AP Gov Supreme Court Cases 1-52

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Topic: Are corporations allowed to advertise for particular candidates within 30 days of the elections? Background: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) forbid corporations from distributing "electioneering communications" (ads) within 30 days of an election Citizens United advertised for their movie Hillary: The Movie (which they claimed was non-partisan and fact-based) within 30 days of the 2008 primaries, and the Federal Election Commission sued due to the movie's criticism of Clinton In the McConnell v FEC and Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce cases, the Court ruled that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity Constitutional Issue: First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Decision: 5-4 in favor of Citizens United Reasoning: The court overruled portions of the McConnell and Austin decisions, holding that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited, because political speech is indispensable to a democracy, whether it comes from a corporation or not The court upheld the disclosure requirement of the BCRA, reasoning that it was justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources The court also upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions

Schenck v. US (1919)

Topic: Are there different standards for protected speech during peacetime and war? Background: In 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act, which set stiff penalties for uttering and circulating statements that interfered with the war effort. Any effort which caused unrest in the military forces or which interfered with the draft was forbidden. During WWI, Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist Party of America, distributed over 15,000 leaflets urging draftees and soldiers to resist the draft, because he believed the war was benefiting the rich while the poor, working class fought. Not only did he oppose the war, but he urged American workers to oppose it as well. He was convicted as guilty of violating the Espionage Act and sent to prison, and he appealed his case to the Supreme Court. Constitutional Issue: First Amendment (Freedom of speech) Decision: 9-0 in favor of US Reasoning: The court's unanimous decision was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, whose central message was that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic." He argued that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger." The unanimous ruling established that limits can be placed on the 1st Amendment's guarantee of free speech when it is used to place others in danger. "Protected political speech" was diminished in time of war. 

