1: This book contains a compilation of 58 Supreme Court Cases. Each page will define the case, its outcome and contain illustrations which pertain the events of the case. All pages have been created by student's in Ms. Orr's second and third period Civics and Economics class at Hickory Ridge High School. Flip through and learn something new about your rights and the laws as they apply to all individuals in our nation!
2: Marbury v. Madison (1803) Judicial Review Background At the end of the Federsalist President John Adams term he appointed William Marbury as justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. The secreatary of state John Marshall failed to deliver the comission to Marbury and left the task to the new Secretary of State James Madison. Upon Thomas Jeffersons inauguration he told Madison not to deliver the comission. Marbury filed suit and asked the Supreme Court to issue a court order which would require Madison to deliver the commission.
3: The Issue Does the Constitution Give the Supreme Court the Power to Review & Invalidate the Actions of other branches of government Branches of Government? | The Ruling (Unanimus Decison) Marbury had the right to his comission & the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitututional. Congress wouldn't have the final say in Contitutionality.The Supreme | Court would; thus establishing Judicial Review. Lasting Issues The Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing judicial review but it has been accepted in the American Legal System
4: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Ashley Armstrong | Historical Background: Many states did not like the competition between the state bank and the Bank of the United States, so they tried to go against it by establishing taxes on the Bank.
5: Lasting Issues: This case affects us today because it shows that the federal government has the power over the states. They can do things that aren't specifically listed in the Constitution. This case increased the power of the federal government because they had implied powers and they still practice this today. | Facts of the Case: Maryland appealed to the Supreme Court against James McCulloch, a cashier at the Baltimore branch bank, because he issued bank notes without paying the taxes. The question the court had to answer was about how they would divide the state and federal powers. They were deciding whether the state had the power to tax the federal bank or not. Ruling of the Case: The Supreme Court decided that the states did have the power to collect taxes on its people, but they couldn't place taxes on the federal government. They said the states were obligated to the Constitution. The Supreme Court said that although the Constitution doesn't specifically give the power to have a bank, it's part of the "necessary and proper" clause that gives the government power to do things that they feel are necessary that aren't stated in the Constitution. This shows that the Court upheld the principle of implied powers.
6: Elizabeth Ballesteros Griswold Vs. Connecticut | Background In Connecticut, there was a law that prohibited couples using devices or drugs to prevent them from having a baby. The law was “Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.” The doctors who went against this law were Estelle Griswold and Lee Buxton. They were found guilty of breaking this law. Then they appealed to the Appeals court and were found guilty. Then the case went to the Supreme Court.
7: Facts about Case Is it ok for the government to deny the citizens their right to privacy? Is this Connecticut law unconstitutional? Ruling The Supreme Court ruled Buxton and Griswold innocent. The justice that wrote the majority opinion said that even though the Constitution does not state it, it gives citizens the freedom of privacy in one's home and a private life under the fourth and fifth amendments. So if married people wanted to use devices and drugs that prevent pregnancy then they have the freedom to do so. Lasting Issues Since this ruling has been in affect many people have used this option even people that are not married so they may have sex but not conceive.
8: Roe v. Wade --410 US 113 (1973)-- By: Arianna Barbee
9: Case History In 1970, two young attorneys—Linda Coffee and Sara Weddington—filed a suit on behalf of their client, Norma L. McCorvey, who used the pseudonym “Jane Roe”. McCorvey, claiming that her pregnancy was a result of rape, thought that she should be allowed to have an abortion; a three-district court judge ruled with her, but refused to go against the abortion laws in the state of Texas. On December 13, 1971, the case was presented in front of the U.S. Supreme Court; however, it would take until January 22, 1973, for the Court to rule in favor of striking down the Texas abortion laws in a 7 to 2 majority vote. The Issue The issue brought before the court was whether or not Texas laws thatoutlawed abortion were Constitutional or not; is it the woman' choice whether or not to abort her unborn child, or the government's? The Ruling In a 7 to 2 majority vote, the Supreme Court deemed abortion to be a fundamental right protected by the United States Constitution. However, the Court ruled that restrictions on abortion during the third trimester should be determined by the states, simply because there is no specific time in a fetus' development that everyone recognizes as the beginning of "life". Diseenting Opinion Justice Byron R. White, in his written dissent, stated that, "I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment." Impacts on Modern Society There is still much debate over the legalization of abortion in America; many religios organizations are opposed to it, and believe that taking the life of a fetus is the same as murder. Rallies are still held, and today, Norma McCorvey--a.k.a. "Jane Roe"--actually changed her views and stated that she is against abortion, sparking renewed opposition against the Court's ruling.
10: FURMAN V. GEORGIA,1972 FACTS: William Henry Furman was burglarizing a home in Georgia when a family member discovered him. In his frantic flee to escape the home, he tripped and fell, thus causing the gun he had to fire. The gun shot and killed a resident of the home. Furman was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The Court consolidated the Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas cases (concerning the constitutionality of the death sentence with rape and murder convictions, respectively) with the Furman decision. QUESTION: Would carrying out the death sentence in these cases go against the 18th and 14th amendments?
11: CONCLUSION: The Court ruled that, yes, it would be unconstitutional to order Furman and the others to death in their cases becuase it would violate the Constitution's 'cruel and unusual punishment' law. In over 200 pages of concurrences and dissents, the justices made thier stands on the topic distinctly. Some of the Concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences had been imposed in the past, and even observed that they indicated a racial bias agains't negro defendants. The Court's ruling made national and state legislatures rethink their stands on capital offenses in order to allow less discrimination in the issuing of the death sentence.
12: Gregg v. Georgia (1976) Finding the Death Penalty Constitutional; Not "Cruel & Unusual Punishment" Background A district court jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder then sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the decision to dispense Gregg the death sentence. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his sentence was "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the eighth and fourteenth amendments.
13: Conclusion In a 7 to 2 decision Georgia's Supreme Court upheld the decision for Gregg to obtain a the death penalty. | Question Is the death sentence allowed under the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment?
