1|Page

SupremeCourtCases

Period1

Fall2015

2|Page

TableofContentsYear

Topic Author Page

PowersoftheFederalGovernment(Supremacy)1819 DartmouthCollegev.Woodward ByEmilyGray 41819 McCullochv.Maryland ByNickKasprzak 51824 Gibbonsv.Ogden ByDanielLim 61964 HeartofAtlantaMotelv.US ByJayWeathington 71974 USv.Nixon ByPhoebeClawson 8 FirstAmendment1943 WestVirginiaBoardofEducationv.Barnette ByMadisonPendergraft 101962 Engelv.Vitale ByJacobVaughters 111963 AbingtonSchoolDistrictv.Schempp BySarahBryant 121968 Tinkerv.DesMoinesSchoolDistrict ByBrendanKelly 131972 Wisconsinv.Yoder By:CodySnyder 141985 Wallacev.Jaffree ByMaddieNugent 151986 BethelSchoolDistrictv.Fraser ByRachelBailey 161988 HazelwoodSchoolDistrictv.Kuhlmeier By:AnnaWoodhouse 171989 Texasv.Johnson ByAmberBaldwin 182010 CitizensUnitedv.FEC ByDocRedman 19 RightsoftheAccused1942 Bettsv.Brady By:AilsaConolly 211961 Mappv.Ohio ByBenZamonek 221963 Gideonv.Wainwright By:BriannaGreen 231964 Escobedov.Illinois By:NicholasCochran 241966 Mirandav.Arizona By;SimonePeterson 251967 InReGault By:BrennaO’Brien 261976 Greggv.Georgia ByEricScollard 272013 Salinasv.Texas By:MeredithCash 28 EqualProtectionoftheLaw1857 DredScottv.Sandford By:WalkerBooth 301896 Plessyv.Ferguson By:AlexiaThompson 311944 Korematsuv.US ByMatthewBissette 321954 Brownv.BoardofEducationofTopeka,Kansas By:RickyWerner 331964 HeartofAtlantaMotelv.US By:JayWeathington 341971 Swannv.Charlotte-MecklenburgBoardofEducation By:StephenSchelfe 351972 Furmanv.Georgia By:MeghanGasper 361973 Roev.Wade By:JadaGardner 371978 RegentsoftheUniversityofCaliforniav.Bakke By:CarlieSellers 38

3|Page

Part1:PowersoftheFederalGovernment(Supremacy)

4|Page

DartmouthCollegev.Woodward(1819)By:EmilyGrayBackgroundInformationTheNewHampshireLegislaturewantedtoturnDartmouthUniversity,aprivateinstitution,intoapublicstateuniversity.ThelegislatureattemptedthisbychangingtheschoolcharterandgavecontroltothegovernorofNewHampshire.TheoldtrusteesthenfiledalawsuitagainstWilliamH.Woodward,whosidedwiththenewtrustees,whowantedapublicuniversity.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)DidtheNewHampshireLegislatureunconstitutionallyinterferewithDartmouthCollege’srightsunderthecontractclause?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Thecontractclause“prohibitsstatesfromviolatingcontractswithprivateorpubliccorporations”.TheMarshallCourtdeemedthecollegecharterasacontractbetweenprivateparties,whichmeantthattheLegislaturecouldn’tinterferewiththecollege.

Precedent

WilliamH.Woodward

Thiscasesettheprecedentthat“contract”appliednotonlytorelationsbetweengovernmentandcitizens,butalsototransactionsthatinvolveaperson’spropertyrights.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeWashingtonthoughtthatsincetheNewHampshireLegislaturedidn’treceiveanypriorapprovalfromDartmouthCollegebeforehand,DartmouthCollegeshouldnotbeboundtobecomepublic.Inaddition,theStateCourtshouldnotbeallowedtoforcetheCollegetoagreetobecomepublic.JusticeStorywantedtofollow“superantiquasviasunderthelaw”,whichmeanthewasguidedbyauthorityandprinciples.Storybelievedthathemust,asajustice,pronouncethelawashesawit,andnotbypeoplepersuadinghimtofeelacertainway.Therefore,sinceDartmouthwasaprivateinstitution,theNewHampshireLegislatureisnotallowedtoforcethecollegetobecomepublic.ThisisduetothecontractclauseintheConstitution. “ThecharterofDartmouthCollegecontainsnosuchreservation,andIamthereforeboundtodeclarethattheactsoftheLegislatureofNewHampshirenowinquestiondoimpairtheobligationsofthatcharter,andareconsequentlyunconstitutionalandvoid.”

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeDuvallagreedwithWoodwardinthatDartmouthshouldbeapublicinstitution.HewantedtheSupremeCourttorulesuchthattheoldtrusteesgaveWoodward$20,000topayforthecaseandtoapologize(inaway)forfilingchargesagainsthim.

SourcesCited(MLA)AmericanHistoryPart1:TheDividingNation.Digitalimage.Aventalearning.com.N.p.,n.d.Web.6Dec.2015."TrusteesofDartmouthCollegev.Woodward."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.“TrusteesofDartmouthCollegevWoodward”Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec.1,2015

QuickLinkshttps://oyez,org/cases/1780-1850/17us518https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17/518#writing-USSC_CR_0017_0518_ZDhttp://aventalearning.com/content168staging/2008AmHistA/unit3/html/section_3_page_7.html

5|Page

McCullochv.Maryland(1819)By:NickKasprzak

BackgroundInformationIn1816,CongresscharteredTheSecondBankoftheUnitedStates.In1818,thestateofMarylandpassedlegislationtoimposetaxesonthebank.JamesW.McCulloch,thecashieroftheBaltimorebranchofthebank,refusedtopaythetax.-Petitioner:McCulloch-Respondent:Maryland

ConstitutionalIssue(s)-Congresshaspowertoincorporateabank-TheBankoftheUnitedStateshas,constitutionally,arighttoestablishitsbranchesorofficesofdiscountanddepositwithinanystate-TheStatewithinwhichsuchbranchmaybeestablishedcannot,withoutviolatingtheConstitution,taxthatbranch.-TheStateshavenopower,bytaxationorotherwise,toretard,impede,burthen,orinanymannercontroltheoperationsoftheconstitutionallawsenactedbyCongresstocarryintoeffectthepowersvestedinthenationalGovernment.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Marylandmaynotimposeataxonthebank

Precedent

ConcurringOpinion(s)NoConcurringOpinions

DissentingOpinion(s)NoDissentingOpinions

SourcesCited(MLA)Image"Mccullough+v+maryland-GoogleSearch."Mccullough+v+maryland-GoogleSearch.N.p.,n.d.Web.01Dec.2015."McCullochv.Maryland17U.S.316(1819)."JustiaLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.01Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.google.com/search?q=mccullough+v+maryland&biw=1440&bih=775&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPm47N4rrJAhWK7CYKHQ7DCsMQ_AUIBigB&safe=active&ssui=on#imgrc=1vVel0qJu0t4oM%3Ahttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/17us316https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/

6|Page

Gibbonsv.Ogden(1824)By:DanielLim

BackgroundInformation:Statesgavelicensestoindividualstooperatesteamboatsonwatersintheparticularstateswaters.Thestatesthatwouldenforcetheselawshadsubstantialfeesforoutofstatesteamboatoperators.ThomasGibbonsasteamboatownerwhodidbusinessbetweenNewJerseyandNewYorkwithafederalcoastallicensewasstillbeingfinedbythestateofNewYorkevenwithhisfederallicense,sohechallengedAaronOgden’smonopolylicensegrantthatmonopolizedtheareaandwoulddownplayonsmallbusinesseslikeGibbons’.

ConstitutionalIssue(s):

NewYorkdidnothavetherighttoregulateinterstatecommerce.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion):NewYork’srequirementforanoutofstatesteamboattopayafeefornavigationprivilegeswasdeemedunconstitutional.

Precedent:NationalgovernmenthasexclusivepowertoregulateinterstatecommerceundertheSupremacyClauseandCommerceClause

ConcurringOpinion(s):“The“powertoregulatecommerce”heremeanttobegrantedwasthatpowertoregulatecommercewhichpreviouslyexistedinthestates”JusticeJohnson.

DissentingOpinion(s):Nodissentingopinion

SourcesCited(MLA):“GibbonsvsJohnson:.Justia.com.Justia.Web.8Dec.2016.Johnson,Justice.“GibbonsvsOgden”.Law.cornell.LII.Web.8Dec.2016.Mcbride,Alex.“GibbonsvsOgden.”PBS.PBS,1Dec2006.Web.8Dec.2016.Oyez.org.KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech.Web.8Dec.2016

QuickLinks:http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_gibbons.htmlhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22/1#writing-USSC_CR_0022_0001_ZChttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/22/1/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/22us1

7|Page

HeartofAtlantaMotelv.US(1964)By:JayWeathington

BackgroundInformationTheownerofahotelinAtlanta,the“HeartofAtlanta”,wasrefusingtoserveblackpeople.TitleIIoftheCivilRightsof1964preventedfrompublicfacilitiesaffectingcommerce.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)HisrefusingtoprovidehousingtoAfrican-AmericanpeoplebrokeTitle2oftheCivilRightsActof1964.Thefacilitywasbannedfromdiscriminating,andstillpreventedblackpeoplefromreceivingserviceshowsthattheacthasclearlybebroken.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheSupremeCourt’sdecisionwastoupholdtheconstitutionalityoftheCivilRightsActof1964,essentiallyflatlyrebukingclaimsfromtheplaintiff.