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Topic: Can Congress establish a bank? Do states have the power to tax Congress-established institutions? Background: In 1816, Congress established the Second Bank of the United States. Two years later, the state of Maryland created legislation imposing a tax on all banks not chartered by the state. James McCullough, the cashier of the Baltimore branch, refused to pay the tax, and so was sued by the state of Maryland. Constitutional Issue: Governmental powers; Necessary and Proper Clause within Constitution Decision: 7-0 unanimous decision in favor of McCullough Reasoning: In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Supreme Court held that Congress could establish a bank, and that states including Maryland could not tax institutions established by the national government. The Court reasoned that since the establishment of the bank was related to Congress's ability to "regulate interstate commerce," the bank was technically constitutional according to the Necessary and Proper clause from Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Also, the Court viewed Maryland's taxation of the bank as a means of impeding upon the federal government's exertion of power, which it should have no right to do. The Court held that Maryland lacked the power to tax the federal bank, because of the Supreme Clause in Article 6 of the Constitution, which states that federal laws always trump state laws.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Topic: Can a "Homosexual Conduct" law be used to penalize sexual intimacy by same-sex couples without violating rights to liberty, privacy, and equation protection as guaranteed by the Constitution? Background: In Houston, a few police went into the apartment of John Lawrence after getting complaints about a weapon disturbance. They witnessed John Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, participating in sexually intimate acts inside the home. The police arrested both men for participating in "deviate" sexual conduct and because that violated the Texas law forbidding homosexuals to engage in sexual behavior. However, Lawrence challenged ruling using the the violation of the Equal Protection clause. Using Bowers v. Hardwick as a precedent, the State Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling that this Texas law did not go against the constitution because of the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment. In Bowers v. Harwick, it was ruled that states were allowed to make laws making homosexual acts illegal because the court can only guarantee people's rights that go along with the concept of "ordered liberty" or were "rooted in the Nation's tradition." The right to commit sodomy did not qualify to be protected, and was thus initially upheld in Lawrence v. Texas. Constitutional Issue: Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment, "right to privacy" in the 9th Amendment Decision: 6-3 in favor of Lawrence Reasoning: The ruling of Bowers v. Hardwick was overruled by the Supreme Court. They argued that the Texas law did in fact infringe upon the Due Process Clause because this clause protects the individual right to liberty in making personal decisions. Both adult men, Lawrence and Garner, had the liberty, as adults, to participate in private conduct in their own homes as guaranteed by the Due Process clause. Justice Kennedy also put forth that the Texas law itself has no evident state interest that can make it okay to justify the invasion into the personal affairs of the individual citizen. The Supreme Court also stated that the banning of sodomy was unconstitutional because it invaded on the individual's right to privacy. The rights in question that needed to be protected were the rights to privacy as well as right to free consensual sexual conduct. This case also expanded the usage of fundamental liberties that can be protected.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Topic: Can a principal delete articles from a school newspaper? Background: In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines that students are free to express themselves under the First Amendment. Under the precedent set by Tinker, the courts recognized student newspapers as public forums where student expression could only be restricted if they would substantially disrupt school activities or if it violated the rights of other students. However, with the fall of the counterculture movement, school administrators looked to reassert their authority. In Hazelwood, two students' articles were deleted from the school newspaper after their principal wouldn't approve them for publication. The students, among them editor Cathy Kuhlmeier, didn't find out until the paper was distributed, and with the help of the ACLU, filed a suit against the school district. Constitutional Issue: First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Decision: 5-3 in favor of Hazelwood School District Reasoning: The majority of the justices held that the principal was allowed to censor the articles. Educators, the majority opinion stated, did not infringe on First Amendment rights when exercising control over student speech in school-sponsored activities as long as their actions were based on legitimate concerns. The decision overruled the precedent set in the Tinker case by stating that school administrators are not required to tolerate speech that is contrary to the school's academic mission. Where Tinker afforded students protection under the First Amendment, Hazelwood took it away.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Topic: Can a state provide financial aid to "church-related educational institutions"? Background: This case was a challenge to laws in two separate states which provided funds to Catholic schools. The first was Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman), which allowed the superintendent of public schools to reimburse private (mostly Catholic) schools for the salaries of teachers who taught there. The second was Rhode Island's Salary Supplement Act, which provided state funds to supplement salaries at private elementary schools (mostly Catholic ones). The lead plaintiff in the case was Alton Lemon, who claimed that these laws violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Constitutional Issue: First Amendment (Establishment Clause) Decision: 8-1 in favor of Lemon Reasoning: The decision in the case established the "Lemon test," which lists the three requirements for legislation concerning religion: The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs (Entanglement Prong) The statute must not advance nor inhibit religious practice (Effect Prong) The statue must have a secular legislative purpose (Purpose Prong) The court's decision held both laws (Pennsylvania and Rhode Island's) unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause because they both involved excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Topic: Can citizens publish threatening articles about the government? Can the Bill of Rights apply to state laws? Background: Benjamin Gitlow was a raging Socialist who was a member of the Socialist Party of America. Gitlow was charged with criminal anarchy because he violated New York's Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902, which claimed that citizens of New York could not threaten to overthrow the government in any violent way. Gitlow published a document called "Left Wing Manifesto" that violently discussed overthrowing the government. Gitlow was arrested, but claimed that this was a violation of his First Amendment Rights, under freedom of speech. The issue at hand, was whether or not the right to freedom of speech could apply to the states, because as stated in Barron v. Baltimore (1883), the Bill of Rights only applied to federal cases, not state cases. Constitutional Issue: Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Decision: 7-2 in favor New York Reasoning: The Supreme Court argued that Gitlow was guilty and should be convicted because his right to threaten the government was not covered under the First Amendment. However, a more important idea was set through this case. In this case, although Gitlow was guilty, the Supreme Court decided that under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the rights in the First Amendment had to apply to state issues as well as federal issues. Because the Fourteenth Amendment required a protection of "life, liberty, and property," the Supreme Court claimed that in protecting the liberty of the individual, the First Amendment must apply to both state issues as well as federal issues. This reversed Barron v. Baltimore (1833) and proved that even though Gitlow's case was not an accurate representation of the First Amendment, the First Amendment rights can protect citizens who violate state laws as well as federal laws.

