cases

docx

School

Valencia College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2041

Subject

Political Science

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SargentWombat3338

Governmental Powers Marbury v. Madison (1803) – Established judicial review. At the end of President John Adams’ term, his secretary of state failed to deliver documents commissioning William Marbury as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Once President Thomas Jefferson was sworn in, he told James Madison, his secretary of state, not to deliver the documents to Marbury and others in order to keep members of the opposing political party from taking office. Marbury sued James Madison asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ requiring him to deliver the documents necessary to officially make Marbury justice of the peace. Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws. (more details in canvas) Barron v. Baltimore (1833) - Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property's owner? No. The Bill of Rights are limitations exclusive to the national government and aren’t applicable to the states. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) - “The Constitution does not consider slaves to be U.S. citizens. Rather, they are constitutionally protected property of their masters.” Chief Justice Roger Taney authored this opinion— one of the most important and scorned in the nation’s history. Dred Scott, a slave, had moved with his master to Illinois, a free state. He moved again to a slave state, Missouri, and filed suit to gain freedom, under that state’s law of “Once free, always free.” Taney held that Scott had never been free at all, and cited Constitutional grounds for placing the slavery decision in the hands of the states. In trying to put an end to the slavery controversy, Taney instead sped the nation toward civil war. The decision was later overturned by the Thirteenth Amendment. Ex parte Milligan (1866) - Lambden P. Milligan was sentenced to death by a military commission in Indiana during the Civil War for engaging in acts of disloyalty. Milligan sought release through habeas corpus from a federal court. Does a civil court have jurisdiction over a military tribunal?

Writing for the Court, Justice David Davis held that t rials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional. Specifically, it is unconstitutional to try civilians by military tribunals unless there is no civilian court available. The military commission therefore did not have jurisdiction to try and sentence Milligan, and he was entitled to discharge. United States v. Nixon (1974) - The President is not above the law. The special prosecutor in the Watergate affair subpoenaed audio tapes of Oval Office conversations. President Nixon refused to turn over the tapes, asserting executive privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to potentially exculpating evidence outweighed the President's right to executive privilege if national security was not compromised. Bush v. Gore (2000) - In a 7–2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court’s decision that manual recounts of ballots should continue in some counties, holding that the various methods and standards of the recount process violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled 5–4 on the remedy of the matter, with the majority holding that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision had created new election law—a right reserved for the state legislature—and that no recount could be held in time to satisfy a federal deadline for the selection of state electors. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) - Do the provisions of the District of Columbia Code that restrict the licensing of handguns and require licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment? Yes. 1st Amendment 1. Schenck v. United States (1919) – Issue: Is certain speech, including sending antiwar pamphlets to drafted men, made in wartime and deemed in violation of the Espionage Act, protected by the First Amendment?

Result: No. Although the defendant would have been able to state his views during ordinary times, the Court held that in certain circumstances, like this case the nation being at war, justify such limits on the First Amendment. Compared to falsely yelling “Fire” in crowded theatre. Creates "clear and present danger" 2. Near v. Minnesota (1931) – Jay Near accused Minnesota in newspaper of being implicated with gangsters. Minnesota sought permanent injunction “gag law”. Court ruled that it violates 1 st amendment freedom of press. Government can’t censor/prohibit a publication in advance. 3. West Virginia v. Barnette (1943) – West virginia board of education required public schools to include salute to the flag. Those who didn’t salute were sent home. Violated 1 st amendment. Cannot enforce unanimity of opinion on any topic or national symbols. 6-3 4. Engel v. Vitale (1962) – New York State Board of Regants authorized short prayer in school. Violated 1 st amendment establishment clause. State cannot hold prayers in public schools. Separation of church and state. 6-3 5. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) – during civil rights movement in 1960s, times published an ad for contributing donations to defend Martin Luther King, Jr., on perjury charges. City Public Safety Commissioner, L.B. Sullivan filed a libel as he saw that the criticism reflected on him. Alabama libel law violates 1 st amendment. Defendant should be proved knowing or reckless in deciding the false-iness. 6. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) - Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment? 7-2 majority held that armbands are pure speech. It should "materially and substantially interfere" to justify suppression. 7. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) – principal found two pages of the issue to be inappropriate and ordered it to be withheld. Students write and edit a school- sponsored newspaper.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment? No. 5-3 decision. Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." 8. Texas v. Johnson (1989) - Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court. Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment? 5-4 decision, burning of flag is protected as it fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature. 9. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) - The Court struck down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which put limits on corporate funding for campaigns from corporations and labor unions. The Court held that free speech was essential in a free society, and that speech was not less protected because the speaker was a corporation, labor union, or other organization. The Court upheld disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors, and also kept in place a ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions. Due Process Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment?