Precedent

ThiswasthefirstoccasionwhereCongresshadtodecidewhetherprivatediscriminationwasacrime,showingthatthiswasnotbasedonanyprecedent.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeBlackhadtheconcurringopinionthattheissuewasnotinbreakingtheCivilRightsActof1964.itwasthefactthatpreventingblackcustomerswhowereinterstatetravelersfromreceivingservicewasanobstructionofinterstatecommerce.JusticeGoldbergpresentedanearlyidenticalconcurringopinion.

DissentingOpinion(s)Noneapplicable.

SourcesCited(MLA)“HeartofAtlantaMotel,Inc.v.UnitedStates379U.S.241(1964).”JustiaLaw.Wed9Dec2015."HeartofAtlantaMotel,Inc.v.UnitedStates."Oyez.Web.10Dec.2015."HeartofAtlantaMotelv.UnitedStates."Prezi.com.Web.10Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/241/case.htmlhttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/515http://mrspencer.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/heart-of-atlanta.jpg

8|Page

USv.Nixon(1974)By:PhoebeClawson

BackgroundInformationFivemonthsbeforethe1972election,burglarswerediscoveredintheDemocraticPartyheadquartersintheWatergateapartmentcomplexinWashington.TheburglarywasfoundtobeconnectedtoPresidentNixonandotherWhiteHouseofficials.Nixondeniedaffiliationwiththescandal,butrefusedtoturnoveraudiotapesofhisphoneconversationstoCongress,claimingthattheywerecoveredby“executiveprivilege”,thePresident’srighttokeepinformationclassified.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)IsthePresident’sright/executiveprivilegetosafeguardcertaininformation(confidentialitypower)immunefromjudicialreview?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)No,neithertheseparationofpowersnortheneedforconfidentialityofhigh-levelcommunicationscansustainanabsoluteexecutiveprivilege.Thefundamentaldemandsofdueprocessoflawmustbefollowed.AllnineoftheSupremeCourtjusticesagreedonthisdecision(9:0)

Precedent

ThepresidentisnotcompletelyimmunefromaSupremeCourtsubpoena.

ConcurringOpinion(s)NoConcurringOpinions

DissentingOpinion(s)NoDissentingOpinions

SourcesCited(MLA)"UnitedStatesv.Nixon."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015."{{meta.pageTitle}}."{{meta.siteName}}.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015."UnitedStatesv.Nixon418U.S.683(1974)."JustiaLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/418/683#writing-USSC_CR_0418_0683_ZOhttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-1766https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/683/

9|Page

Part2:TheFirstAmendment

10|Page

WestVirginiaBoardofEducationv.Barnette(1943)By:MadisonPendergraft

BackgroundInformationIn1943,WalterBarnettesuedtheWestVirginiaBoardofEducationwhenhischildgotsuspendedfornotsalutingtheUSAflagandrecitingthe“PledgeofAllegiance.”Atthetime,citizensofWestVirginiawererequiredbylawtostandandrecitethe“PledgeofAllegiance”withrighthandoutwardsalutingtheUSAflag.Allthosewhodidnotweresubjecttodisciplinaryrepercussions.ConstitutionalIssue(s)TheconstitutionalissueofthetimewasthatforcingsomeonetosaluteisaformofspeechandgoesagainstFirstAmendmentrightduetobeingawayof"communicatingideas".

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Thevoteincourtwas6-3infavorofBarnette.TheydeclaredthatanAmericanCitizencannotbeforcedtosalutetheflagandrecitethepledge.Theycanalsonotbepunishedfornotdoingso.TherationalizationwasdeclaredthatforcinganyoneintosalutingtheflagistakingawaytheirFirstAmendmentrightandrequiringthemtodosomethingtheydon'twanttodo.

Precedent

Theprecedentwassetthat"Noofficial...Canprescribewhatshallbeorthodoxinpolitics,nationalism,religion,orothermattersofopinionorforcecitizenstoconfessbywordoracttheirfaiththerein."

ConcurringOpinion(s)Withconcurringopinions,JusticeBlackandMurphysaidthepreviousstatutedidnotextendtoreligiousprotectionsgainedthroughtheFirstandFourteenthAmendments.Thejusticessawitasareligiouspersecutiontocondemncertainreligionsbasedontheirbeliefs.Theydidnotseethisasawaytogainnationality,butinsteadasawaytosuppressthosewhoarelesslikelytospeakup.

DissentingOpinion(s)Indissension,JusticeFrankfurterwrotethathedidnotseeaproblemwithrequiringpeopletosalutetheflagandsawitasthegovernmentgettingintosmalltownissueswheretheyshouldn'tbestickingtheirnoses.

SourcesCited(MLA)"WestVirginiaStateBoardofEducationv.Barnette."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624>WestVirginiaStateBoardofEducationv.Barnette|USLaw|LII/LegalInformationInstitute.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/319/624%26gt%3B#writing-USSC_CR_0319_0624_ZC1WestVirginiaStateBoardofEducationv.Barnette-Wikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia.(n.d.).RetrievedDecember8,2015,fromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/319/624%26gt%3B#writing-USSC_CR_0319_0624_ZC1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette

11|Page

Engelv.Vitale(1962)By:JacobVaughters

BackgroundInformationTherewasaschoolwhereeverydayavoluntaryprayerwasheldthatsaid“Almightygod,weacknowledgeourdependenceuponthee,andbegthyblessingsuponus,ourteacher,andourcountry.”Parentsbeganquestioningtheconstitutionalityofthisdailyprayer.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Thequestionathandwaswhetherthisprayerviolatedthe“establishmentofreligion”clauseintheFirstAmendment

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Themajorityopinionwasyes,theprayerdidinfactviolatethe“establishmentofreligion”clauseintheFirstAmendment.Althoughitwasanon-denominationalprayerandwasalsovoluntaryitcouldnotbeseenatanyotheranglebutunconstitutional.

Precedent

Thiscasesettheprecedentthatgovernmentsponsoredprayerwasaviolationofthe“establishmentofreligion”clause.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeDouglasstatedthatreligionisafreedomandyouhavearighttoitbutitisnottobepusheduponminorsonpurposeorunintentionallybyhavingsomethinglikeamorningprayer.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeStewartstatedthathedidnotbelievelettingpeoplesayaprayeriftheywanttodoesnotgoagainsttheestablishmentclauseandthatitistheirfreedomtoreligionandspeech.Healsomadeapointthatatthebeginningofadayincourttheystandandinvokethepowerofgodandthatheseesnodifferencebetweenthetwosituations.

SourcesCited(MLA)“Engelv.Vitale”,www.Law.Cornell.edu,Dec.72015.Engelv.Vitale.”Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech.n.d.Dec.7,2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#writing-USSC_CR_0370_0421_ZDhttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468

12|Page

AbingtonSchoolDistrictv.Schempp(1963)By:SarahBryant

BackgroundInformationThiscasewasarguedin1963overthecontroversialrequirementsatAbingtonHighSchool.StudentsintheschoolwereexpectedtoreadatleasttenversesfromtheBibleeachmorningandrecitetheLord’sPrayer,unlessthestudenthadanotesignedbyaparent.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Religiousfreedom,grantedtoallcitizensintheFirstAmendment,istheissuebeingarguedinthiscase.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheCourtfoundtheseactivitiesasaviolationandencroachmentontheFreeExerciseClauseandtheEstablishmentClause.Thisdecisionwas8-1.

Precedent

None

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeBrennan-“Involvementsofreligioninpublicinstitutionsofakindwhichoffendsthefirstandfourteenthamendments,”JusticeDouglas-“Itinsistsonbaptizingchildren,”JusticeGoldberg-“Truereligiouslibertyrequiresthatgovernmentneitherengageinnorcompelreligiouspractice,”

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeStewart-“Eachstatewasleftfreetogoitsownwayandpurseitsownpolicywithrespecttoreligion,”

SourcesCited(MLA)“SchoolDistrictofAbingtonTownship,Pennsylvaniav.Schempp.”Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech.n.d.Dec1,2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/142https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/374/203#writing-USSC_CR_0374_0203_ZChttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/203/

13|Page

Tinkerv.DesMoinesSchoolDistrict(1968)By:BrendanKelly

BackgroundInformationSeveralstudentsintheDesMoinesschooldistrictwantedtoprotestthewarinVietnambywearingblackarmbandstoschool.Theschoolsystemfoundoutandcreatedarulesayinganystudentsfoundwearinganarmbandwouldbeaskedtoremoveitorfacesuspension.Thestudentsignoredtheruleandweresuspended.SoonaftertheysuedtheschooldistrictsayingtheirFirstAmendmentrightswereviolated.ConstitutionalIssue(s)Arestudentprotestsduringschoolhoursandonschoolproperty,protectedundertheFirstAmendment?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)7-2infavorofTinker,Thestudents’protestsareallowedduringschoolhoursandonschoolpropertyaslongastheyposenothreattotheworkenvironmentoftheschool.JusticeFortasWearingthearmbandiscloseto“purespeech”whichisprotectedundertheFirstAmendment.Alsotheplannedprotestposednoreasonablethreattothedisciplineandorderoftheschool,makingthepolicybanningarmbandsanunreasonablebreachofthestudentbody’sFirstAmendmentrights.However,thecourtstillrecognizesthestate’sandschoolofficial’sauthorityto“prescribeandcontrolconduct”inthepublicschoolsystem.