14: Ritchie C. Engel v. Vitale (1962) The case was bought against the New York Board of Regents for instituting an official daily prayer in the state's public school. The Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in terminating the progam. Creating that the government should not involve itself in the creation of any religious pratice sacrament or not.
15: Question??? Did the school prayer violate the 1st and 14th amendment? Did it go against the Establishment Clause? | Facts of the Case One fall day in 1958, Steven Engel, a jew,visited his son's elementary school to find him in the process of doing the Regents-sponsored, a prayer approved by the school board. But students weren't required to say it Engal along with 4 other parents took the school boarad president (Vitale) to court. | Lasting Issues The Supreme court voted it unconstitutional using the Establishment Clause. School prayer is still not allowed today.
16: Thompson v. Oklahoma Facts of the case:At the age of 15 years Thompson was tried as an adult, convicted of first degree murder, and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma affirmed. The question before the court was: would the execution of a 15 year old qualify as cruel and unusual punishment?
17: Historical Background: At the age of 15, William Thompson brutally murdered his brother-in-law, who had been abusing his sister. According to Oklahoma law, Thompson was a minor and must be tried as one, thereby receiving a reduced sentence and other considerations. Due to the gravity of the crime, the prosecutor requested an order which would allow the boy to be tried as an adult. Thompson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death Ruling of the Court: The Court decided that killing a 15-year old would violate the Eigth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." Furthermore, the Court found that through the 14th Amendment it applied to all states and set forth a minimum execution age of 16. The Court explained this, saying that such an act would violate "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Lasting issues: As the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, any decision they make applies to everyone else. Only they can reverse a decision, and since they set the precedent now all the states have to follow it for the future.
18: Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Jonathan Dixon on June 7, 1892, Homer Plessy boarded a train car, in East Louisiana, designated for "whites only". Plessy was one eigth black therfor, was dubbed African American and was commanded by Louisiana law to move to the colored train car. Plessy refused to move and was arrested and jailed.
19: Plessy argued that his constitutional rights were being ingnored that were stated in the 13th and 14th amendment. John Howard Ferguson ruled that Louisiana had the right to regulate railroad companies. Plessy retreated to the Supreme Court of Louisiana and recieved the same ruling. Plessy then approached the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 7 to 1 decision the Supreme Court rejected Plessy's arguements and saw no descrimination in Louisiana law. The court ruled that it was policy to seperate races but reasured Plessy that everyone was "seperate but equal". The Plessy vs Ferguson case provided a moving force for further segregation laws and legitamized segregation practices.
20: Reynolds D. Brown v. Board of Education on Topeka, Kansas (1954)
22: Gitlow v. New York by Erin Hancock
23: Historical Background and Facts About the Case: Benjamin Gitlow was a socialist who was arrested for distributing copies of a “Left-Wing Manifesto”. These documents called for strikes against the government in order to establish a socialist society. Gitlow was convicted of advocating the forceful overthrow of the government under state criminal anarchy law. At his trial, Gitlow argued that he should not be punished since no concrete action resulted from the Manifesto’s publication. However, the New York Courts had decided that any advocacy of violent revolution was a violation of the law. | Questions before the Court: Is the New York state court's decision to punish the advocacy of overthrowing the government an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment due to the free speech clause? Does the First Amendment apply to the state governments? Ruling and Reasons: The First Amendment does apply to the states as safeguarded in the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that state governments may not take the away the virtue of liberty. However, a state may forbid publication if it has the potential to result in public danger. In addition, the state may punish any person that is found guilty of publishing such documents. Therefore, Benjamin Gitlow’s conviction was upheld on the basis that the publication of “Left-Wing Manifesto” directly advocated public danger. Lasting Issue: The Gitlow v. New York case has left a lasting impact on our government and society. It has set precedents for future judgments of similar cases. We now have specific consequences for the advocacy of overthrowing the government through any type of speech or publication.
24: Schenck v. US (1919)--Grayson H. The year is 1919, the United States is in the middle of World War I, and the draft is in effect. Charles Schneck, opposing the draft, sent thousands of flyers to draftees in an attempt to get them to petition to repeal the draft. He said that it amounted to "involuntary servitude."
25: Schenck was charged by the U.S. government with violating the recently enacted Espionage Act. The government said he violated the act by causing military insubordination. When the case was appealed to the supreme court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a pioneering opinion that upheld Schenck's conviction and also said that the Espionage Act did not violate his First Amendment right. The court ruled that Schenck had fully intended to undermine the draft, and spent six months in prison. The court's ruling found that First Amendment rights are generous, but not limitless. If speach is used to present clear and present danger, it is wrong.
26: Texas vs Johnson Is flag burning constitutional | In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory 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 givin a year in prision and a 2000 dollar fine. the texas appeals court changed the verdict it was sent to the supreme court
27: the supreme court vote 5 to 4 saying that flag burning is protected under the first amendement. some lasting issues are that freedom of speech also protects freedom of expression.
28: Lance H. Mapp v. Ohio
29: The question set before the Supreme Court was whether Mapp was protected under the 4th and 14th Amendments which would overturn her conviction. Mapp stated that the officers who searched her home did so illegally and therefore all evidence obtained from an illegal search should be thrown out of court. | The state of Ohio argued that even though the search was illegal the 14th Amendment doesn't say that evidence seized illegally cannot be used in court. They basically said that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee 4th Amendment protection. | In a 6-3 decision the Supreme Court overturned the conviction. They stated that Evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court and must be thrown out. This case made the Exclusionary rule of the 14th Amendment mandatory for all the states. Citizens today are not equally protected from illegal searches and seizures.
30: Zach K. Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971 | Historical Background In 1968 pennsylvainia passed the Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allowed the state Superintendent of Public education to reimburse nonpublic schools (most of which were catholic ) for teacher salaries, supplies, etc. | Issue/Question before the court. The question before the court was if the law violated the establishment clause which delt with prayer in school but does this apply when the state is funding a private school in which prayer is allowed?
