SUPREME COURT CASESSUPREME COURT CASES Marbury v. Madison (1803) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Schenck v. United States (191

9) Korematsu v. United States (1

944) Brown v. Board of Education (1

954) Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Engel v. Vitale (1962) Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (19

64) Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) NY Times v. United States (19

71) Furman v Georgia (1972) Roe v. Wade (1973) United States v. Nixon (1974) Gregg v Georgia (1976) Regents of the University of C

alifornia v. Bakke (1978) New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) Bethel School District v Fraser

(1986) Hazelwood School District v. K

uhlmeier (1988) Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Marbury v Madison Marbury v Madison (1803)(1803)

IssueIssue: Separation of Power: Separation of Power

Court CaseCourt Case: Marbury sued Madison because : Marbury sued Madison because he did not receive commission to be a he did not receive commission to be a justice of the peace. Marbury asked the justice of the peace. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue an order to Supreme Court to issue an order to force Madison to give him his force Madison to give him his commission.commission.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: Against Marbury. Ruled a : Against Marbury. Ruled a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. 1unconstitutional. 1stst act of Congress to act of Congress to be declared unconstitutional.be declared unconstitutional.

PrecedentPrecedent: established judicial review – : established judicial review – power of the court to decide whether power of the court to decide whether actions of Congress are constitutional.actions of Congress are constitutional.

McCulloch v Maryland McCulloch v Maryland (1819)(1819)

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)IssueIssue: Federalism (State v. Federal Government) : Federalism (State v. Federal Government)

Court CaseCourt Case: McCulloch was a branch manager for the : McCulloch was a branch manager for the Bank of the United States. Refused to pay a tax to Bank of the United States. Refused to pay a tax to the state of Maryland and was arrested. He the state of Maryland and was arrested. He appealed conviction on the grounds that a state appealed conviction on the grounds that a state could not tax the federal government.could not tax the federal government.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: In favor of McCulloch. : In favor of McCulloch.

PrecedentPrecedent: States cannot tax the federal government.: States cannot tax the federal government.

Dred Scott v Sanford (1857)Dred Scott v Sanford (1857)

IssueIssue: 5: 5thth Amendment, Slavery, Missouri Compromise of Amendment, Slavery, Missouri Compromise of 18201820

Court CaseCourt Case: Dred Scott sued his owner Sanford because : Dred Scott sued his owner Sanford because he had been taken into free territory. Scott he had been taken into free territory. Scott thought that due to the Missouri Compromise Line thought that due to the Missouri Compromise Line which made slavery illegal in certain areas of the which made slavery illegal in certain areas of the country, he had become free.country, he had become free.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: Court ruled in favor of Sanford. 1) Slaves : Court ruled in favor of Sanford. 1) Slaves were considered property, thus did not have the were considered property, thus did not have the right to sue in court. 2) Would deprive owner of 5right to sue in court. 2) Would deprive owner of 5thth Amendment due process rights if he were stripped Amendment due process rights if he were stripped of property.of property.

PrecedentPrecedent: Missouri Compromise was ruled : Missouri Compromise was ruled unconstitutional, slaves could not sue for freedom.unconstitutional, slaves could not sue for freedom.

Plessy v Ferguson (1896)Plessy v Ferguson (1896)

IssueIssue: 14: 14thth Amendment (Equal Protection) Amendment (Equal Protection)

Court CaseCourt Case: Herman Plessy, 1/8 black, : Herman Plessy, 1/8 black, challenged a Louisiana law that challenged a Louisiana law that mandated separate railroad cars for mandated separate railroad cars for blacks and whites. Plessy sat on a car blacks and whites. Plessy sat on a car designated to whites and was arrested.designated to whites and was arrested.

Court DecisionCourt Decision: In favor of Louisiana law. : In favor of Louisiana law. Was not ruled a violation of the 14Was not ruled a violation of the 14thth Amendment, equal protection clause.Amendment, equal protection clause.

PrecedentPrecedent: Separate but equal : Separate but equal constitutional. Led to an increase of constitutional. Led to an increase of segregation particularly in southern segregation particularly in southern states.states.