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964)

Topic: Can different Congressional Districts in the same state have unequal populations and yet receive the same representation in Congress? Background: James P. Wesberry, Jr. was a voter in the Fifth Congressional District of Georgia. He sued the Carl E. Sanders, who was the Governor of Georgia, because the Fifth Congressional District of Georgia had a population that was almost three times bigger than the other congressional districts in Georgia. Since the Fifth Congressional District was so much larger, Wesberry felt as though his vote had less value compared to voters in other districts because each district, irrelevant of population, had the same number of representatives. In the case, Baker v. Carr (1962) the Supreme Court established their authority to make decisions in future cases concerning redistricting (changing the districts based on population). Had this precedent not been set, the Supreme Court would not have been able to change the congressional district lines. Constitutional Issue: Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) Decision: 6-3 decision in favor of Wesberry Reasoning: It was ruled that by having some districts larger than others, the votes of those in the larger congressional districts (Fifth Congressional District) had less value than the votes of those in other congressional districts and that this was discriminating towards the voters in this specific district. Because each vote would have different value, this was unfair and thus was not a direct representation of the population because for each congressman, in one area, they would represent more than three times the population than a congressman in another district. By having some votes worth more, it contradicts the idea that all voters have an equal representation in Congress and thus goes against the ideas of democracy. It violates Article I Section II Clause 3 because the Constitution says that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers." Also the clause "by the People of the several states" proves that each person's vote is equal and should have equal value. This decision made states draw their district lines that were proportionate to the population so each district had an equal population.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Topic: Can evidence acquired through an illegal search and seizure be presented in court? Background: In 1957, Cleveland police received an anonymous phone tip that a fugitive named Ogletree, who was wanted for questioning over a bombing, was hiding in the home of Dollree Mapp. Mapp, an employee in the illegal gambling circuits in Cleveland, refused to let police officers inside her house without a warrant. Hours later, police squads stormed through the house, but did not allow Mapp or her lawyer to read through their supposed warrant. Mapp was arrested for illegal possessions found in her house. Constitutional Issue: Criminal procedure; legality with regard to evidence Decision: 6-3 in favor of Mapp Reasoning: The Supreme Court ruled that all evidence that is obtained through illegal and unreasonable searches, should not be admitted within court trials, thereby overruling Wolf v. Colorado (1949). As Mapp had been convicted based on illegally-obtained evidence, the trial and charge could not thereby be considered fair. As a result, Mapp was not charged for the possessions found in her home.

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

Topic: Can freedom of the press be violated through the administration of the Minnesota "gag law"? Background: In Minneapolis, a publisher named Jay Near released a document depicting a scandal sheet targeting local officials, claiming that these officials were associating with gangsters. The officials in Minnesota got an injunction which prevented Near from publishing the scandal sheet, in reference to a state law that permitted this sort of action against periodicals. This "gag law" followed that anyone who engages in the business of publishing "obscene, lewd, and lascivious" or "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" publication could be stopped from releasing the document because he or she was guilty of creating a "nuisance." Also, Minnesota had a rule that all newspapers had to be approved prior to publication or be censored in advanced. Constitutional Issue: Free Press Clause of First Amendment Decision: 5-4 decision in favor of Near Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that according to the Free Press Clause of the First Amendment, the government censorship cannot infringe upon publication before it's released, except under certain exceptions. The injunction that the officials in Minneapolis obtained was unlawful because this sort of "prior restraint" did not coincide with the intent of the First Amendment. The censorship of certain publications and corresponding punishment may be permitted only after the release of the relevant document as a criminal or other offense.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Topic: Can people burn or destroy by any other means, the American flag? Background: Gregory Johnson was a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade and went with a group of other similar people to the 1984 Republican National Convention in which they were protesting Reagan's policies, practices, ideologies and the administration in general. The demonstrators were yelling and protesting and at one point, someone passed Johnson a flag who then burned the flag. Under Texas law, burning the flag was considered illegal and Johnson was arrested and sentenced to one year in prison and was forced to pay a fine of $2000. Constitutional Issue: Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment Decision: 5-4 in favor of Johnson Reasoning: The Supreme Court agreed that flag burning is protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Even though it was not directly speech, it was a form of expression and this form of expression is protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that just because it offends and disrespects a group of people, does not mean that an individual's rights can be infringed upon. Because it is political in nature, just as Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) was, the Supreme Court knew that they could not restrict the right to free speech, as they had previously allowed students to wear armbands protesting the war effort. Therefore, the Texas law was considered unconstitutional and Johnson was freed.