31: The Ruling The eventual ruling in the case was that the pennsylvainia law did indeed violate the establishment clause. the case established the "lemon test " to deal with future court rulings on religion the test had three critriea 1)The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; 2)The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; 3)The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion The ruling also said that the teachers could recieve state funding if they tought the same subjects that were tought in public schools | Lasting effects The lemon test is still used today but has recently come under fire for not being used in every case involving religion especially in major cases involviong violations of the establishment clause
32: Miller vs. California Ronald Lawson In 1973 after a massive mailing campagine of "adult" material Miller was convicted of violating one of California statutes. The question presented in this case was: Is the sale and distribution of adult material protected by the frist amendment
33: they then went on to explain what is consider obsceen. | With a 5 to 4 vote the supreme court ruled that the mailing and advertisment of "adult" material was not protected by the frist amendment
34: Paul Leung New York Times v. US (1971) Historical Background and Facts of the Case: In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg copied a series of articles arising from a classified top secret forty-seven-volume study called History of U.S. Decision Making Process on Viet Nam Policy (1968). When he could not get leading politicians to publicize the study he passed them on to The New York Times After reviewing the documents for several months The New York Times started printing them in installments, the first on June 13, 1971. After the third installment, the Nixon Administration obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting further publications until June 19. The case became to be known as the "Pentagon Papers Case".
35: Issue/ Question before the Court: The question given to the court was did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment. | Ruling: Yes. In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" should not be used "to cancel the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment." Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event endangering the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified. Lasting Issues: Today, this case still has lasting effects on the media. Newspapers, magazines, ect, have realized their freedoms given in the first amendment and are using them full force. Magazines these days are not just reporting on the life and issues of the government, but also the lifestyles of celebrities. They have the right to post the truth of issues which can sometimes be embarrising.
36: Michael M. Near v. Minnesota (1931)
37: Question: Does the "Minnesota Gag" law violate the constitution?
38: Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
40: West Virgina Board of Education v. Barnette When students of the Jehovah’s Witnesses Religion refused to say the pledge of allegiance in a West Virginia school, they were expelled. (1943)
41: History: The state of West Virginia required their students and teachers to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. A group of people of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion refused to salute the flag because it contradicted their beliefs. Walter Barnette then brought his case to the Supreme Court. Facts: In Barnette, the students questioned whether or not requiring pupils to recite the pledge infringed on their freedom of speech. West Virginia held their ground. When brought to the lower court, it sided with Barnette against a precedent ruling in Minersville School District v. Gobitis which brought it to the Supreme Court. Ruling:The precedent of Minersville School District v. Gobitis ruled that the First Amendment did not justify the in-observance of the flag. However, the ruling in Barnette overruled the precedent and stated that under the First Amendment, students were free from punishment if they chose not to salute the flag. Issues: Today, there is still an ongoing issue with reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and requirement in schools. Again, some schools require this unless with written permission and some don't. There is also an issue with the words "Under God" within the pledge that causes religious controversies.
42: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) | This case emerged in the '60s, during "The Legal Aid Movement" ( a time when there was push to give defendants legal aid).
43: In 1963, Ernesto Arturo Miranda, was convicted of rape. He later confessed of robbery and attempted rape, when interrogated by the police. Prosecutors offered only his confession as evdence during his confession as a trial. He was convicted of rape and kidnapping, and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison for each charge. His court-appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court which affirmed the court's decision. The Arizona Supreme Court emphasized heavily that Miranda didn't specificaly request counsel. The U.S. Supreme Court's Chief Justice, Earl Warren, delivered the opinion of the court. | Justice Warren ruled that due to the nature of the interrogation, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had then waived them prior to the interrogation. Thus, Miranda's conviction was overturned. Miranda was later retried without the confession, but used witnesses and other evidence. Miranda was convicted and served 11 years. When released, he made cards for police officers to carry around, "Miranda Cards", listing the rights that police officers should issue apon arrest.
44: Chris Schaffner Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
45: When accused of murder, Danny Escobedo was brought in to an interrogation room for questioning. According to the fifth amendment, he was to have been given the "right to remain silent", or the Miranda Rights. He wasn't allowed this, though, and the police forced the confession of murder out of him. They didn't even permit his lawyer to enter the room! | The plaintiff, Escobedo, argued his lawyerless case to the Supreme Court and the judges' rule was 5 go 4 in favor of reversal. Since Escobedo was not allowed his Miranda Rights during interrogation, the Court decided that the circumstance was unconstitutional. This led to the conclusion that all police interviews today must include the presentation of the Miranda Rights to each accused.
46: Background: Gideon,was arrested for stealing from a poolroom in Florida. Since he was too poor to get a lawyer, he asked that Wainwright assign him one. The judge denied him a lawyer .Under Florida law, a lawyer could only be assigned to a criminal who committed a capital offense in which death is a penalty. So Gideon served as his own lawyer pleeding not guilty. However he was found guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison. While in prison, Gideon submitted a petition that he had handwritten to the Supreme Court to accept his plea for a lawyer.
47: Issue: 6th Amendment guaranteed a counsel in criminal cases, but didn't directly state that it applied to state trials. In an earlier case, Powell v. Alabama, the Supreme Court stated that state courts would provide counsel in capital cases. | Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gideon.He was appointed Abe Fortas as his lawyer. So his trial was sent back to the district court to be judged by the same judge and jury, but this time he had a lawyer. The jury found Gideon not guilty, and he was aqquitted his charges.
48: Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) Historical Background: Samuel Sheppard was charged with second degree murder after the brutal murder of his wife pregnat wife. He appealed his verdict. The reason for doing this is he felt he did not recieve a fair trail due to all of the publicity the case got during his trail. This is because the Clevland television media showed Sheppard's confession to the murder several times. The Facts: The question that was asked in court was whether the first amendment (freedom of press) outweighed the sixth amendment (right to a impartial trail) in circumstances such as these.
49: The Decision: The justices voted 8 to 1 in favor of the decision that Sheppard did not recieve a fair trail. In the future the medias influnence would be very limited because they would be constricted on what they can say. | Lasting Effects: This case insured that in the future all hearings would be impartial aand no case has overturned the courts opinion yet. even though many did not like the reversed decision the court had to hold up the defendents rights. A movie was even based off of this case called "The Fugitive."