Schenck v US (1919)Schenck v US (1919)

IssueIssue: 1: 1stst Amendment – Times of War Amendment – Times of War

Court CaseCourt Case: Schenck circulated a flyer during : Schenck circulated a flyer during World War I urging people to dodge the World War I urging people to dodge the draft. Citing the draft as a violation of the draft. Citing the draft as a violation of the 1313thth Amendment (involuntary servitude). Amendment (involuntary servitude). Schenck was arrested under terms of the Schenck was arrested under terms of the Espionage Act of 1917. Schenck appealed Espionage Act of 1917. Schenck appealed conviction on grounds that his 1conviction on grounds that his 1stst Amendment right had been violated.Amendment right had been violated.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: In favor of the United States. : In favor of the United States. Urging citizens to break the law, and Urging citizens to break the law, and posed a threat to security of the nation if posed a threat to security of the nation if successful (clear and present danger).successful (clear and present danger).

PrecedentPrecedent: 1: 1stst Amendment rights, as well as Amendment rights, as well as others can be limited during times of war.others can be limited during times of war.

Korematsu v US (1944)Korematsu v US (1944)

IssueIssue: 5: 5thth & 14 & 14thth Amendment – Times of War Amendment – Times of War

Court CaseCourt Case: During World War II, the US : During World War II, the US military issued an order to place Japanese military issued an order to place Japanese Americans in internment camps. Americans in internment camps. Korematsu sued the US government on Korematsu sued the US government on the grounds that it was a violation of 5the grounds that it was a violation of 5thth Amendment due process, and the 14Amendment due process, and the 14thth Amendment.Amendment.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: In favor of the United States : In favor of the United States government.government.

PrecedentPrecedent: During times of war, certain : During times of war, certain groupgroup’’s rights can be limited. (Clear & s rights can be limited. (Clear & Present Danger Rule)Present Danger Rule)

Brown v Board of Education Brown v Board of Education (1954)(1954)

IssueIssue: 14: 14thth Amendment – Equal Protection Amendment – Equal Protection (Separate but Equal)(Separate but Equal)

Court CaseCourt Case: Brown sued the Board of : Brown sued the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas because his Education of Topeka, Kansas because his daughter had to walk seven blocks to daughter had to walk seven blocks to catch a bus to a segregated school when catch a bus to a segregated school when there was a school within six blocks of there was a school within six blocks of her house. This was part of a class her house. This was part of a class action suit against the Board of action suit against the Board of Education.Education.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: The court ruled separate : The court ruled separate educational facilities were inherently educational facilities were inherently unequal. The ruling in this case led to unequal. The ruling in this case led to the beginning of the Civil Rights the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, and began the end of Movement, and began the end of segregation. Overturned the decision in segregation. Overturned the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.Plessy v. Ferguson.

PrecedentPrecedent: Separate but Equal is : Separate but Equal is unconstitutional. unconstitutional.

Mapp v Ohio (1961)Mapp v Ohio (1961)

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Mapp v. Ohio (1961)IssueIssue: 4: 4thth Amendment (Search & Seizure) Amendment (Search & Seizure)

Court CaseCourt Case: Police in Cleveland, Ohio believed a : Police in Cleveland, Ohio believed a fugitive was being kept by Mapp in her home. fugitive was being kept by Mapp in her home. The police came to her house demanding The police came to her house demanding entrance, Mapp refused because they did not entrance, Mapp refused because they did not have a warrant. Later police came back, have a warrant. Later police came back, broke into her home, and produced a fake broke into her home, and produced a fake warrant. They did not find the fugitive, but warrant. They did not find the fugitive, but did find pornographic materials. She was did find pornographic materials. She was arrested and convicted. Mapp appealed the arrested and convicted. Mapp appealed the decision as a violation of the 4decision as a violation of the 4thth Amendment. Amendment.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Mapp.: The court ruled in favor of Mapp.

PrecedentPrecedent: Illegal evidence cannot be used in : Illegal evidence cannot be used in court.court.

