplied the Miller standard… something can have sex included and not be obscene ◦ NY v. Ferber (1982)- Ferber owns a “book store” sells two movies to underage police officers acting as minor boys… Ferber argues his 1 st Amendment rights are violated… SC disagrees arguing that states have an overwhelming (not just compelling) interest to protect children

Feb. 1996 Communications Decency Act ◦ Ruled unconstitutional in Reno v. ACLU Adults shouldn’t be restricted on internet to what’s appropriate for children 2001 Children’s Protection Act 2000: First Amendment Protection in US v. Playboy Ent. Group ◦ Libraries to have anti-pornography filters (can be turned off at patrons request) ◦ Upheld in 2003 ◦ Struck down portion of 1996 law that banned sexually explicit programming to late-night hours

First Amendment - Obscenity CPPA (Child Pornography and Prevention Act) prohibits any image that is or appears to have a minor… leads to Ashcroft v FSC (2002) saying that CPPA is so broad that it limits all sorts of speech… Court rules against Ashcroft in two areas “the appears to be a minor” and “use of computer generated images” similar cases were in your packet on page 2 Reno and Ashcroft v ACLU in which some more are struck down

First Amendment - Obscenity “SEXTING” The latest regarding legislation in Indiana- “Proposed legislation making some teens’ practice of sending racy photos by cell phone a juvenile offense in Indiana appears headed for a summer legislative study committee to iron out policy problems. Indiana House Judiciary Chairwoman Linda Lawson said Tuesday that sponsoring lawmakers agree the bill on so-called sexting that cleared the state Senate has problems that need further study. The Hammond Democrat says the bill likely to clear her panel next week would send the issue to study committee. Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council director Steve Johnson said that teens of legal age can have sex but the bill would make it a crime for them to exchange nude photos in certain cases. He says it was clear some policy issues had not been thought through. ” http: //chestertontribune. com/Indiana%20 News/sexting_bill_kicked_to_indiana_s. ht m

PRIVACY RIGHTS Note: Privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution but has been accepted as a penumbra (shadow) right

PRIVACY RIGHTS Griswold v. CT (1965)- Contraceptive case- can be punished if you use it or if you provide it ◦ Griswold (PP) provides contraceptives to a married couple and gets into trouble and challenges with the 14 th Amendment due process clause The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. " The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender tohis detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. “…… We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose. " These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one. The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. ”

PRIVACY RIGHTS debate now is over what is included

PRIVACY RIGHTS Roe v. Wade (1973) Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) ◦ Roe lawyer argued that is was a violation of the privacy created in Griswold ◦ Wade lawyer argued against the right to privacy and said that protected marital privacy does not include the right to choose an abortion ◦ Limits when a state can intervene ◦ Informed consent- only spousal notification was found unconstitutional- the court view is essentially that it has more to do with the woman than with the man ◦ Undue burden- state can’t just put up substantial obstacles before viability for the woman

Incorporation Doctrine Barron v. Baltimore (1833)- CJ Marshall said that 4 th, 6 th, and 8 th Amendments only applied to the national government Once 14 th Amendment was passed suits started coming through and challenged using the due process clause ◦ Gitlow v. NY (1925) starts Selective Incorporation where the Court uses the 14 th Amendment’s Due Process Clause to protect & incorporate the Bill of Rights Total incorporation of Bill of Rights especially after Miranda v. AZ (1966)

14 th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause Baker v. Carr Reynolds v. Sims Wesberry v. Sanders ◦ Can be summed up as “one man, one vote”

Expansion of Rights? Gideon v. Wainright (1963) ◦ Incorporation case (apply 6 th-14 th Due Process Clause). State has to provide lawyer if accused is too poor Mapp v Ohio (1961) ◦ Exclusionary Rule: Evidence obtained in violation of 4 th Amendment’s ban on unreasonable search & seizure would be excluded from trial Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) ◦ 6 th Amendment – right to counsel. Can’t use evidence obtained from a suspect who has been denied opportunity to consult with counsel and has not been warned of constitutional rights to keep silent Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ◦ Must be made verbally aware of your right to remain silent and the right to counsel Massachusetts v. Sheppard (1984) ◦ Good faith exception to the exclusionary rule

Brown & efforts to create equality Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Brown v. Board (1954) ◦ “separate but equal” does not violate equal protection clause of 14 th Amendment ◦ Ct. overturns precedent “separate but equal” established in Plessy case ◦ Also eliminates state power to use race as a criterion of discrimination in law and provided national gov. with the power to intervene by exercising strict regulatory policies against discriminatory actions EX: Voting Rights Act, Eisenhower sending in the Paratroopers, etc.

Brown & efforts to create equality Swann v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Bof. E (1971) ◦ Important extension of civil rights in education. State imposed desegregation could be brought around by busing & under some circumstances, even racial quotas Craig v Boren (1976) ◦ 1 st case to apply medium scrutiny test to gender based discrimination Regents of the University of CA v. Bakke (1978) ◦ Universities can take minority status into consideration because a “diverse student body” contributing to a “robust exchange of ideas” is a “constitutionally permissible goal” can’t set quotas but can consider race Reno v. Shaw (1993) ◦ Deals with majority-minority districts & 14 th Am. Race can’t be the predominant reason for placement of boundaries. Motivations can be political, but not racial

Brown & efforts to create equality Adarand Const. v Pena (1995) ◦ Federal programs that classify people on the basis of race are subject to strict scrutiny, even if they are for benign purposes Grutter v. Bolinger (2003) – law school case ◦ Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the eventual deciding vote in Grutter, saying that affirmative action is still needed in America -- but hoped that its days are numbered. "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today. “ Gratz v. Bolinger (2003)- undergraduate ◦ ruled the points system violated equal protection provisions of the Constitution. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the use of race was not "narrowly tailored" to achieve the university's diversity goals. Ricci v. De. Stefano (2009)- “firefighter case”- deemed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been violated when a test was thrown out after no minorities scored high enough to be promoted.

Student Rights at School Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) “armbands case” ◦ Protection of symbolic freedom of speech for students at school NJ v TLO (1985) ◦ Replaces “probable cause” giving schools more freedom to conduct searches using “reasonable suspicion” (rolling papers, etc. ) Bethel v. Fraser (1986) ◦ Students do not enjoy the same freedoms and protections as adults Santa Fe v. Doe (2000) ◦ Student led prayer violates the Establishment Clause Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) ◦ Freedom of school press at issue. Schools can regulate schoolsponsored activities. “Schools need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission” Stafford v. Redding (2009)- “strip search case” ◦ Court limited the rights of a school to search students