Precedent

TheFirstAmendmentprotectsstudents’righttoprotestaslongastheprotestdoesnotinterferewiththeworkenvironmentoftheschool.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeStewartHeagreeswithmostofwhatthecourthaslaidout,buttakesissuewiththeFirstAmendmentrightsofchildrenbeingequalthoseofadults.JusticeWhiteHenotestheCourtdrawingadistinctionbetweencommunicationbywordsandcommunicationbyacts.HealsostatesthathedoesnotagreewithsomeofthepointslaidoutinBurnsidev.Byarswhichwasrelieduponheavilybythecourtinthiscase.DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeBlackHebelievesremovingthepowerforschoolofficialstoproperlyrestrictdressandconductwilltransferthatresponsibilityfromthoseofficialstothecourts.Givingthecourtstoomuchresponsibilityintheoversightandmaintainingoftherulesanddecidingwhatisareasonablethreattoaschool'sworkenvironment.Healsothinksthataschoolisnotanappropriateplacetoexpresstheseprotestsandwhilethatrightisprotected,thatprotectiondoesnotapplyeverywhereandatalltimes.JusticeHarlanHebelievestheschoolofficialsshouldbegivenwideauthoritytomaintainorderandagoodworkingenvironmentintheirschoolsystem.However,hedoesnotwanttoexemptthemfromtheFirstandFourteenthAmendments.Incaseslikethistheschoolboardwouldonlybeconsideredinthewrongiftheirrulesweremotivatedbynon-legitimateschoolconcerns,forexamplesuppressinganunpopularviewpointwhilepermittingapopularone.

SourcesCited(MLA)“Tinkerv.DesMoinesIndependentCommunitySchoolDistrict.”Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec7,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21>“Tinkerv.DesMoinesIndependentCommunitySchoolDistrict”,www.Law.Cornell.edu,Dec.72015.

QuickLinksCaseOverviewJusticeOpinions

14|Page

Wisconsinv.Yoder(1972)By:CodySnyder

BackgroundInformation:JonasYoderandWallaceMiller,bothmembersoftheOldOrderAmishreligion,andAdinYutzy,amemberoftheConservativeAmishMennoniteChurch,wereprosecutedunderaWisconsinlawthatrequiredallchildrentoattendpublicschoolsuntilage16.Thethreeparentsrefusedtosendtheirchildrentosuchschoolsaftertheeighthgrade,arguingthathighschoolattendancewascontrarytotheirreligiousbeliefs.

ConstitutionalIssue(s):DidWisconsin'srequirementthatallparentssendtheirchildrentoschoolatleastuntilage16violatetheFirstAmendmentbycriminalizingtheconductofparentswhorefusedtosendtheirchildrentoschoolforreligiousreasons?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion):Inaunanimousdecision,thecourtruledinfavorifthefreeexerciseofreligionundertheFirstAmendment.TheCourtfoundthevaluesandprogramsofsecondaryschoolwhereindirectconflictwiththatoftheAmishreligionperspectives.

Precedent:

Theprecedentthatwassetwasfreeexerciseofreligionunderthe1stAmendmentoutweighsstateslawswhenclaimedforareligiouspurpose.

ConcurringOpinion(s):JusticeStewart-Hebelievedthatwecannotimposethecriminalpunishmentupontheguardiansforreligiouslybasedrefusaltocompeltheirchildrentoattendpublichighschool.JusticeWhite-Heclaimsthattheirclaimswoulddrasticallybechangedifthereligiousrefusalcalledfornoschoolingatall.

DissentingOpinion:JusticeDouglas-TheCourtassumestheonlyintereststhatmatterarethoseoftheparents.Thecourtagreestotheclaim,theparentsareseekingvindicatetotheirfreeexerciseclaims,butalsothatoftheirchildren.

SourcesCited(MLA)"Wisconsinv.Yoder."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015."Wisconsinv.Yoder."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-110https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/406/205#writing-USSC_CR_0406_0205_ZD

15|Page

Wallacev.Jaffree(1985)By:MaddieNugent

BackgroundInformationIn1985MobileAlabama,threeofMr.Jaffree’schildrenwenttoapublicschoolwheretheteachersconductedregularprayerservicesduringthedaywiththestudents.Thesepracticesendorsedreligionamongthestudentbody,therebyviolatingtheFirstAmendment.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)ThepublicschoolviolatedtheFirstAmendmentbyendorsingreligion.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheAlabamalawwasunconstitutionalbecausethecasediscoveredthatnotonlydidthestatefailtoremainreligiouslyneutral,buttherewasalsoaffirmativereligiousendorsement.

Precedent

“...thestatutefailsthefirstprongoftheLemontestandthereforeviolatestheEstablishmentClause.”

ConcurringOpinion(s)TherewereafewconcurringopinionsintheCourtbysomeoftheJustices.Powellstatedthatthedefendant(AlabamaLaw)violatedthe1stAmendment,butsomemomentsofsilencestatutesmaybeconstitutional.JusticeO’ConnoragreedwithPowell,butstatedthatmomentsofsilenceisnotinherentlyreligious.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeRehnquistsuggestedthecourtembraceamorerestrictedinterpretationoftheEstablishmentClausethatwouldpermitvocalgroupprayerinpublicschools.JusticeWhiteontheotherhandbringsupaninterestingpoint.HestatedthatitisdifficulttoremaincompletelyreligiouslyneutralasacourtbecausegiventheFreeExerciseClausethegovernmentmustoccasionallyexemptareligiousobserverfromanotherwisegenerallyapplicableobligation.JusticeBurgerstatedthathebelievesinthepowerofprayerandtheDivineguidanceitprovidesthepeoplethatconductprayerregularly.HemadepointsabouthowboththeSenateandHouseofRepresentativesbegineachmeetingwithprayer.

SourcesCited(MLA)"FindLaw'sUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCaseandOpinions."Findlaw.Web.10Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttp://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/472/38.htmlhttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1984/83-812

16|Page

BethelSchoolDistrictv.Fraser(1986)By:RachelBailey

BackgroundInformationMathewFraser,ahighschoolstudentatthetime,deliveredaspeechduringaschoolassemblyadvocatingforhisfriend’scandidacyforstudentoffice.Inthespeech,Fraserusedaseriesofsexualinnuendosandwaslatersuspendedfromschoolfordeliveringthespeechtoover600students.Hewasthenprohibitedfromspeakingatgraduationdespitehavingbeenvotedtodosobythestudentbody.TheschoolsystemdisciplinedFraseronthegroundsofhisspeech“disruptingtheeducationalprocess.”

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Doesthefirstamendmentprohibitaschoolsystemfromdiscipliningastudentfordeliveringacrudespeechtohisfellowstudentbodyduringaschoolassembly?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheSupremeCourtfoundthatitwasinfactappropriatefortheschoolsystemtoprohibittheuseofvulgarlanguage.Theydidhowever,rulethatFrasershouldbeallowedtospeakatgraduationafterall.

Precedent

“Itistrue,however,thattheStatehasinterestsinteachinghighschoolstudentshowtoconductcivilandeffectivepublicdiscourseandinavoidingdisruptionofeducationalschoolactivities.Thus,theCourtholdsthat,undercertaincircumstances,highschoolstudentsmayproperlybereprimandedforgivingaspeechatahighschoolassemblywhichschoolofficialsconcludedisruptedtheschool'seducationalmission”

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeBrennanhadaconcurringopinion.HebelievedthattheschoolsystemhadarighttoprohibitprofanelanguagewithouthavingitviolatetheFirstAmendment.

DissentingOpinion(s) JusticeMarshallandJusticeStevensbothhasdissentingopinions.Theybothbelievedthatthespeechdidn’tnecessarilydisrupttheeducationalprocess,andthereforeshouldn’thavebeenpunishablebysuspension.

SourcesCited(MLA)BethelSchoolDistrictNo.403v.Fraser."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1667https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/478/675#writing-USSC_CR_0478_0675_ZC

17|Page

HazelwoodSchoolDistrictv.Kuhlmeier(1988)By:AnnaWoodhouse

BackgroundInformationStudentsofHazelwoodEastHighSchoolpublishedworksintheschoolnewspaperthattheschoolprincipalfoundinappropriateandorderedthattheworksbeheldfrompublication.CathyKuhlmeierand2otherformerstudentstookthecasetocourt.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)freedomofspeech,freedomofthepress

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)5to3decision,heldthattheFirstAmendmentdidnotrequireschoolstoaffirmativelypromoteparticulartypesofstudentspeech.Theschoolhadtherighttorefusetosponsorspeechthatwasinconsistentwithsharedvaluesofcivilizedsocialorder.