Engel v Vitale (1962)Engel v Vitale (1962)IssueIssue: 1: 1stst Amendment – Freedom of Amendment – Freedom of

Religion/Separation of Church and StateReligion/Separation of Church and State

Court CaseCourt Case: Students in New York State were : Students in New York State were reciting a prayer to begin the school day. reciting a prayer to begin the school day. Even though students were not required to Even though students were not required to recite the prayer, parents felt this was a recite the prayer, parents felt this was a violation of the 1violation of the 1stst Amendment. Amendment.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: The court ruled that this was a : The court ruled that this was a violation of the establishment clause violation of the establishment clause because it was a prayer, and it was being because it was a prayer, and it was being recited in a public school.recited in a public school.

PrecedentPrecedent: School prayer is unconstitutional.: School prayer is unconstitutional.

Gideon v Wainwright Gideon v Wainwright (1963)(1963)

IssueIssue: 6: 6thth Amendment, 14 Amendment, 14thth Amendment Amendment

Court CaseCourt Case: Gideon was arrested for burglary : Gideon was arrested for burglary of a Florida pool hall. He appeared in court of a Florida pool hall. He appeared in court and asked that an attorney be appointed to and asked that an attorney be appointed to him. The court denied the request on the him. The court denied the request on the grounds that under Florida law, only a grounds that under Florida law, only a person accused of a capital crime received a person accused of a capital crime received a court appointed attorney.court appointed attorney.

Court DecisionCourt Decision: The court ruled in favor of : The court ruled in favor of Gideon, stating that Florida had violated the Gideon, stating that Florida had violated the 66thth Amendment and 14 Amendment and 14thth Amendment, equal Amendment, equal protection clause.protection clause.

PrecedentPrecedent: Indigent defendants (cannot afford : Indigent defendants (cannot afford an attorney) must be provided counsel in all an attorney) must be provided counsel in all felony cases.felony cases.

Escobedo v Illinois Escobedo v Illinois (1964)(1964)

IssueIssue: 5: 5thth & 6 & 6thth Amendment AmendmentCourt CaseCourt Case: Escobedo and another man, : Escobedo and another man,

Benedict DiGerlando were interrogated by Benedict DiGerlando were interrogated by police in connection with a murder. police in connection with a murder. DiGerlando told police that Escobedo DiGerlando told police that Escobedo committed the murder. During the committed the murder. During the interrogation, Escobedo asked to have an interrogation, Escobedo asked to have an attorney, and his attorney asked to speak attorney, and his attorney asked to speak with Escobedo, the police denied both with Escobedo, the police denied both claims. Eventually Escobedo was able to claims. Eventually Escobedo was able to confront DiGerlando, and told police that it confront DiGerlando, and told police that it was DiGerlando who committed the murder, was DiGerlando who committed the murder, by doing so he admitted to being an by doing so he admitted to being an accomplice and was convicted. He accomplice and was convicted. He appealed the conviction because he was appealed the conviction because he was denied the right to speak with his attorney. denied the right to speak with his attorney.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: In favor of Escobedo.: In favor of Escobedo.PrecedentPrecedent: Illegal confessions cannot be used : Illegal confessions cannot be used

in court.in court.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964)Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964)

IssueIssue: 5: 5thth Amendment, Interstate Commerce, & Segregation Amendment, Interstate Commerce, & Segregation

Court CaseCourt Case: The Heart of Atlanta Motel sued the US : The Heart of Atlanta Motel sued the US government over the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights government over the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Heart of Atlanta Motel wanted to continue Act of 1964. The Heart of Atlanta Motel wanted to continue not allowing Blacks to stay at the Motel.not allowing Blacks to stay at the Motel.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the US and the Civil : The court ruled in favor of the US and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled that the interstate Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled that the interstate commerce clause allowed the US to ban the motelcommerce clause allowed the US to ban the motel’’s s discriminatory practice due to the fact that more than ½ of discriminatory practice due to the fact that more than ½ of the motelthe motel’’s business came from out of state.s business came from out of state.

PrecedentPrecedent: Allowed the Federal Government : Allowed the Federal Government

to stop discrimination through use of theto stop discrimination through use of the

interstate commerce clause.interstate commerce clause.