50: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) By: David Stoy Historical Backround: Racism was still a touchy subject in America; this case took place a little more than 10 years after the Civil Rights Act. Facts of the Case: Bakke applied to the University of Califoria two times, and was denied entry twice. The University of California had saved 16 out of 100 spaces of the entering class for "qualified minorites." Bakke claimed he was better qualified than the minorities because his GPA was higher and he scored higher on entry tests. He sued the Regents of University of California claiming that he was denied entry based solely on race.
51: Constiutional Issue: Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application? Decision: Four justices believed that the use of race as a criteria in admissions decisions was constitutionally permissible. | However, the majority (five remaining votes), believed, that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, the court ordered the University admitt Bakke. Lasting Effects: Today, universities are not to use quota systems that hold a certain spots for minorities. They are allowed to consider race when looking at an application, but not decide based upon it.
52: Tinker vs. Des Moines Background : John Tinker was suspended for wearing a black armband in order to protest the Vietnam War. Soon after, many students were suspended for following after Tinker. The Question : The Supreme Court had to decide if the students suspension violated the 1st amendment.
53: Supreme Court Decision: In a 2 to 7 vote, the Supreme Court decided that the suspension was unconstitutional. They decideced this because the protest was peaceful, and did not violate the 1st amendment. Lasting Effects: Today, because of the Tinker vs. Des Moines case, students and teachers can protest peacefully without being punished for their actions.
54: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) The plaintiffs argued that educators do not offend the first amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The students, on the other hand, asserted that their rights were violated by the deletion from a certain issue of the paper of two pages that included an article describing school students’ experiences with pregnancy and another article discussing the impact of divorce on students at the school. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier was decided on January 13, 1988. The 5-3 vote reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis, which had upheld the rights of the students. Justice Byron White wrote the Court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor and Scalia.
55: Justice William Brennan filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun. In essence, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court said that the rights of public school students are not necessarily the same as those of adults in other settings. The student newspaper at Hazelwood East High School, it said, was not a "forum for public expression" by students, and thus the censored students were not entitled to broad First Amendment protection. | 2 Therefore, the Court held that the school was not required to follow the standard established in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District,3 a case where students were suspended from school for wearing black arm bands in protest of the Vietnam War. In that 1969 case, the Supreme Court said school officials could only limit student free expression when they could demonstrate that the expression in question would cause a material and substantial disruption of school activities or an invasion of the rights of others. Requests for assistance received by the SPLC from high school students and advisers around the country indicated that the Hazelwood decision has had at least one significant effect: a dramatic increase in the amount of censorship. From 1988 to 1989, calls for help received by the Center increased by 12 percent. In the first four months of 1990, the number of calls was up over 170 percent from the same period in 1989. Student publications are reporting censorship of articles, editorials and advertisements that were perceived as "controversial" or that might cast the school in a negative light. Advisers are reporting threats to their jobs if they refuse to follow school officials' orders to censor. And almost all student journalists and advisers said that they attributed the censorship at least in part to the Hazelwood decision.
56: New Jersey Vs. T.L.O What happened: At Piscataway high School in New Jersey in 1980 two girls were found smoking in the bathroom. One girl conceded that she had been smoking but the younger girl, T.L.O, denied the claims. Vice principal Choplick opened T.L.O's purse and found a pack of cigarettes. Choplick also found Cigarette rolling papers commonly used for Marijuana. Finding these rolling papers Choplick continued on a more thorough search of her purse. Choplick found a samll amount of marijuana, a pipe, small bags, and a list of students names, all leading to T.L.O dealing.
58: Vivian W. Roper v. Simmons (2004)
59: In July of 1993, Christopher Simmons (age 17) and Charlie Benjamin (age 15) broke into Shirley Crook's home, bound her with electrical wire and covered her face in duct tape, and then pushed her into the Mermac River just outside of St Louis. When they were tried, Benjamin wasn't old enough, however Simmons was. | Simmons was scheduled to be executed May 1st 2002. An appeal to the Supreme Court vacated his death sentance in favor of life inprisonment with no parrol. They cited the 8th amendment, and held that juvenile executions violate "evolving standards of decency." The issue is that he commited the murder at age 17, and after he had turned 18 he was sentanced to death. The significance of this case is the constitutional issue of what age juveniles should be held responsible for their actions. Behavioral scientists have debated whether adolescents are less capable than adults and that the brain is still developing. Outside of the United States, only 7 countries still execute minors.
60: The Case: Henry Taylor Blow (Elizabeth's brother) helped scott file a suit for his freedom. In 1846, missouri local court freed Scott, and then in 1852 the decision was reversed. | Maryam A. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) History: In 1759, Dred Scott was born in Virginia as a slave. Scott's master was Peter Blow. After peter's trajic death Elizabeth Blow, his daughter, sold Scott to Dr. John Emerson. Dr. Emerson would take very lengthy trips to the Illinois, wisconsin, and Minnesota(free states) The Case (cont.) Chief Justice Roger B. Taneyruled against Scott on March 6, 1857.
61: Court Rulings The court ruled that the 1) "Negros" were conidered the inferior class. 2) Scott had no claim to freedom becuse his permanent residence, when he filed, the suit was Missouri, which was the slave state. 3) The court also declared that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and that it's rulings didn't apply to the case. Afterwards Henry Blow purchased Scott and gave him his freedom. year and a half later he died because of Tuberculosis.
62: In Re Gault (1966) A case deciding the rights of Juvinile criminals... A case report by: Amritha Amarnath Historical Background: On the night of Monday, May 15th, 1967, the parents of 15 year old Gerald Francis Gault came home from their work to find their older son alone at home. Where was the younger son Gerald? He was arrested by the police for allegedly making an obscene phone call. There was no note left for the conserned parents. Being a juvenile, Gerald, who was previously on probation, was sentenced to the State Industrial School after a hearing before a juvinile court until he turned 21 with no rights by the 14th amendment. His rights of notice of charges, right to counsel, to confrontation and cross-examination, appellate review, against self-incrimination, and transcript of proceedings were all not fulfilled. In other words Gault's rights to Due process of law was withheld.