In an opinion authored by Justice Tom C. Clark, the majority brushed aside First Amendment issues and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) – Indigent/poor defendants must be provided representation without charge. (6 th amendment) Gideon was accused of committing a felony. Being indigent, he petitioned the judge to provide him with an attorney free of charge. The judge denied his request. The Supreme Court ruled for Gideon, saying that the Sixth Amendment requires indigent criminal defendants to be provided an attorney free of charge. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - Police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning (5 th amendment). After hours of police interrogations, Ernesto Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping. At trial, he sought to suppress his confession, stating that he was not advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning. In re Gault (1967) – Gault, a 15-year-old, was arrested and committed to State Industrial School till the age of 21. Parents weren’t given a notice. Were the procedures used to commit Gault constitutionally legitimate under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? No. The proceedings of the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. These requirements included adequate notice of charges, notification of both the parents and the child of the juvenile's right to counsel, opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination at the hearings, and adequate safeguards against self-incrimination. The Court found that the procedures used in Gault's case met none of these requirements. Equal Protection

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) - In 1890, Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act declaring that all rail companies carrying passengers in Louisiana must provide separate but equal accommodations for White and non-White passengers.. In 1892, Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth Black, purchased a first-class ticket and sat in the White-designated railroad car. Plessy was arrested for violating the Separate Car Act and argued in court that the act violated the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. After losing twice in the lower courts, Plessy took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the previous decisions that racial segregation is constitutional under the "separate but equal" doctrine. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - Issue: Do racially segregated public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause? Result: Yes. A unanimous Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and held that state laws requiring or allowing racially segregated schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court famously stated "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) - Issue: Can an institution of higher learning use race as a factor when making admissions decisions? Result: The Court held that universities may use race as part of an admissions process so long as "fixed quotas" are not used. The Court determined that the specific system in place at the University of California Medical School was "unnecessary" to achieve the goal of creating a diverse student body and was merely a "fixed quota" and therefore, was unconstitutional. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) - Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state? The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite- sex couples.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Privacy Rights Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) - Estelle Griswold, the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic, broke an 1879 Connecticut law banning contraception. The Court struck down the law, making it a landmark case in which the Court read the Constitution to protect individual privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations. Roe v. Wade (1973) - Issue: Does the Constitution prohibit laws that severely restrict or deny a woman's access to abortion? Result: Yes. The Court concluded that such laws violate the Constitution's right to privacy. The Court held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, states may only restrict abortions toward the end of a pregnancy, in order to protect the life of the woman or the fetus. Importance: Roe has become a center-piece in the battle over abortion-rights, both in the public and in front of the Court. Federalism McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) – Established principles of federal supremacy and implied powers. Issue: Can Congress establish a national bank, and if so, can a state tax this bank? Result: The Court held that Congress had implied powers to establish a national bank under the "necessary and proper" clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court also determined that United States laws trump state laws and consequently, a state could not tax the national bank.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) - Does the Commerce Clause give Congress authority over interstate navigation? The Supreme Court determined that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants the federal government the power to determine how interstate commerce is conducted. New York could not interfere with it, and the law was therefore invalid. Cooper v. Aaron (1958) - States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts. Several government officials in southern states, including the governor and legislature of Alabama, refused to follow the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the federal courts were violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that only the federal courts can decide when the Constitution is violated.

cases

Related Documents