Precedent

Aslongastheeducatorsactionswere“reasonablyrelatedtolegitimatepedagogicalconcerns”,theydon’toffendtheFirstAmendment.

ConcurringOpinion(s)n/a

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeBrennan:theschoolpaperwasanopportunitytoexpresstheirviewswhilegaininganappreciationoftheirrightsandresponsibilitiesundertheFirstAmendment.

SourcesCited(MLA)"HazelwoodSchoolDistrictv.Kuhlmeier."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015."HazelwoodSch.Dist.v.Kuhlmeier484U.S.260(1988)."JustiaLaw.Justica,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinksJusticia,Oyez

18|Page

Texasv.Johnson(1989)By:AmberBaldwin

BackgroundInformationIn1984,GregoryLeeJohnsonburnedanAmericanflagwhileprotestingReaganadministrationpolicies.ForviolatingaTexaslawagainstflagdesecration,hewassentencedtoa$2000fineandayearinjail.TheTexasCourtofCriminalAppealsreversedthedecisionbeforeitwenttotheSupremeCourt.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)DoesJohnson’sburningoftheAmericanflagcountasaformofexpressionthatmustbeprotectedundertheFirstAmendment’sfreedomofspeech?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Thejusticesruled5-4thatJohnson’sactionwasaformofselfexpressionandmustbeprotectedbytheFirstAmendment.Evenifsomethingisoffensive,thatdoesnotpermitinfringementoffreedomofspeech.

Precedent ____________________________________________|******|________________________________||*****|________________________________||******|________________________________||*****|________________________________||******|________________________________||*****|________________________________||******|________________________________||*****|________________________________||******|________________________________||-----------|________________________________||___________________________________________||___________________________________________||___________________________________________|

Self-expressiveactionscannotbecriminalizedbasedonlyonpersonaloffense.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeKennedyagreedwiththemajorityopinionandwantedtoaddthateventhoughtheyarereluctanttolethimgofree,itisonaphilosophicalbasisthathewouldbeimprisoned.Hesaidthattheflagprotectseventhosewhoholditincontempt.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeRehnquistbelievedthattheflaghasauniquenessthatjustifiesprohibitionagainstburningit.Theybelievedthatbecauseitisthesymbolofthenation,itisaspecialcaseandthatitisConstitutionaltobandesecrationofit.

SourcesCited(MLA)"Texasv.Johnson."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015."Texasv.Johnson."Www.law.cornell.edu.LegalInformationInstitute.Web.8Dec.2015.

QuickLinks<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-155>https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/491/397#writing-USSC_CR_0491_0397_ZC

19|Page

CitizensUnitedv.FederalElectionsCommission(2010)By:DocRedman

BackgroundInformationCitizensUnited,apoliticalactioncommittee,releasedadocumentaryagainstHillaryClinton.Theycreatedallsortsofadstorunonbroadcastandcabletv,butwantedtorunthemwithin30daysoftheprimaryelection.UnitedStatesCode(USC)441prohibitsspeechthatadvocatesordefeatsacandidatetoberunto50,000ormorepeoplewithin30daysofaprimaryelection.Also,BipartisanCampaignReformAct(BCRA)sections201and311statethatCitizensUnitedwouldhavetoprovideadisclaimerontheiradsanddocumentarybecauseitwasn’tauthorizedbyacandidate.UnitedCitizenssoughtrelieffromtheselawsinordertoruntheirdocumentaryandads.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)CitizensUnitedarguedthatUSC441isunconstitutionalasappliedtotheirdocumentaryandsections201and311ofBCRAarealsounconstitutionalwhenappliedtothedocumentaryandads.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheSupremeCourtconcludedwitha5-4decisioninfavoroftheFEC.ThemajoritydecisionstatedthatBCRA’srestrictionsregardingthedocumentarydonotviolatethe1stAmendment.Also,BCRA’sdisclosurerequirementsarejustifiedbyagovernmentalinterestineducatingsocietyaboutpoliticalspending.Themajoritydecisionuphelddisclosurerequirementsforpoliticaladsandthebanonpoliticalcontributionsfromunions/corporations.USC441wasupheldaswell.

Precedent

ThedecisionbytheSupremeCourtmadeitokforcorporationsandlaborunionstospendasmuchastheywanttoconvincepeopletovotefororagainstacandidate.However,thisdecisiondidnotchangethelawthatitisillegaltogivedirectcontributionstocandidatesrunningforoffice.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeThomas,JusticeScalia,JusticeStevensandJusticeRobertsprovidedconcurringopinions.JusticeThomaswrotethattheCourtproperlyrejectedthetheoryofdirectprohibitionofspeech.JusticeScaliawrotethattheFirstAmendmentonlytalksoffreedomofspeech,notofspeakersanddoesn’texcludecorporations.Hesaidthedissentingopiniondoesn’thavesufficientevidencetosayitisviolatingtheFirstAmendment.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeThomasandJusticeStevenswrotedissentingopinionsaswell.JusticeThomasdissentstheCourt’sdecisiontoupholdBCRAsection201and311becauseitendorsesunconstitutionalbehaviorasapriceforopenpoliticalspeech,whichistheobjectofFirstAmendmentprotection.JusticeStevensblastedtheCourtfor“blatantlydisregardingprecedentandtheprincipleofstaredecisis.”

SourcesCited(MLA)"CitizensUnitedv.FEC."N.p.,n.d.Web.8Dec.2015."CitizensUnitedv.FederalElectionComm'n558U.S.___(2010)."JustiaLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.USNews.U.S.News&WorldReport,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015."CitizensUnitedv.FederalElectionCommission|LawCase."EncyclopediaBritannicaOnline.EncyclopediaBritannica,n.d.Web.13Dec.2015.

QuickLinkswww.Oyez.orgwww.Justia.comwww.usnews.comwww.britannica.com

20|Page

Part3:RightsoftheAccused

21|Page

Bettsv.Brady(1942)By:AilsaConolly

BackgroundInformationSmithBettswasa43yearoldmanwhowasindictedforrobberyinMaryland,butwasunabletoaffordcounselsoherequestedthatonebeappointedforhimhowevertheJudgedeniedtherequest.Bettsfoughttodefendhimselfandarguethathehadtherighttocounselbutthejudgeconcludedthatcriminaldefendantswhocannotaffordalawyerdonothavetherighttohaveoneappointedforthem.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Thiscourtcaseviolatedthe6thAmendmentintheUSConstitutionthatguaranteestherighttocounselinallcriminalprosecutions,andthe14thAmendmentthatstatestherighttodueprocessandequalprotectionoflaw.ThiscourtcaseviolatedtherightsofSmithBettsbecausehewasrefusedcounsel,eventhoughhehadalegalrighttohaveoneappointedtohim.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheSupremeCourtruledthatcriminaldefendantswhocannotaffordalawyerdonothaverighttoastateappointedattorney.TheJusticesarguedthatthe14thAmendmentdidnotincludethespecificsinvolvedinthe6thAmendmentandthereforewerenotviolatinganyconstitutionalrights.

Precedent [picture]TheBettsvs.BradycasesetaprecedentthatallowedtheStatetodetermineif/whencounselshouldbeappointed,althoughJusticeBlackreversedthedecisionandrequiredthatcounselisprovidedforalldefendantsincriminaltrials.

ConcurringOpinion(s)N/A

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeHugoBlackdissentedagainstthemajoritybecausehebelievedthatfinancialstabilityiswhatdependsonapersons’sentencing.Hesawthisasaseriousviolationtothe14thAmendmentthatstatesallpeoplehaveequalprotectionunderthelaw.JusticeBlackwastheonewhoreversedthedecisiononthiscaseandrequiredthatalldefendantsbeprovidedwithcounsel.

SourcesCited(MLA)“Bettsv.Brady.”Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec.10,2015.“Bettsv.Brady.”LII/LegalInformationInstitute.Web.Dec.10,2015

QuickLinkshttp://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/the-right-to-counsel-transcripts-and-other-aids-poverty-equality-and-the-adversary-system/betts-v-brady/https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/316/455

22|Page

Mappv.Ohio(1961)By:BenZemonek

BackgroundInformationDollreeMappwasconvictedofpossessingobscenematerialsafteranillegalpolicesearchofherhomeforafugitive.TheSupremeCourtdecidednottofollowthepreviousrulingoftheWolfcaseinwhichthedecisionwasthattherewasenoughreasontoallowtheevidencefoundwhensearchedtonotbedisregardedandbeusedincourtalthoughpropersearchprocedureswerenotfollowed.ConstitutionalIssue(s)Illegalpolicesearchandfreedomofexpression.AlthoughthesearchwasdoneillegallyandpoliceforcedtheirwayintoMapp’shomewithoutawarrantnorherconsent,policebelievedtohaveenoughreasontoenterthepremisesduetoasuspectedfugitivethatwasthoughttohavebeenheldwithinthehousehold.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheSupremeCourtdecidedinfavorofMapp6-3.Theydeclared“allevidenceobtainedbysearchesandseizuresinviolationoftheConstitutionisinadmissibleinCourt.“Thismeansthatregardlessofwhetherornottheevidencecouldbethedifferencebetweenbeingchargedasguiltyornotguilty,itcannotbeusedifthecorrectprocedureswerenotfollowedtoobtainit.