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

Topic: Can public schools have an allotted time for voluntary prayer? Background: A law in Alabama allowed time every morning for voluntary prayer or "mediation." Ishmael Jaffree, was the father of children who went to schools in Mobile County, Alabama and his children were teased for not saying prayers. At his children's schools, even though it was considered voluntary prayer, many times the teachers would lead a prayer together and so his kids felt left out and humiliated because they did not know the prayers and many of the other children knew these prayers. He therefore sued the governor of Alabama, Wallace because he claimed that it was a violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. He claimed that it was "religious indoctrination" Constitutional Issue: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment Decision: 6-3 in favor of Jaffree Reasoning: The Supreme Court agreed that this was indeed a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they claimed that it was an endorsement of religion, rather than disapproval of religion. They decided that there was no alternative purpose of having this religious moment at the beginning of the day, other than to endorse a specific religion and so it changed the status of the school from religiously neutral, to religiously affiliated. Because public schools are supposed to be religiously neutral, this voluntary prayer was considered unconstitutional.

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

Topic: Can schools force students to participate in the flag salute? Background: After Minersville v. Gobitis (1940), the West Virginia law made it a requirement for all schools in the state to make the flag salute a mandatory and regular practice, despite individual students' religious objections. The law also stated that failure to salute the flag would be looked upon as an act of insubordination, and would result in consequences. The Barnette family members were Jehovah's Witnesses, and thus did not abide by the flag salute; as such, the daughters attending school were expelled. Constitutional Issue: 1st amendment - free exercise of religion clause Decision: 6-3 in favor of Barnette Reasoning: In an opinion written by Justice Robert Jackson, the Supreme Court overruled Minersville v. Gobitis (1940). The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for schools to force students to participate in the flag salute, as the flag salute was a means of communicating a national opinion. The Court reasoned that an official could not infringe upon a citizen's right to free speech and free exercise of religion, especially to enforce a singular opinion.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Topic: Can states pass legislation that inferences with the Congress's right to regulate interstate commerce? Background: When the state of New York gave Aaron Odgen a separate license to control steamboat ferries between the states of New York City and New Jersey on the Hudson river, there was a dispute with another fellow operator, Thomas Gibbons. Gibbons was already running two ferries on the same route Ogden got the license for by the state. Odgen filed a case against Gibbons claiming that he had exclusive rights over that route because of the state order, while Gibbons argued back that he had the legitimate right over the route due to a 1973 act that states Congress regulated coastal commerce. Constitutional Issue: the Commerce Clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution Decision: Unanimous (6-0) ruling in favor of Gibbons Reasoning: The court decided for the first time, the extent of power of the Commerce Clause. In its interpretation, it decided that since Congress can "regulate commerce...among several states", it included navigation along with trade, and Congress can pass trade laws as long as it involves more than one state because it's "among" states. Also, "among" became understood to mean laws that pass into the interior commerce regulation of each state, and does not stop at the state boundary. So since the licensing act of 1793 gave Congress control over coastal commerce, Congress had the right to regulate the steamboat route in NY and NJ and find that the New York order interfered with Congressional power. As a result of this order, Gibbons could continue operating his ferries.