Miranda v Arizona (1966)Miranda v Arizona (1966)

IssueIssue: 5: 5thth & 6 & 6thth Amendment Amendment

Court CaseCourt Case: Ernesto Miranda was arrested for : Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Miranda confessed to the kidnapping and rape. Miranda confessed to the crime, but was not told of his Constitutional crime, but was not told of his Constitutional rights prior to the interrogation. Miranda rights prior to the interrogation. Miranda appealed the conviction on the grounds that the appealed the conviction on the grounds that the police had violated his rights by not informing police had violated his rights by not informing him.him.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: In favor of Miranda. The police had : In favor of Miranda. The police had violated his rights. Police are required to read violated his rights. Police are required to read the the ““Miranda WarningsMiranda Warnings””. Tell suspects of their . Tell suspects of their right to remain silent, to have an attorney, etc…right to remain silent, to have an attorney, etc…

PrecedentPrecedent: Police must inform suspects of their 5: Police must inform suspects of their 5thth & 6& 6thth Amendment rights prior to questioning. Amendment rights prior to questioning.

Tinker v Des Moines Tinker v Des Moines (1969)(1969)

IssueIssue: 1: 1stst Amendment – Freedom of Amendment – Freedom of Speech/ExpressionSpeech/Expression

Court CaseCourt Case: Three students wore armbands with a : Three students wore armbands with a peace sign on them to school as a form of peace sign on them to school as a form of protest against the escalating violence in protest against the escalating violence in Vietnam. The students were told to remove the Vietnam. The students were told to remove the armbands, they refused, and were suspended armbands, they refused, and were suspended from school until they returned without the from school until they returned without the armbands. The parents filed a lawsuit against armbands. The parents filed a lawsuit against the school system for this action stating that it the school system for this action stating that it violated the 1violated the 1stst Amendment. Amendment.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the : The court ruled in favor of the students. The court stated that schools could students. The court stated that schools could establish dress codes, but neede3d to show that establish dress codes, but neede3d to show that a reasonable disruption is being caused to the a reasonable disruption is being caused to the learning environment to ban items. In this case, learning environment to ban items. In this case, the school could not show this.the school could not show this.

PrecedentPrecedent: Schools must show a reasonable : Schools must show a reasonable disruption to learning environment. Upheld 1disruption to learning environment. Upheld 1stst Amendment rights of students.Amendment rights of students.

NY Times v US (1971)NY Times v US (1971)

IssueIssue: 1: 1stst Amendment (Freedom of the Press) Amendment (Freedom of the Press)

Court CaseCourt Case: During US involvement in Vietnam, the : During US involvement in Vietnam, the Pentagon put together a paper which outlined US Pentagon put together a paper which outlined US decision-making in Vietnam. This classified decision-making in Vietnam. This classified document was leaked to the NY Times and the document was leaked to the NY Times and the Washington Post. The NY Times began publishing Washington Post. The NY Times began publishing the findings, but the government filed an the findings, but the government filed an injunction to stop the paper from printing. The NY injunction to stop the paper from printing. The NY Times sued on the grounds that it violated the 1Times sued on the grounds that it violated the 1stst Amendment.Amendment.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the NY : The court ruled in favor of the NY Times. The court state that it was the right of the Times. The court state that it was the right of the paper to print this material because they had paper to print this material because they had received the information legally.received the information legally.

PrecedentPrecedent: Prior restraint is unconstitutional. : Prior restraint is unconstitutional. Government must be able to prove a Government must be able to prove a ““clear and clear and present dangerpresent danger””..

Furman v Georgia (1972)Furman v Georgia (1972)

IssueIssue: 8: 8thth & 14 & 14thth Amendment (Death Penalty) Amendment (Death Penalty)

Court CaseCourt Case: William Furman was burglarizing a house : William Furman was burglarizing a house when the victim woke up. Furman shot the victim, when the victim woke up. Furman shot the victim, but said it was an accident. Because he was but said it was an accident. Because he was committing a felony and committed murder, the committing a felony and committed murder, the State of Georgia sentenced him to death.State of Georgia sentenced him to death.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: Furman appealed his sentence because : Furman appealed his sentence because he thought it was a violation of the 8he thought it was a violation of the 8thth Amendment Amendment against cruel & unusual punishment. Court ruled in against cruel & unusual punishment. Court ruled in favor of Furman overturning the death penalty.favor of Furman overturning the death penalty.