Precedent

Aclashingprecedentwassetafter6ofthejusticessidedwithDollreeMapp.Thiscaseplacedarequirementofexcludingillegallyobtainedevidenceincourtatalllevelsofgovernment.However,thiscausedsomecontroversyduetothefactthatinthepreviousWolfcasetheSupremeCourttherewasenoughvalidreasoningbehindtheillegalsearchandseizureandthattheevidencewasallowedtobeusedincourt.ThiswouldnolongerbethecaseaftertheMappv.Ohiodecisionwhichchangedanycourtbeingallowedtoacceptillegallyobtainedevidenceduetoviolationofhumanrightsstatedinthe4thAmendment..

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeBlackstatedthatthe4thAmendment’sprohibitionofunreasonablesearchesandseizuresisenforceableagainstthestatesandisthemainreasonhesidedwithMappinsteadofOhio.JusticeDouglasclaimedthattheeffectofthe4thAmendmentistoputcourtsoftheUSandfederalofficials,intheexerciseoftheirpower,underlimitationsandrestraints.It’sasourceofkeeping“authorityfigures”inchecksothattheycannotgetcarriedawayandviolatedahuman’srightswhenevertheyplease.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeHarlanwasoneofthreeagainstthemajorityfornumerousreasons.CourtoverruledtheWolfcasewhich,aforesaid,statedtherewasreasonbehindthesearchwhichmeanstheevidenceshouldbeallowedtobeusedincourt.Hebelievesthatregardforstaredecisisshouldcomeintoplayandthattheyshouldbeconsistentwiththeirrulings.TheWolfrulingrepresentssounderConstitutionaldoctrinethantherulingforMappv.OhioHarlanstates.

SourcesCited(MLA)“Mappv.Ohio.”Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec.3,2015.“Mappv.Ohio.”LII/LegalInformationInstitute.Web.Dec.3,2015.

QuickLinkswww.oyez.org/cases/1960/236www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/367/643#writing-USSC_CR_0367_0643_zc

23|Page

Gideonv.Wainwright(1963)By:BriannaGreen

BackgroundInformationGideonwaschargedwithamisdemeanorofbreakingandentering.Inopencourt,heaskedthejudgetoappointcounselforhimbecausehecouldnotaffordanattorney.ThetrialjudgedeniedGideon’srequestbecauseFloridalawonlypermittedappointmentofcounselforpoordefendantschargedwithcapitaloffenses.Later,Gideonwaschargedwiththecrimeandsentenced5yearsinprison.GideonsoughtrelieffromhisconvictionbyfilingapetitionforwritofhabeascorpusintheFloridaSupremeCourt.HewasdeniedbyFlorida’sSupremeCourtsohewrotetoSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatestohelphimout.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)ApriordecisionoftheCourt’s,Bettsv.Brady,316U.S.455(1942),heldthattherefusaltoappointcounselforanindigentdefendantchargedwithafelonyinstatecourtdidnotnecessarilyviolatetheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.TheCourtgrantedGideon’spetitionforawritofcertiorari–thatis,agreedtohearGideon’scaseandreviewthedecisionofthelowercourt–inordertodeterminewhetherBettsshouldbereconsidered.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Reversedandremanded.Initsopinion,theCourtunanimouslyoverruledBettsv.Brady

Precedent

InoverturningBetts,JusticeBlackstatedthat“reasonandreflectionrequireustorecognizethatinouradversarysystemofcriminaljustice,anypersonhauledintocourt,whoistoopoortohirealawyer,cannotbeassuredafairtrialunlesscounselisprovidedforhim.”ifsomeoneispoor,theyarerequiredtohavesomeonerepresentthem.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeJohnM.Harlanwroteaseparateconcurringopinioninwhichhearguedthatthemajority'sdecisionrepresentedanextensionofearlierprecedentthatestablishedtheexistenceofaseriouscriminalchargetobea"specialcircumstance"thatrequirestheappointmentofcounsel.JusticeTomC.ClarkwrotethattheConstitutionguaranteestherighttocounselasaprotectionofdueprocess,andthereisnoreasontoapplythatprotectionincertaincasesbutnotothers.

DissentingOpinion(s)N/A

SourcesCited(MLA)"Gideonv.Wainwright."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec7,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155>

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/335/TheAnniversary,theRightandtheRealityGideonv.WainwrightAfter50YearsByJanineRobben

24|Page

Escobedov.Illinois(1964)By:NicholasCochran

BackgroundInformationDanielEscobedowasarrestedandtakenintopolicecustodyasasuspectinamurdercase.Whenbeingquestionedbydetectivesherepeatedlyrequestedalawyer.Thoserequestsweredenied.Hislawyer’srequeststoseehisclientwerealsodenied.SubsequentlyMr.Escobedoconfessedtomurder.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Inthecasethatadefendantwasdeniedcounselwhilebeingquestionedbythepolice,aretheirstatementselicitedbydetectivesadmissibleincourt?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)JusticeGoldbergwrotethat“therefusalbythepolicetohonorpetitioner'srequesttoconsultwithhislawyerduringthecourseofaninterrogationconstitutesadenialof"theAssistanceofCounsel"inviolationoftheSixthAmendmenttotheConstitutionas"madeobligatoryupontheStatesbytheFourteenthAmendment,"Gideonv.Wainwright,372U.S.335,342,andtherebyrendersinadmissibleinastatecriminaltrialanyincriminatingstatementelicitedbythepoliceduringtheinterrogation.”Meaningthatnomatterwhathesaidtothepoliceduringtheirinterrogationnoneofthatcouldbeusedincourt,becausehewasdeniedcounselandthereforehissixthamendmentrighthadbeenviolated.

Precedent

Anystatementsmadebyasuspectincustodyareconsideredinadmissibleincourtifthedefendantwasdeniedcounselduringinterrogation.Thisconflictedwiththeprecedentsetin1954byCrookerV.Californiainwhichthecourtruledthataconfessionwasadmissibleeventhoughitwasobtainedafterthedefendanthadrequestedtheassistanceofcounsel,whichwasdenied.ConcurringOpinion(s)N/A

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeHarlandissentedclaiming“theruleannouncedtodayismostill-conceived,andthatitseriouslyandunjustifiablyfettersperfectlylegitimatemethodsofcriminallawenforcement”HarlanbelievedthatthepolicedidnotviolateEscobedo’sSixthAmendmentright,duetotheprecedentsetin1954.WhileJusticeStewartclaimedthattherighttocounselwasonlyguaranteedafteranindictment.JusticeWhiteexpressedconcernsabouttheimplicationsthemajorityopinionwouldhaveonfuturecases,specificallyconcerningtheboundariesitwouldimposeonlawenforcementbysaying“righttocounselnownotonlyentitlestheaccusedtocounsel'sadviceandaidinpreparingfortrial,butstandsasanimpenetrablebarriertoanyinterrogationoncetheaccusedhasbecomeasuspect.Fromthatverymoment,apparentlyhisrighttocounselattaches,arulewhollyunworkableandimpossibletoadministerunlesspolicecarsareequippedwithpublicdefendersandundercoveragentsandpoliceinformantshavedefensecounselattheirside”

SourcesCited(MLA)"Escobedov.Illinois."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015."Escobedov.Illinois378U.S.478(1964)."JustiaLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/478/https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/378/478https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/378/478#writing-USSC_CR_0378_0478_ZD2

25|Page

Mirandav.Arizona(1966)By:SimonePeterson

BackgroundInformationMirandav.Arizona,decidedbytheSupremecourtin1966bya5-4majority,heldthattheConstitution’sFifthAmendmentprohibitionagainstself-incriminationappliedtoanindividualinpolicecustodyor“deprivedofhisfreedomofactioninanysignificantway”,Inordertosafeguardthisright,thecourtruledthatpriortobeingquestionedsuspectshavetobeinformedoftheirrighttoremainsilent,thatanythingtheysaycanbeusedagainsttheminthecourt,thattheyhavetherighttoanattorney,andiftheycannotaffordonewillbeprovidedpriortoquestioningifwanted.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)TheFifthAmendmentstatesthatthegovernmentmustfollowthedueprocessofthelawbeforepunishingapersonandallcitizenshavetherighttoatrialbyjury.Apersoncannotbetriedtwiceforthesamecrime.Apersonbeingtrieddoesnothavetotestifyagainsthimselfthisiscalledpleadingthefifth.ItisalsoyourrighttobereadorrecitedtheMirandaRights.Whenthepersonontrialwasnottoldtheirrightsitwasaviolationofdueprocess.Inotherwordstakingawayaperson'slifelibertyandpropertywithoutthemfullyknowingwhyorhavingachancetodefendoneself.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Themajorityopinionwasthatallsuspectshavetobeinformedoftheirrights.Therighttoremainsilent;thatanythingtheysaycanbeusedagainsttheminthecourtoflaw,theyhavetherighttoanattorney,iftheycannotaffordone,onewillbeprovidedifwanted.AndtheycalledthistheMirandaRights.ThiswasaddedtotheFifthAmendment.