Munn v. Illinois (1877)

Topic: Can states regulate private property when it is for the good of the public? Background: Illinois had passed a law which set a maximum charge that corporations could set on the storage of grains, designed to protect farmers from overly high prices. Munn was a partner in a Chicago warehouse firm and was found guilty of violating this law, charging a price greater than the maximum set. Munn then appealed under the argument that because the firm was being deprived of its property without due process of the law, Illinois did not have the authority to regulate it. Constitutional Issue: 14th amendment (Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause) Decision: 7-2 in favor of Illinois Reasoning: Chief Justice Waite, speaking for the majority, stated that the states may regulate the use of private property "when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good." He also declared that this type of regulation did not conflict with Congress's control over interstate commerce.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe

Topic: Can student-led prayer be held at public school events? Background: A student in Santa Fe High School gave a prayer over the school's Public Address system, before every home varsity football game. A Mormon and Catholic family took offense to this practice, after viewing the prayer as being too Christian, under the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment. The school changed their policy to allow, but not require student-led prayer at every home game; still, the families insisted that this activity was a form of public speech, and should not be addressed at a public high school. Constitutional Issue: 1st Amendment Establishment clause Decision: 6-3 in favor of Doe Reasoning: In an opinion written by Justice Stevens, the Court reasoned that the football game prayers, as they were being held in a government-funded institution, should be considered public speech and not private speech. As ruled in the case Engel v. Vitale (1962), school-sponsored prayer is unconstitutional, as it can cause divisions determined by religion between students. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled against the Santa Fe High School's prayer policy.

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Topic: Can the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights govern the actions of the state governments? Background: John Barron was the co-owner of a profitable wharf in the harbor of Baltimore. The problem arose when a road construction project supported by the city deposited the removed sand and earth to the wharfs of Baltimore Harbor, making Barron's wharf too shallow for boats to dock ships and vessels. This interference negatively affected his previously successful business, and so he sued the city to cover his financial losses. After reviewing his case, the state court ruled that the city had unconstitutionally deprived Barron of his private property, and so gave him a compensation of $4,500 to cover his financial loss. However, an appellate court later ruled reversed the ruling of the state court, so Barron appealed to the Supreme Court. Constitutional Issue: 5th Amendment - No taking of private property for public use without just compensation (Just Compensation Clause) Decision: Unanimous in favor of City of Baltimore Reasoning: Chief Justice John Marshall stated that this case could not be considered by the Supreme Court because the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. The Bill of Rights was created to limit the power of the federal government, not the government of individual states. In addition, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Bill of Rights limits the actions of state governments. Therefore, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case, and dismissed it without hearing any arguments or trials.

Clinton v. New York City (1998)

Topic: Can the president veto only certain parts of bills, cancelling certain sections while allowing others to pass? Background: The Line Item Veto Act was passed after the 1994 election, when Republicans took control of both houses of Congress and Clinton took the presidency. The Act was largely opposed by Democrats, but they did not have the power in Congress to keep it from passing. This case combines two separate cases which challenge the constitutionality of the Act. The first case was filed by a group of hospitals and healthcare unions when Clinton cancelled a part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which would have prevented the federal government from recovering nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers in New York. The second was filed by the Snake River farmer's cooperative when Clinton canceled a part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Constitutional Issue: Article I (Presentment Clause) Decision: 6-3 in favor of New York City Reasoning: The court first established that New York City suffered enough injuries to be justified in challenging the president's actions. They further reasoned that under the Presentment Clause, laws passed by Congress must be signed or vetoed - to cancel certain parts of a bill before signing it essentially constituted "amending" the law - a power which violated the Framers view of the law making process.