PrecedentPrecedent: Death penalty ruled cruel & : Death penalty ruled cruel &

unusual punishment. Capital punishment mustunusual punishment. Capital punishment must

be specifically identified by the law.be specifically identified by the law.

Roe v Wade (1973)Roe v Wade (1973)

IssueIssue: 9: 9thth & 14 & 14thth Amendment Amendment

Court CaseCourt Case: Texas law did not allow women to : Texas law did not allow women to have abortion unless advised by a doctor have abortion unless advised by a doctor because womanbecause woman’’s life was in jeopardy. s life was in jeopardy. ““Jane Jane RoeRoe”” class action lawsuit questioned the class action lawsuit questioned the constitutionality of the law.constitutionality of the law.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Roe. : The court ruled in favor of Roe. Stated that states cannot pass laws banning Stated that states cannot pass laws banning abortion during the 1abortion during the 1stst trimester (3 months). trimester (3 months).

PrecedentPrecedent: States cannot ban abortion during : States cannot ban abortion during the 1the 1stst trimester. trimester.

US v Nixon (1974)US v Nixon (1974)

IssueIssue: Separation of Power – Checks & Balances: Separation of Power – Checks & Balances

Court CaseCourt Case: During the presidential election of : During the presidential election of 1972, a group of members of C.R.E.E.P. broke 1972, a group of members of C.R.E.E.P. broke into DNC headquarters. During investigation, into DNC headquarters. During investigation, President Nixon was linked to the group, and a President Nixon was linked to the group, and a court issued a subpoena for Nixon to turn over court issued a subpoena for Nixon to turn over audiotapes of White House proceedings. Nixon audiotapes of White House proceedings. Nixon refused citing executive privilege. refused citing executive privilege.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: Does executive privilege exist? Yes : Does executive privilege exist? Yes

What is its definition? President can keep What is its definition? President can keep information if it is a matter of national security. information if it is a matter of national security.

In this case, executive privilege did not apply. In this case, executive privilege did not apply. Nixon eventually resigned from office. Nixon eventually resigned from office.

PrecedentPrecedent: Executive Privilege exists, must show : Executive Privilege exists, must show national security. national security.

Gregg v Georgia (1976)Gregg v Georgia (1976)

IssueIssue: 8: 8thth & 14 & 14thth Amendments (Cruel & Unusual Amendments (Cruel & Unusual Punishment)Punishment)

Court CaseCourt Case: Troy Leon Gregg and another hitchhiker : Troy Leon Gregg and another hitchhiker committed murder and armed robbery. He was committed murder and armed robbery. He was sentenced to death in Georgia, and appealed the sentenced to death in Georgia, and appealed the conviction on the grounds that it violated the 8conviction on the grounds that it violated the 8thth Amendment.Amendment.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: The court ruled against Gregg, stating : The court ruled against Gregg, stating the Georgia law did not violate the 8the Georgia law did not violate the 8thth Amendment. Amendment.

PrecedentPrecedent: Capital punishment is upheld as a : Capital punishment is upheld as a punishment for certain types of crime. punishment for certain types of crime.

Regents of U Cal v Bakke Regents of U Cal v Bakke (1978)(1978)

IssueIssue: 14: 14thth Amendment (Equal Protection) Amendment (Equal Protection)

Court CaseCourt Case: Bakke applied for admission to the : Bakke applied for admission to the University of California at Davis Medical School. The University of California at Davis Medical School. The school admitted 100 students per year. 84 spots school admitted 100 students per year. 84 spots were open to all people, 16 were for minorities, or were open to all people, 16 were for minorities, or economically disadvantaged people. (Affirmative economically disadvantaged people. (Affirmative Action) Bakke (white) was denied admission, but Action) Bakke (white) was denied admission, but was more qualified than many of the 16 was more qualified than many of the 16

minority applicants. Bakke sued minority applicants. Bakke sued because of the schoolbecause of the school’’s admission s admission policy.policy.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: In favor of : In favor of Bakke.Bakke.

PrecedentPrecedent: Affirmative Action : Affirmative Action cases cases

would be decided on a case by would be decided on a case by casecase

basis.basis.