63: Issue before the Supreme Court: Does the Fourteenth Amendment cover Juviniles? Do juviniles recive unfair treatment during arrest, trial, and sentence just because they are under 18? Ruling: Since the 14th amendment states that there are to be no states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (exerpt from the 14th amendment), the court ruled that the sentence put on Gault was unconstitutional and declared that the case be remanded for reevalutation. Dissenting Opinion: Out of the nine justices, there was one dissenting opinion and one concurring opinion. The only dissenting opinion was made by Justice Potter Stewart. He argued that the Juvinile court was a source of correction for juvinile criminals, not a punishment. Lasting Issues: Because of this case it was decided that the Amendments concern all the citizens even if the said citizen was a juvinile.
64: Phil B. Fred Korematsu refused to obey the wartime order to leave his home and report to a relocation camp for Japanese Americans. He was arrested and convicted. After losing in the Court of Appeals, he appealed to the United States Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the deportation order.
65: Supreme Court's Decision The Supreme Court upheld the order excluding Japanese people ancestry from the West Coast war zone during World War II. However, three justices dissented.
66: Jennifer B. US v. Nixon (1974) Historical Background - the watergate case was brought into the supreme court when the republicans spyed on the democrats in the watergate hotel. although nixon did not set it up, he knew about it. and withheld recordings from the courts.
68: Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) By: Ashley Bramble | Historical Background: In 1824, prior to this case decision, States were charging out of state steamboat operators fees for navigation privileges.
69: Facts: New York gave two people the exclusive right to use steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. This law was duplicated in other places, which caused friction because some states required out-of-state boats to pay fees to be in their water. | The main issue was if New York had the authority to impose fees or whether only Congress had this authority. Ruling: The Supreme Court decided that under the Supremacy Clause New York did not have the authority to charge these fees because it was considered an interstate commerce issue and therefore regulated by Congress. Lasting Issues: Chief Justice Marshall's opinion became one of the most influential opinions by giving a clear definition to the word commerce, and meaning to the phrase "among the several states".
72: Nathan Butler DeJonge v. Oregon
73: Historical Background: On July 27, 1934, Dirk de Jonge was holding a meeting having to do with the communist party of the United States. They were adressing the jail conditions in the county upon which they lived in. During this meeting, the police officer's of that town raided the meeting. DeJonge was arrested and charged with violating the State of Oregon's syndicalism statute. The Supreme Court disagreed with the state's decision, stating that he was unlawfully teaching, and conducting sabotage. Issue/ Question before the court: Does Oregon's criminal statute violate the clause of the 14th amendment? Ruling: Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes had determined that Dirk de Jonge had indeed violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The court also ruled that De Jonge's only offense, was that he assisted in a meeting that involved the communist party. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone had no ruling in this case, since it was so controversial. Lasting issues still today: Under the 1st amendment you have the right to assemble, however there are limits to that: you may not assemble to hurt the government. In the Jonge vs. Oregon case, De Jonge held a communist meeting, to hurt the United States government, this was established as unconstitutional. People may still experience this today because the Communist Party USA still exists today, so they have to be careful in their meetings.
74: Brandenburg vs. Ohio June 9,1969 History: The Ku Klux Klan was established after the American Civil War to keep White Rule in Southern states. After the Civil Rights Movement, the Klan became very active in the South and in other parts of the nation.
75: Lasting Issues: The Supreme Court Ruling said that Freedom of Speech is protected as long as the speech does not encourage unlawful action or violence. Today, we are still have our right to Free Speech as long as it the speech does not persuade illegal actions. | Facts: Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was arrested under Ohio's state syndicalism statute for crimes insisting unlawful actions or violence. He was also convicted for assembly to advocate criminal actions. Brandenburg appealed his case to the Supreme Court on the grounds that Ohio's law vilated his right to Free Speech. Question: Did the Ohio syndicalism law that prohibited illegal speech violate the Freedom of Speech and the 14th Amendment? Supreme Court Decision The Supreme Court, on June 9, 1969, reversed Brandenburg's Ohio conviction on the grounds that Ohio's law violated his Freedom of Speech. This decision set a precedent for later court cases dealing with the Freedom of Speech.
76: State v. Mann (1830) Historical Background: In this time period, slavery was still in place and masters ruled over their property. Facts of Case: In this story, a slave named Lydia was owned by a North Carolinian named Elizabeth Jones. Jones rented Lydia out for the year to John Mann. Lydia was obviously upset by the new arrangements, so Mann descided to put her in her place. While he was punishing the slave, she got away. He shot and wounded her severely to keep her from getting away. He was found guilty for "cruel and unwarrantable, and disproportionate to the offense committed by the slave" by the local courts. He appealed to the NC supreme court.
78: Swann Vs. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools Board of Education Historical Background and Facts: When the Supreme Court case Brown Vs. Board of Education Topeka was ruled upon, it was shown that segregation was unconstitutional and mandated that all school systems must begin desegregation. In North Carolina, the southern tradition was not widely held and desegregation was not a serious problem to the state. North Carolina schools systems acted not too enthusiasticly to the change when told they would have to begin desegregation but it was mostly upheld. When several student's sought that | while desegreation was supposedly being uphelod, the schools districts were modified to put more black students in the poorer schools and the white students to the outer limit schools. When the case was brought to the Charlotte Mecklenburg School Board of Education, they denied the claim. The case moved to the North Carolina Supreme Court were it was denied again. However, Swann's final hope laid in the United States Supreme Court. Issue for the Supreme Court: Was busing a sufficent way to deal with the desegregation mandate? Was the Schools System allowed to modify the school district to change the amount of black students?
79: Ruling: The Supreme Court decided that while busing was a sufficent way to intergrate, the changing of the schools districts went against the mandate previously ruled in the Brown Vs. Board of Education Topeka. With a 7-2 vote to overturn the lower court's decision, the Mecklenburg School System began to bus more students to white schools to begin | desegregation. Lasting Issue: While the CIvil Rights movement is over, some still questiong wether all men and women are still equal in the eyes of all.