Precedent

InthiscourtcaseGideonargueshisrighttoanattorneyevenifhecannotaffordone.ThisisshowingprecedentwiththeFifthAmendmentandhisMirandaRights

ConcurringOpinion(s)ThemajorityopinionwrittenbychiefJusticeEarlWarrenexplainedthat“defendantsarrestedunderstatelawmustbeinformedoftheirconstitutionalrightsagainstself-incriminationandtorepresentationbyanattorneybeforebeinginterrogatedwheninpolicecustody”

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeStewart,Harlan,andWhitejoiningwrote“IbelievethedecisionoftheCourtrepresentspoorconstitutionallawandentailsharmfulconsequencesforthecountryatlarge.Howserioustheseconsequencescanbeonlytimecantell.ButthebasicflawsintheCourt'sjustificationseemtomereadilyapparentnowonceallsidesoftheproblemareconsidered.Thenewrulesarenotdesignedtoguardagainstpolicebrutalityorotherunmistakablybannedformsofcoercion.Thosewhousedthirddegreetacticsanddenythemincourtareeasilyableanddestinedtolieasskillfullyaboutwarningsandwaivers.Rather,thethrustofthenewrulesistonegateallpressures,toreinforcethenervousorignorantsuspect,andultimatelydiscourageandconfessionatall.Theaiminshortistoward‘voluntariness’inautopiansense,ortoviewitfromadifferentangle,voluntarinesswithavengeance…”

SourcesCited(MLA)LandmarkCasesoftheU.S,Supremecourt(KeyExcerptsfromtheDissentingOpinion)http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/469/Key_Excerpts_from_the_dessenting_opinion

QuickLinkshttp://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-miranda-v-arizonahttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759

26|Page

InreGault(1967)By:BrennaO’Brien

BackgroundInformationGeraldFrancisGault,attheageof15,wastakenintocustodyforallegedlymakinganobscenephonecall.WhenthepolicemadearrestofGaulttheydidnotnotifytheparents.GeraldGaultwaslatersenttojuvenilecourtandwasputintostateindustrialschoolunituntilhereachedtheageof21.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)TheproceedingsofthejuvenilecourtwentagainsttheConstitutionundertheFourteenthAmendment.Thecourtdidnotfollowtherequirementsofanadequatenoticeofcharges,notificationofboththeparentsandthechildofthejuvenile'srighttocounsel,opportunityforconfrontationandcross-examinationatthehearings,andadequatesafeguardsagainstself-incrimination.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheCourtfoundthattheproceduresusedinGault'scasemetnoneoftherequirementsoftheFourteenthAmendment.Theserequirementsincludedadequatenoticeofcharges,notificationofboththeparentsandthechildofthejuvenile'srighttocounsel,opportunityforconfrontationandcross-examinationatthehearings,andadequatesafeguardsagainstself-incrimination.

Precedent

TheStateSupremeCourtaffirmeddismissalofthewrit.Agreeingthattheconstitutionalguaranteeofdueprocessappliestoproceedingsinwhichjuvenilesarechargedasdelinquents.TheproceedingsforjuvenileshadtocomplywiththerequirementsoftheFourteenthAmendment.

ConcurringOpinion(s)Mr.JusticeBlackwrotethatheagreeswiththeCourtthatanewsystemwouldpracticallyimmunizejuvenilesfrom"punishment"for"crimes"inanefforttosavethemfromyouthfulindiscretionsandstigmasduetocriminalchargesorconvictions.Mr.JusticeWhitewrotethatheagreesthattheprivilegeagainstcompelledself-incriminationappliesattheadjudicatorystageofjuvenilecourtproceedings.Howeverhedidnotfindanadequatebasisintherecordfordeterminingwhetherthatprivilegewasviolatedinthiscase.

DissentingOpinion(s)Mr.JusticeHarlanwrotethatitdependsonthecircumstancesandthatmorethoughtneedstobeputintothesystemandthatdueprocessshouldbecarefullythoughtout.Mr.JusticeStewartwrotehebelievedthattheCourt'sdecisioniswhollyunsoundasamatterofconstitutionallaw,andsadlyunwiseasamatterofjudicialpolicy.

SourcesCited(MLA)"InreGault."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/116>

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/116https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/1/

27|Page

Greggv.Georgia(1976)By:EricScollard

BackgroundInformationIn1973whenTroyLeonGreggwasarrestedandtriedformurderandarmedrobbery,thejuryquicklyreturnedwithaverdictofguilty.Withthisverdictcamethedeathpenalty,asentencethatmanyfeltwasunconstitutionalandunnecessary.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Thiscasequicklygainednationalattentionduetoitscontroversialtopic,andlastingimpactontheUnitedStates.ManyAmericansfeltthatthedeathpenaltyviolatedtheEighthAmendmentof“nocruelorunusualpunishments.”Peoplebelievedthattherightsoftheaccusedweretakenawaywhenthissentencewascarriedout.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)AftermonthsofdebatingtheCourtcametodecisionthatthedeathpenaltydidnotviolatetherightsoftheaccused,andwasalegalformofpunishment.UnderthenewGeorgiastatutoryschemeapersonconvictedofmurdermayreceivelifeinprisonordeath,howeveradeathsentencemustbedecidedbyajuryataseparateevidentiaryproceeding.Thefinalvoteforthiscasewas7-2.

Precedent

Thiscasesetanexampleforotherstatestolookatwhendecidingifthedeathpenaltyviolatedtheinmate'srights.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeWhite-thisCourtheldthedeathpenalty,asthenadministeredinGeorgia,tobeunconstitutional.Thatsameyear,theGeorgialegislatureenactedanewstatutoryschemeunderwhichthedeathpenaltymaybeimposedforseveraloffenses,includingmurder.TheissueinthiscaseiswhetherthedeathpenaltyimposedformurderonpetitionerGreggunderthenewGeorgiastatutoryschememayconstitutionallybecarriedout.Iagreethatitmay.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeBrennan-“fromthebeginningofournationthepunishmentofdeathhasstirredacutepubliccontroversy,thepracticeofdeliberatelyputtingsomeofitsmemberstodeath.Itisthisessentiallymoralconflictthatformsthebackdropforthepastchanges,andpresentoperationofoursystemofimposingdeathasapunishmentforcrime.Thedeathpenaltydoesnotproveasagoodpunishmentforthepurposeofdeterrence,thereforlifeinprisonshallbeused.”

SourcesCited(MLA)"Greggv.Georgia."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-6257>

QuickLinkshttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/428/153#writing-USSC_CR_0428_0153_ZChttp://www.nuttynewstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Troy-Leon-Gregg.pnghttp://murderpedia.org/male.G/g/gregg-troy-leon-v-georgia.htm

28|Page

Salinasv.Texas(2013)By:MeredithCash

BackgroundInformationIn1992Houstonpoliceofficersfound2homicidevictims.AfterinvestigationpolicebelieveditwasGenovevoSalinas.SalinasagreedtoanswerquestionsaboutthehomicideuntilhewasaskedwhethertheshotgunshellsfoundatthesceneofthecrimewouldmatchtheguninSalinas’home.AftertrialSalinaswaschargedwithmurderbuthewasnowheretobefound.After15yearshewasfoundandsentencedto20yearsinprison.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)SalinaswasnotunderarrestandhadnotbeenreadhisMirandarightsatthetimeofthequestioning.AtthesecondtrialprosecutionintroducedevidenceofSalinas’silenceduringthequestioning.Salinasobjectedarguingthathecouldinvokehis5thAmendmentprotection.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)ThenSupremeCourtDecisionwas5-4.JusticeAlito,ChiefJusticeRoberts,andJusticeKennedyconcludedthattheFifthAmendment'sprivilegeagainstself-incriminationdoesnotextendtothedefendantswhodecidetoremainmuteduringquestioning.Anywitnesswhowantsprotectionagainstself-incriminationmustclaimthatprotection.ThecourtheldthattheFifthAmendmentdoesnotestablishacompleterighttoremainsilent.

Precedent

Anywitnesswhodesiresprotectionagainstself-incriminationmustexplicitlyclaimthatprotection.TheFifthAmendmentdoesnotguaranteethisprotectionunlessclaimedbythedefendant.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeThomasandJusticeScaliabelievedthatSalinas’claimwouldfailevenifhehadinvokedhisprivilegebecausetheprosecutor'scommentsdidnotcompelhimtogiveaself-incriminatingtestimony.Thomasalsosaidthatatthetimeoftheframing,EnglishandAmericancourtsstronglyencourageddefendantstogiveunswornstatementsandiftheyfailedtodoso,theydrewadverseinferences.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeBreyer,JusticeGinsburg,JusticeSotomayor,andJusticeKaganthoughtotherwise.Breyerarguedthatpreviouscaseshaveruledthatusingthedefendant'ssilenceduringthequestioningisnotallowedthereforetheprosecutionshouldnothavebeenallowedtointroducetheevidenceofSalinas’silenceduringthequestioning.