New Jersey v T.L.O. New Jersey v T.L.O. (1985)(1985)

IssueIssue: 4: 4thth Amendment (Search & Seizure) Amendment (Search & Seizure)

Court CaseCourt Case: T.L.O. was accused of smoking in : T.L.O. was accused of smoking in the bathroom at a high school. She denied the bathroom at a high school. She denied and her purse was searched. School officials and her purse was searched. School officials found cigarettes, rolling papers, marijuana, found cigarettes, rolling papers, marijuana, numerous $1 bills, and a list of students who numerous $1 bills, and a list of students who owed her money. T.L.O. appealed her owed her money. T.L.O. appealed her expulsion on the grounds that her 4expulsion on the grounds that her 4thth Amendment rights had been violated.Amendment rights had been violated.

Court DecisionCourt Decision: The court ruled in favor of the : The court ruled in favor of the school. The court stated that the need to school. The court stated that the need to keep guns and drugs out of school created a keep guns and drugs out of school created a situation that school officials should be given situation that school officials should be given greater latitude in searches.greater latitude in searches.

PrecedentPrecedent: Reasonable Suspicion Rule for : Reasonable Suspicion Rule for school searches. Limited the 4school searches. Limited the 4thth Amendment Amendment rights of students.rights of students.

Bethel School District v FraserBethel School District v Fraser (1986)(1986)

IssueIssue: 1: 1stst Amendment (Freedom of Speech in School) Amendment (Freedom of Speech in School)

Court CaseCourt Case: Matthew Fraser gave a speech endorsing a : Matthew Fraser gave a speech endorsing a fellow student for an elected office. During the fellow student for an elected office. During the speech he made comments using an explicit sexual speech he made comments using an explicit sexual metaphor. He was suspended for three days, and metaphor. He was suspended for three days, and denied the right to speak at graduation.denied the right to speak at graduation.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: Fraser appealed the ruling as a violation : Fraser appealed the ruling as a violation of his 1of his 1stst Amendment Rights. The court ruled in favor Amendment Rights. The court ruled in favor of the school, and the right to ban certain speech.of the school, and the right to ban certain speech.

PrecedentPrecedent: 1: 1stst Amendment rights to Amendment rights to freedom of freedom of speech can be limited if school speech can be limited if school can show a can show a reasonable disruption to reasonable disruption to the learning environment.the learning environment.

Hazelwood School District v KuhlmeierHazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier (1988)(1988)

IssueIssue: 1: 1stst Amendment (Freedom of the Press) Amendment (Freedom of the Press)Court CaseCourt Case: A group of former high school : A group of former high school

students filed suit against a principal and students filed suit against a principal and school system because the principal had school system because the principal had deleted an article about teenage deleted an article about teenage pregnancy and divorce from the school pregnancy and divorce from the school newspaper.newspaper.

Court DecisionCourt Decision: The court ruled in favor of : The court ruled in favor of the principal. The principal has the right the principal. The principal has the right to edit the newspaper, and delete to edit the newspaper, and delete materials that he/she is inappropriate to materials that he/she is inappropriate to maintain the educational environment.maintain the educational environment.

PrecedentPrecedent: 1: 1stst Amendment rights of students Amendment rights of students limited.limited.

Texas v Johnson (1989)Texas v Johnson (1989)

IssueIssue: 1: 1stst Amendment & Flag Burning Amendment & Flag Burning

Court CaseCourt Case: In 1984 the Republican Party held the : In 1984 the Republican Party held the National Convention in Dallas, Texas. Many National Convention in Dallas, Texas. Many groups staged protests. As a part of the groups staged protests. As a part of the protests, Johnson set fire to an American Flag, protests, Johnson set fire to an American Flag, and was arrested s Texas had a law banning the and was arrested s Texas had a law banning the burning of the Texas State Flag, and the US burning of the Texas State Flag, and the US Flag. Johnson appealed on the grounds that the Flag. Johnson appealed on the grounds that the law violated his 1law violated his 1stst Amendment rights. Amendment rights.

Court RulingCourt Ruling: In favor of Johnson. As a result, : In favor of Johnson. As a result, some groups would like to add a Constitutional some groups would like to add a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning as a form of Amendment to ban flag burning as a form of protest.protest.

PrecedentPrecedent: Flag burning protected by the 1: Flag burning protected by the 1stst Amendment.Amendment.