80: Bradley Ford Leandro v. State of NC In 1997, the Supreme Court found that every child in North Carolina is constitutionally entitled to “a sound, basic education,” which is defined as 1) sufficient ability to read, write, and speak English, and practice mathematics and the physical sciences to allow the student to operate in a complex and rapidly changing society; 2) sufficient knowledge of geography, history, economics and politics to enable the student to competently participate in the community and nation; 3) sufficient academic and vocational skills to enable the student to successfully engage in post-secondary education or vocational training; and 4) sufficient academic and vocational skills to enable the student to compete on an equal basis with others in further formal education and gainful employment in contemporary society. The Supreme Court remanded the case and instructed the Superior Court to rule against the State contingent on evidence “to the effect that defendants in this case are denying children of the state a sound, basic education.”
81: Ruling The Superior Court ruled against the State and that every child should be entitled to "sound basic education" | Question Is every child constitutionally entitiled to " a basic sound education"
82: Weeks v. United States (1914) Stephanie Forgash Historical Background and Facts: On December 21st, 1911 in Kansas City, MO, Fremont Weeks was arrested at work. Meanwhile, other police officers were at his | house ransacking through his belongings. They had obtained no search warrant, yet they continued to look for what they wanted. It was said that Weeks was using the mail system to distribute chances in the lottery. The officials seized books, letters, and papers from his house and this evidence was later used to convict him. Later, Weeks took action against the Supreme Court and petitioned to have his belongings returned to him. The actions of the police not only violated the 11th and 23rd amendments of the Missouri Constitution, but also violated the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution.
83: Constitutional Issue: Did the police's unauhorized search of Weeks' home violate his rights protected under the 4th amendment? Ruling: The court's decision was ultimately unanimous They rendered that the seizure of Weeks' private and personal property directly violated his the rights guaranteed to him by the 4th amendment. In addition, the court held that the government's refusal to return Weeks' posessions violated the 4th amendment as well. By allowing his private documents o be seized and then holding it as evidence against him made the protection of the 4th amendment amount to no value. This became the first application of what eventually became known as the "exclusionary rule." The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that holds that evidence collected in violation of a citizen's constitutional rights cannot be used to prosecute them in a court of law.
84: Goldberg V. Kelly Background Information: When welfare recipients got their welfare benefits taken away from them without any notice, they decided to sue. | Facts of the case: The case was argued on October 13, 1969 and the decision came on March 23, 1970. John Kelly sued the state of New York on behalf of residents of New York that received financial assistance. The question of the case was, "Does a state's termination of public aid, without affording the beneficiary a hearing prior to termination, violate notions of procedural due process as set out in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?"
85: The Decision: The Supreme Court Justices decided that it was unconstitutional to take away someone’s welfare benefits without any notice. The Court decided that since the welfare was an entitlement the people should have the chance to fight their case before the welfare is taken away from them. | Lasting Effects: This case changed the way many people thought about welfare. Most people thought of welfare as a privilege and now most people think of welfare as an entitlement.
86: The Heart of Atlanta Motel was a 216 room motel in Atlanta, Georgia. They chose not to serve African Americans. The owner of the motel, Moreton Rolleston Junior, filed a law suit against the federal government saying that the requirements of the Civil Rights Act conflicted with the requirements gained in the Commerce Clause. He also argued that his rights granted in the 5th amendment (due process) were not being upheld. He felt that his property wasn’t truly his if he couldn’t run his business however he pleased and he said that this was not allowed without compensation. Basically, he wanted to be paid for letting African Americans into his motel.
87: The Civil Rights Act made discrimination by race illegal. The Commerce Clause (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3) states that Congress has the exclusive authority to manage commerce between the states but not between the buisnesses. Did the Civil Rights Act mean that the Commerce Clause was no longer affective? The Supreme Court decided that the Commerce Clause did not allow the hotel, being a public building, the right to choose who and who could not stay.
88: Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979) By: Kelly Gagnon Historical Background/Facts of the case: Throughout the 1970’s, Senator William Proxmire became infamous for his “Golden Fleece of the Month Award” that he gave to persons he believed were wasting their tax dollars. Ronald Hutchinson, of the National Science Foundation, was given one of these ‘awards’ for his research on | for his research in how animals deal with stress. However, when Proxmire started accusing Hutchinson (outside of the Senate floor) in press releases and television interviews, Hutchinson took him to court for damaging his reputation. The district court and court of appeals both were in favor of Proxmire on the basis that he had protection under the Speech or Debate Clause. It was then that the case was taken to the Supreme Court.
89: Issue / Question before the Court: Did Proxmire have protection under the Speech or Debate Clause? Could Proxmire be accused of libel? | Ruling: On June 26, 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that because Hutchinson was not a public figure, Proxmire could not have protection under the Speech or Debate Clause outside of Congress. The Court declared the “privileges of the clause did not extend to press releases, newsletters, and other communications not ‘essential to the deliberations of the Senate.’” Thus, Proxmire was charged with libel. | Lasting Issues:
91: Historical Background In Chicago, there were many of bad areas that were known for narcotic trafficking. Knowing this information many police investigations were being held in the area. whenever they thought they saw someone who was suspicious they would try to pull them over and arrest them for any charges they could get on them. Also, there was a previous case called Terry v. Ohio that made any frisking without reasonable clause illegal. it also stated that if the frisk was legal then the evidence could be used in the case. | The Court's Ruling The court ruled against Wardlow because they said he was suspicious enough to be stopped and frisked. They also said that Wardlow was allowed to ignore the police and go on his own way but since he instead fled the scene it showed automatic suspicion. The court also said that we do not have a set standard of reasonable suspicion, therefore leaving it up to the police to decide whether or not the person is suspicious based upon common sense and inferences about human behavior and activites. | Lasting Issues The court's rulling helps people understand what evidence can and can't be used in a case. Being pulled over because you have some sort of suspicion is proved to be completely lawful. Since we still do not have a set standard of what is considered to be suspicious we know that police officers are sometimes going to pull over innocent people. However, if the person is innocent it wouldn't really make a difference or not if they were pulled over. The case has also helped us determine that a police officer can not pull you over because of the area you are in.