SourcesCited(MLA)"Salinasv.Texas."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec6,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246>

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-246#writing-12-246_CONCUR_4

29|Page

Part4:EqualProtection

oftheLaw

30|Page

DredScottv.Sandford(1857)By:WalkerBooth

BackgroundInformationDredScott,aslaveresidinginMissourifrom1833to1843,traveledwithhismastertoIllinoisandtheLouisianaTerritory,deemed“free”bytheMissouriCompromise.Becausehebelievedhecouldwinfreedomfromtemporaryresidencyinafreestate,hesuedhismasteruponhisreturntoMissouri.Thereweretwojusticesinconcurrence,twojusticesindissent,andthreeseparateopinionsinthecourtcasewhichfollowed.ConstitutionalIssue(s)Doestemporaryresidenceinafreestateallowaslavetobe?Ifnot,thenisnotslaverytechnicallylegaleveninstateswhichareconsidered“free”bytheMissouriCompromiseline?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)SlavessuchasScottwereproperty,notpeople,meaningthattheirmastercoulddowhateverheintendedwiththem,andcouldtakethemwherevertheywantedtotransportthemlegally.Thisdecisionbroughtagoodportionofthemomentumforabolishingslaverytoasuddenhalt,givingslavemastersmorelegalrights.

Precedent

Slavesdonothavetherighttosueincourt,sincebylawtheyareconsideredpropertyanddonothavetherightsanAmericancitizenpossesses.Rightsofaperson’sstateinwhichhe/shewasbornorpermanentlyresidesarethestatelawstheyaregovernedby.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeWayne:Nopersonalopinion,butsideswiththecourt,ratherthananon-citizenbylawwhowastryingtosue.JusticeCampbell:Thelawsofthestatewheretheslavewasbornaretheprimarylawshe/shelivesby.JusticeNelson(separate):AllowingScotttobefreedeniesMissouri’srightasastatetochoosetobeeitheraslavestateorafreestate.JusticeDaniel(separate):TheCircuitCourtmadeanerrorinsustainingScott’spleaforanabatementofjurisdiction,butotherwiseagreeswithhisfellowjustices.JusticeCatron(separate):SimilartoCampbell,hebelievestheMissouriCompromiseunjustlyviolatesaslavestate’srightstohaveslaves,whentheytraveltofreestates.AlsostatesthatLouisianaTerritorycannotbedeclaredfreeorslavebyanyoneperson.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeMclean:Mcleancommentsonthequestionoftheplaintiff’sabilitytosueratherthanthesubjectforwhichtheplaintiffissuing.Hestatesthatcitizensdonothavetohavethequalificationsofelectorsforcitizenship,andthereforeScottcannotbedeniedhisrighttosueduetonon-citizenshipbecausehisAfricanancestrydoesnotdisqualifyhimforcitizenship.JusticeCurtis:Scottmeetsthenecessaryrequirementsofcitizenship,andthedefendant’sargumentabouthislackofcitizenshipisinvalid.Therefore,thecasecannotbedecidedsimplybyalackofofficialcitizenship.

SourcesCited(MLA)"DredScottv.Sandford."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015.https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393>"DredScottv.Sandford."RussellandDuenes.N.p.,26Sept.2012.Web.08Dec.2015.Wikipedia.WikimediaFoundation,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015."Scottv.Sandford."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393

31|Page

Plessyv.Ferguson(1896)By:AlexiaThompson

BackgroundInformationHomerAdolfPlessywasa7/8thCaucasianmanthattookaseatina“whitesonly”ofaLouisianatrain.HedecidedtodothiswithatesttheCommitteeofCitizenshadhimagreeto,therailroadcompanyknewaboutit.Whenhewastoldtomovetoacarreservedforblacksherefusedandthereforewasarrested.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Thisissuewasattackeduponthegroundsthatitconflictsbothwiththe13thAmendment,abolishingslavery,andtheFourteenthAmendment,whichprohibitscertainrestrictivelegislationofthepartofthestates.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheyfoundnothingdiscriminatoryabouttheLouisianalaw,BrownstatedthatseparatetreatmentdidnotimplytheinferiorityofAfrican-Americansbutmerelywasamatterofstatepolicy.HesuggestedthatAfrican-Americanswereresponsibleforinterpretingthelawasconnotinginferiority.Healsopointedoutthattherewasnotameaningfuldifferenceinqualitybetweenwhites-onlyandAfrican-Americanrailwaycars.

Precedent U.S.SupremeCourtjusticesin1896

Theprecedentsetwasthat“separate”facilitiesforblacksandwhiteswereconstitutionalaslongastheywere“equal”.

ConcurringOpinion(s)Therewerenone

DissentingOpinion(s)Mr.JusticeHarlanarguedthattheConstitutionwascolorblindandtheUnitedStateshadnoclasssystem.Accordingly,allcitizensshouldhaveequalaccesstoequalrights

SourcesCited(MLA)PlessyvsFerguson:LegalSegregation."AwesomeStories.com.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/163us537https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/537/https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/163/537#writing-USSC_CR_0163_0537_ZD

32|Page

Korematsuv.US(1944)By:MatthewBissette

BackgroundInformationDuringWorldWarII,theUnitedStatesgovernmentgavemilitaryordertoexcludecitizensofJapanesedescentfromareasthatweredeemedcriticalareasofnationaldefense,mostlythecoasts.ThegovernmentputtheminsomethingsimilartoconcentrationcampslikethatofHitlerbutnotasextreme.Largemassesofthemweremovedintodesignatedareaswheretheywererequiredtolive.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)TheconstitutionalissuehereisthatKorematsufelttheUSgovernmentwentwaybeyondtheirpowertodothisact.Hefelthisrightswereviolatedandhewasnotreceivingtheequalprotectionofthelaw.HefeltJapanesepeoplewerebeingdiscriminatedagainst,buttheUSgovernmentfeltitwasnecessaryfortheprotectionofthehomeland.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)ThecourtsidedwiththegovernmentandheldtheneedtoprotecttheUnitedStatesfromespionagegreaterthantherightsofpeoplefromJapanesedescent.Thedecisionofthecourtcasewasjustifiedunderthecircumstancesofthesituationbeingof“emergencyandperil”.

PrecedentItisconstitutionaltotakeawayrightsincasesofnationaldefensetoprotectfromespionage

ConcurringOpinionPowertowagewarisasmuchofapartoftheconstitutionasprovisionsforpeace.Thepowertojudgewarmustbejudgedinthecontextofwar.Actionsshouldnotbedeemedlawless

DissentingOpinion(s)Peopleshouldn’tbeplacedincampsjustbasedoffrace.Youneedtoprovethatthecitizenswerenotloyalandweretryingtocorruptthenationthroughespionage.Unfairtoremoveeveryoneofacertainrace/descentfromanareawhileallowingpeopleofotherracestooccupythesameareathere.

SourcesCited(MLA)Korematsuv.UnitedStates.“Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec.1,2015

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/323us214https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/323/214#writing-USSC_CR_0323_0214_ZC

33|Page

Brownv.BoardofEducationofTopeka,Kansas(1954)By:RickyWerner

BackgroundInformationPublicschoolsin1954weresegregatedonthematterofraceandthusblackchildrenhavebeendeniedattendingthesameschoolaswhitechildrenattendees.TheNAACPplannedachallengeofwhiteschoolstryingtopersuadeandenrollseveralblackfamiliesandtheirchildrenintowhiteschools,onefamilybeingtheBrowns.Brownwasdeniedtoattendtheschoolthatwasmuchclosertoherbecauseofitsstrictwhitepoliciesandhadtoattendamuchfurtherawayschoolthatchallengesthefamilyanditstime.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)DoesthesegregationofchildreninpublicschoolssolelyonthebasisofracedeprivetheminoritychildrenoftheEqualProtectionLawsunderthe14thamendmententitlingpropereducation?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)OverturningtherulingofPlessyv.Ferguson,theSupremeCourtunanimouslyfoundthattheEqualProtectionClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentprohibitssegregationonstatepublicschoolsonthebasisofrace.

Precedent

SegregationbasedonraceinpublicschoolsviolatestheConstitutiondealingwiththefourteenthamendment.

ConcurringOpinion(s)Noneweremade.

DissentingOpinion(s)Nonemade,allunanimouslyagreed.