92: Luke Hall Ingraham v. Wright (1977)
93: Historical Background Two Florida students who were paddled in school filed a suit in federal court based on the argument that the paddling they recieved was "cruel and unusual punishment". They argued that students had the right to be heard prior to any physical punishment being given. They did not win their trial at the Court of Appeals, and then appealed to the Supreme Court. | Facts and Ruling of the Case Ingraham appealed to the Supreme Court because he lost his case in the Court of Appeals. The school, along with Wright, were surprised that Ingraham took it this far. The court had to answer the question of whether or not a student has the right to be heard before physical punishment. Based on the Eight Amendment, the court decided that the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment", did not apply to non-criminal context, such as school discipline. After all this, Ingraham lost once again,5-4 this time in the Supreme Court. | Lasting Issues The ruling in the Ingraham vs. Wright case gave schools leway to determine punishment at the discretion of the principal and administrative staff. The court was confident with the decision because public schools are institutions that are headed by communities resulting in little opportunity in the misuse of physical dicispline. This affects us today because each individual school has the right to individually govern their students in the way they deem necessary to promote a safe enviroment.
94: NIXON v. FITZGERALD (1982) Aly Huelster In 1970, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, a management analysist with the Department of the Air Force, lost his job due to reorganization of the department. However, in 1968, Fitzgerald had appeared before a congressional committee, testifying that cost-overruns on the CA transport plane could reach $2 billion. To the embarrassment of the other members of his department, he also explained to Congress that there were technical difficulties with the plane's model. When he was fired two years later, Fitzgerald assumed it was because he had made this testimony to Congress. Therefore, he sued government officials, including the president, Richard Nixon. The U.S. Court of Appeals would not hear the case for lack of jurisdiction, and the case went to the Supreme Court. When on trial, Nixon claimed that the President of the United States could not be sued for actions taken while in office. Does the President have this kind of immunity?
95: The Supreme Court ruled in Nixon's favor, saying that the president could not be charged for this offense while in office. | This ruling had a lasting impression on the U.S. law and judicial system. The case recognized the concept of presidential immunity and would act as a precedent in the future.
96: Mason Nater Powell v. Alabama (1932) Nine Black boys went and got on a train and they were followed by a group of white people. | When they got off, two white woman claimed that the black boys sexually assualted them. Upon trial their lawyer showed up but said they could not | formally represent them. As a result, the 9 boys were all sentenced to death even as 4 doctors found no remnants of rape in the women.
97: Issue/Question before the Court: The boys were unfairly sentenced due to lack of a lawyer. Was it right for them to be sentenced without one? Should the states me obligated to supply a lawyer to those who don't have? Are all these also guarenteed in the 14th Amendment? | Ruling: Justice Sutherland overturned the decision 7-2. There was no attempt to investigate the trial and "a defendant, charged with a serious crime, must not be stripped of his right to have sufficient time to advise with counsel and prepare his defense." This, according Sutherland, would infringe on the basic rights givien to us by the constitution. | Lasting Issues/Precedent: WIth this Decision, Justice Sutherland set a Precedent that said that because of the due process clause in the 14th amendment, a lawyer must beprovided to those facing possible death penalties.
98: Haley Kachmarik Rostker v. Goldberg (1981) To ban or not to ban women from registration for draft? | After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the early 1980's, President Carter reactivated the draft registration with Congress's approval, but they did not approve of his recommendation that the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) have to include women for registry. | At the district court hearing, the judges ruled in favor of Goldberg who brought up suit against Rostker (director of MSSA) in ruling that the MSSA's gender based discrimination had violated the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.
99: * Since the District Court ruled in favor of Goldberg, Rostker appealed to the Supreme Court which caused anticipation between the MSSA, President, and Goldberg * The question the Court held; Does the MSSA gender distinctions violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment? * The Court reversed the lower court decision, a 6-3 rule that held Congress's decision to exempt women from registration and was not a violation | was not a violation of the Due Process Clause. They found it Constitutional to register only men for the draft because Congress determined draft to provide in wartime, combat troops, and since women are excluded from combat, there is no need to register. *Today, women still do not register for the draft, but if they want to be involved in military services they may volunteer. Women are allowed in combat, and have made up 16% of our militray
100: Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) What will have to be done to have a trial be categorized as prejudicial, because of context and publicity as to come between the accused defendent's right of a fair trial? | Samuel H. Sheppard was accused of second-degree murder of his pregnant wife. Sheppard defied verdict by saying he did not get a fair trial. He challenged saying that he was not protected from the press and media that was of his prosecution. | The Court in a 8 to 1 decision, found Sheppard did not get a fair trial. They agreed that though freedom of expression should be allowed, it mustn't get to the point where it misses the mairn purpose.
101: Freedom of expression shouldn't interfere with the calm, objective, courtroom setting. Court adjourned by saying that they should have either postponed after everything or changed the location of trial. | The things that this case has influenced is the right for people to be protected against media. By the constitution, it does not pertain to anything related to the media
102: Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) By: Dillon Mathewson
103: Historical background: Appellee Ishmael Jaffree filed a complaint against the Alabama schoolboard concerning his three children.His hopes were to stop the school from conducting anymore religious prayer services in school | Facts of the case: An Alabama law permited teachers to conduct religious prayer services durring the schoolday. The question that the cout had to answer is; Is Alabama state law in conflict with the first ammendment of the Constiturion in letting teachers permit religous prayer services? | Ruling of the case: When the issue was tried at the district court they ruled to continue allowing the teachers to conduct religious prayer time. Jaffree appealed the ruling and the court of appeals reversed the ruling calling it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6 to 3 vote that Alabama law violated the first ammendment of the constitution. Lasting Issues: you still cannot conduct religious prayer time in schools durring the schoolday.
104: Tracy Morris Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of NY (1970) This case involved the state and local government tax exemptions for churches and religious property.
105: Fredrick Walz was an owner of real estate in Richmond County, New York. He sued the tax committee to challenge the property tax exemption for churches. Walz stated "the exemption indirectly places tax payers in the position of contributing to the churches".This case was reviewed by the supreme court to futher the idea that religious institutions are beneficial to society and are eligible for the same benefits offered to other organizations. | The court ruled in favor of the Tax Commission of the City of NY in a 8-1 vote. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Burger. He said the same benfits given to non-profits organizations such as libraries, hospitals, and playgrounds should be given to all houses of worship. He also stated that the exemption from these taxes is not in sponsorship or support for these religious organizations but out of respect. The exemptions create only a minimal involvement between church and state. If churches were taxed, they would accused of supporting the government, which is something that the government wishes to avoid. Churches have historically been granted tax-exempt status and there have been no bad effects from the relationship.
106: Nolen Nychay Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990) | History When a group of students from Westside High School were denied the right to form a Christian Club, they sued the school. They claimed that the school's refusal violated their freedom of association, religion, and speech; as well as the Equal Access Act. An appeals court ruled in favor ofthe students, and the case was forwarded to the Supreme Court
107: Facts The case included various aspects from the First Amendment, as well as a contradiction with the Equal Access Act. The question that the Supreme Court needed to answer was if Westside High School's refusal to allow the club to form was consistant with the Establishment Clause; therefore making the 1984 Equal Access Act unconstitutional. Ruling The Supreme Court ruled that under the Equal Access Act, students were within their rights to form a religious club. Since the student-group's meetings were't part of school curriculum, and students wouldn't be recieving additional school credit,the club was equivalent to any other noncurriculum group. The Equal Access Act was deemed constitutional. Lasting Issues Today students at public schools are free to create religious clubs and accept any willing members.
108: Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) Historical Background and Facts of the Case: In 1971, a Wisconsin law required that all students attended school until at least the age of 16. However, for many Amish citizens, it was against their religion to attend public school after the 8th grade. Three Amish parents, Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy, were prosecuted under the law because they refused to send their children to school because it violated their religious beliefs.
109: Question/Issue: The pressing issue was whether or not the requirement to send students to school against their religion violated the First Amendment. | Ruling: The court's unanimous decision was that the First Amendment had been violated by the Wisconsin law because it limited their rights to free exercise of religion. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger stated that one or two more years in high school would not greatly benefit the students enough for it to be vital that they attend. Lasting Issues: Today, religious practices still affect school attendance. Schools give students the right to be absent on religious holidays without affecting their attendance records. By: Hillary
110: Goss v. Lopez Chirag Patel
111: Background During the 1975s, the U.S. was in the Vietnam War; the economy and citizens were in turmoil. The government and its citizens didn't quite see eye to eye. Ohio, like every other state, was hit hard by the war, but life there was still as normal as possible. In Ohio, it is not law to hold hearings before a student is suspended. In the case of Dwight Lopez and 9 other students from Marion-Franklin High School, the principal decided to suspend them without any form of due process. He claimed that he suspended them from school for misconduct; the students were suspended for ten days. Case Facts Dwight Lpoez and the other students felt that their 5th Amendment right to due process was violated. Therefore they took they case to court and eventually appealed to the Supreme Court. Question Did suspension without hearings impose on the students’ Due Process rights as guaranteed by the 5th Amendment? Case Ruling In a 5-4 decision the Court ruled that the Due Process rights of the students was violated . The Court said, Ohio had chosen to extend the right to an education to its citizens, it could not withdraw that right "on grounds of misconduct absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct had occurred." Lasting Issues The lasting issues of the case involve the suspension of students for misconduct. As the Court said, Ohio couldn't suspend student on grounds of "nisconduct". This is still a problem as to the fact that a school can or cannot suspend students for misconduct.
112: California v. Bakke (1978) Background: Allan Bakke, a white male, filed a lawsuit against the University of California after learning that minority canidates had been accepted even though they had lower qualifications. Bakke was denied acceptance to the university twice although his scores were clearly better than those of the minority students.He felt he was being discriminated against. | After the case was taken to court the state ruled in Bakke's favor.The University had to admit him. In return, the University of California took the case to the Supreme Court. The Issue: 1.Why should less qualified applicants be accepted into a University over an exceptionally qualified student? 2. Should students be accepted because of the Affirmative Action Program?
113: Ruling: Again the court ruled in Bakke's favor. Bakke was accepted into the University of California. He graduated in 1992.However,the court did not prohibit the court from using race as a factor in the future. Lasting issues: Because the justices could not agree on the ruling of the case, the case has no clear guidance on the extent to which colleges could consider race as apart of affirmative action program.
114: Abbington Schools Vrs.Schempp | Historical Background : This case had to go to the surpreme court because kids at Abbington School were being forced to read the bible and rehearse sayings from the bible on an everyday basis. You were only allowed not to study these readings if you had a signed note from your parent saying they did not want you to participate in such activitys. The surpreme court aggreed with Schempp and ordered that there was to be no readings of the bibles in public schools!
115: Question : Does reading or teaching lessons from the bible violate your religious freedoms set fourth by the constitution? Facts of the case: Schempp didnt think it was fair for kids to have to regulate bible teachings into their kids everyday academic process. KAYLA WEDDINGTON : ] WHOOP WHOOP! GIVE ME AN A PLEASE! | Ruling : The court ruled that it was in fact unconstitutional for bible teachings to be regulated in everyday academic processes. Lasting Issues : The public schools in todays society are still not allowed to read or teach from the bibles!
116: Braden Zahora Reynolds v. Sims (1964) | Historical Background Back in the 60's, civil rights were in a full swing. Everybody wanted to be treated equally. Members of Jefferson County, Alabama took their case before the Supreme Court because they felt cheated and their votes were insignificant.
117: Case Facts Members of Jefferson County challenged the state for gerrymandering the apportionment of the state legislatures. Now, the Court questioned whether the reapportionment scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause. | Case Ruling An 8-1 decision ruled that the Court con-sidered the reappor-tionment scheme a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. They believed voting rights were based on equal representations of people in government. | Lasting Issues This court case was a cornerstone in the civil rights era. It forced many states, who were doing the same thing as Alabama, to reapportion their populations. This gave equal representation based on population.