SourcesCited(MLA)“Brownv.BoardofEducationofTopeka547US.483(1954).”JustiaLaw.Web.1Dec.2015.“Brownv.BoardofEducationofTopeka(1).”Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec1,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us4837

QuickLinkshttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483

34|Page

HeartofAtlantaMotelv.US(1964)By:JayWeathington

BackgroundInformationTheownerofahotelinAtlanta,the“HeartofAtlanta”,wasrefusingtoserveblackpeople.TitleIIoftheCivilRightsof1964preventedfrompublicfacilitiesaffectingcommerce.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)HisrefusingtoprovidehousingtoAfrican-AmericanpeoplebrokeTitle2oftheCivilRightsActof1964.Thefacilitywasbannedfromdiscriminating,andstillpreventedblackpeoplefromreceivingserviceshowsthattheacthasclearlybebroken.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheSupremeCourt’sdecisionwastoupholdtheconstitutionalityoftheCivilRightsActof1964,essentiallyflatlyrebukingclaimsfromtheplaintiff.

Precedent

ThiswasthefirstoccasionwhereCongresshadtodecidewhetherprivatediscriminationwasacrime,showingthatthiswasnotbasedonanyprecedent.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeBlackhadtheconcurringopinionthattheissuewasnotinbreakingtheCivilRightsActof1964.itwasthefactthatpreventingblackcustomerswhowereinterstatetravelersfromreceivingservicewasanobstructionofinterstatecommerce.JusticeGoldbergpresentedanearlyidenticalconcurringopinion.

DissentingOpinion(s)Noneapplicable.

SourcesCited(MLA)“HeartofAtlantaMotel,Inc.v.UnitedStates379U.S.241(1964).”JustiaLaw.Wed9Dec2015."HeartofAtlantaMotel,Inc.v.UnitedStates."Oyez.Web.10Dec.2015."HeartofAtlantaMotelv.UnitedStates."Prezi.com.Web.10Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/241/case.htmlhttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/515http://mrspencer.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/heart-of-atlanta.jpg

35|Page

Swannv.Charlotte-MecklenburgBoardofEducation(1971)By:StephenSchelfe

BackgroundInformationSwannVs.Charlotte-MecklenburgBoardofEducationwasadisputethatcamefromthedecisionofBrownVs.TheBoardofEducation.Swanntooktherulingastepfurtherandaskedthequestioniffederalcourtscouldinterfereinstatestohelpenforcedesegregation.Thecourtcaserulingwoulddetermineifthefederalgovernmentwouldbegrantedthispowerovertheindividualstategovernments.ConstitutionalIssue(s)Werefederalcourtsconstitutionallyauthorizedtooverseestateimposedsegregation?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)AunanimousdecisionwasreachedrulingthatthestateswereinviolationofthecurrentrulinginthecaseBrownVs.TheBoardofEducation.TheSupremeCourtruledthatifaninfractionofthelawoccurredinstatesduetoapreviousruling,thefederalcourtswouldbegrantedjurisdictiontoremodeltheproblemsthatoccurinthestates.

Precedent

TheprecedentwasthecurrentrulinginBrownVs.TheBoardofEducationinthatschoolswerenotgrantedtherighttosegregateonthebasisofrace.

ConcurringOpinion(s)Duetotheunanimousdecisiontherewasnoconcurringopinion

DissentingOpinion(s)Duetotheunanimousdecisiontherewerenodissentingopinions

SourcesCited(MLA)“swannV.Charlotte-MecklenburgBd.ofEduc.402US1(1971)”Justialaw.Np,N.D.“SwannV.Charlotte-MecklenburgBoardofEducation”Oyez.Chicago-Kentcollegelawatillinoistech,N.D.Dec1,2015

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/281https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/402/1/

36|Page

Furmanv.Georgia(1972)By:MeghanGasper

BackgroundInformationAman,Furman,wasburglarizingaprivatehome.Whileinsidethehouse,afamilymemberlivingtheresawhim.Hetriedtofleeimmediately,buthetrippedandfell.Ashefell,hisgunwentoffandshotaresidentofthehouse.Becauseofthis,hewasconvictedofmurderandsentencedtodeath.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)TheCourtstatedthatthedeathpenaltywasdefinedascruelandunusualpunishment,thereforeviolatingthe8thand14thAmendmentsoftheConstitution.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Thevotewas5-4.Themajorityvotedthatthedeathpenaltyviolatedthe8thand14thAmendmentrightsofthecondemnedperson.InFurman,theSupremeCourtruledthatthedeathsentencewasnotunconstitutional,butthattheproceduresandapplicationsaspracticedbytheStateswere.

Precedent

Furmanvs.Georgiaforcedstatesandthenationallegislaturetorethinktheirstatutesforcapitaloffensestoassurethedeathpenaltywouldnotbeadministeredincapriciousordiscriminatorymanners.ThiscasedlaterinfluencedtheJacksonvs.GeorgiacaseandtheBranchvs.Texascase.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticesDouglas,Stewart,White,andMarshallwereallmajorityjustices,butwroteaseparateconcurringopinion.TheybelievedthatFurmanwasdeprivedofhisconstitutionalrights.However,theycouldnotagreeonanargumentremovingthedeathpenaltyacrosstheboard.

DissentingOpinion(s)Thedissenters,ChiefJusticeBurgerandJusticesBlackmun,Powell,andRehnquist,wroteopinionsagainstthemajorityopinion.Afewarguedthatthedeathpenaltywasamatterforthepeopletodecide,throughtheirlegislatures.OthersarguedthatemotionalappealswerenotappropriateintheSupremeCourtopinions.

SourcesCited(MLA)SupremeCourtCases.N.p.,n.d.Web.<http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ss_web_codes/supreme_court_cases/furman.html>."Furmanv.Georgia."Oyez.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/69-5030>.

QuickLinkshttp://www.phschool.com/atschool/ss_web_codes/supreme_court_cases/furman.htmlhttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/69-5030

37|Page

Roev.Wade(1973)By:JadaGardner

BackgroundInformation:ThelocationofthecasewasheldattheU.S.DistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofTexas.NormaMcCorvey(knownasJaneRoe)soughttoterminateherpregnancy,butcouldnotseekforanabortionbecausetheTexaslawprohibitedabortions.Recentlyinthelastfewyears,NormaMcCorveyhavebeentryingtooverturnhercase.Shewasneverwithorwantedanabortion.Shenowdedicatesherlife“undoingthelaw”.ConstitutionalIssue(s):DoestheConstitutionembraceawoman'srighttoterminateherpregnancybyabortion?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion):(By:HarryA.Blackman)TheCourtdecidedthatawoman'srighttoanabortionfellwithintherighttoprivacyprotectedbytheFourteenthAmendment.Itgaveawomentotalauthorityoverpregnancyduringthefirsttrimester.

Precedent

Theprecedentwasconcludedthatabortionisdeclaredlegalforwomenofageinstate.

ConcurringOpinion(s)(JusticeStewart)Believesthatthecourt’sdecisionisinvalidunderdueprocessclauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.Itstatedintheoverviewthat“Themeaningoflibertyisinbroadsense”,itcannotbelimitedorfound.

DissentingOpinion(s)(JusticeRehnquist)Abortionisnotrootedintraditionandconscienceofpeople.Hestatedhowsociety’sviewonabortionischanginganditisnotsouniversallyaccepted.

SourcesCited(MLA)“Roev.Wade.”Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec7,2015.

QuickLinks:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#writing-USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZCoyez.org/cases/1971/70-18

38|Page

RegentsoftheUniversityofCaliforniav.Bakke(1978)By:CarlieSellers

BackgroundInformation1978-AllanBlakke,a35yearoldwhitemale,appliedforadmissiontotheUniversityofCaliforniaMedicalSchooltwiceandwasrejectedbothtimes.Theschoolreserved16placesineachenteringclassfor“qualifiedminorities.”Bakke’sGPAandtestscoresexceededthoseofanyminoritystudentsadmittedinthetwoyearshewasrejected.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Bakkebelievedhewasexcludedfromadmissionsolelyonthebasisofrace.Hebelievedthisdecisionviolatedthe14thAmendment.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Therewasa5-4majorityopinion.Racialandethnicclassificationsofanysortareinherentlysuspectbuthemustbeadmitted.But,thedecisionupheldaffirmativeactionallowingracetobeoneofseveralfactorsincollegeadmissionpolicy.

Precedent

Minimizethewhiteoppositiontothegoalofequalitywhileextendinggainsforracialminoritiesthroughaffirmativeaction.

ConcurringOpinion(s)White,Marshall,BrennanandBlackmunallagreedthatitwasagoodideatopermittheUniversitytoconsiderraceofanapplicantinmakingdecisionsregardingadmissions.TheyalsoagreedtoupholdaffirmativeactioninordertoachieveequalopportunityforallcitizensoftheUnitedStates.

DissentingOpinion(s)White,Marshall,BrennanandBlackmunallalsohassomedisagreementswiththedecision.Theybelievedthedecisiontoallowracetobeconsideredintheadmissionprocessatuniversitiesviolatedthecivilrightsactandshoweddiscriminationtowardscertaingroupsofpeople.

SourcesCited(MLA)"RegentsoftheUniv.ofCal.v.Bakke."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.Web.6Dec.2015.

QuickLinkswww.oyez.org/cases/www.justia.com/cases/