Reynolds v. US (1879)

Topic: Can you participate in religious actions that violate the law? Can polygamy be considered illegal? Background: George Reynolds lived in Utah and was a member of the Mormon Church. Reynolds after having one wife, took another wife and so he was practicing polygamous behavior. The Mormon church decided to use Reynold's case as a test case to protest the constitutionality of the law that prevents polygamy (Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act). Reynolds was sentenced to two years in prison and a fine of $500. Reynolds claimed that under the First Amendment, right to practice religion, he had the right to have multiple wives because it was out of the sole purpose of being faithful to his religion. Constitutional Issue: Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment Decision: Unanimous decision in favor of the US- against Reynolds Reasoning: The Supreme Court argued that the right to polygamous behaviors was not protected by the First Amendment because the First Amendment only protected religious opinion, not religious action. The argument that the Supreme Court made was that it was a slippery slope is polygamy was allowed. If polygamy was allowed, then there would be a Constitutional standing for other religious practices, like human sacrifice. Legislation that restricts religious opinion cannot be passed, but legislation that restricts religious action can be passed. The argument that was also made by the Supreme Court was that when the Framers wrote the Constitution, polygamy was never allowed and so the right to free exercise of religion does not include polygamy.

Ewing v. California (2003)

Topic: Could Ewing receive a 25 year to life sentence (under the three strikes law) for stealing golf clubs? Was this constitutional? Background: Gary Ewing was a consecutive offender who had participated in grand theft auto, grand theft, possession of firearm, trespassing, burglary, and drug possession throughout his life. In 2000, Ewing stole three golf clubs that were $399 each, therefore a felony under California law. At the time that he stole these golf clubs, Ewing was on parole due to a 9-year prison sentence that he had received earlier for 3 burglaries and one robbery. Because this was his third felony, under the California three strikes law, Ewing was sentenced to 25 years to life. This offense is considered a "wobbler" and Ewing asked the trial judge and prosecutor to interpret his offense as a misdemeanor, not a felony, however, neither did so and so Ewing managed to take his case to the Supreme Court under the terms that his conviction was considered "cruel and unusual" punishment. The case, Rummel v. Estelle (1980), was very similar. A Texan man was given a life sentence because, under Texas' three strikes law, he had committed three felonies over 15 years, all of which had a total worth of about $230 and were nonviolent. The Court agreed that Rummel deserved his life sentence. Constitutional Issue: Eighth Amendment- Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause Decision: 5-4 in favor of California Reasoning: The five justices on the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that this was not cruel and unusual punishment because Ewing had multiple offenses over the years and these offenses included forging checks, theft, and fraud. The justices claimed that his history of multiple offenses and because he was a repeating offender was not disproportionate with the punishment and thus Ewing was sentenced to twenty five years to life. They argued that his other offenses must be taken into account. Also, in Rummer v. Estelle (1980), they argued that the Texan man was sentenced to life and since both of these issues were quite similar, and Rummer's case was even less severe, through stare decisis, Ewing was sentenced to prison for twenty five years to life.

Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)

Topic: Did the President and Congress go beyond their respective powers in limiting the rights and allowing exclusion of Japanese Americans during a time of war? Background: During World War II on February 19, 1942, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued an executive order that gave the US military the power to ban Japanese Americans from certain areas that were critical to national security. Therefore, all Japanese Americans from the coastal areas of Washington to southern Arizona were sent to internment camps for the duration of the war. Due to the sudden notification of their relocation, the Japanese Americans had to sell all of their property quickly, which led to them selling their assets at a fraction of its real value. In addition, there was much insecurity and worry within the Japanese Americans that their properties and assets would not be there when they returned. American-born citizen Fred Korematsu refused to leave his home in San Leandro, California, and was convicted. He appealed to the Supreme Court of his ordeal, and the case was considered in 1944. Constitutional Issue: 5th Amendment - Due Process Clause Decision: 6-3 in favor of United States Reasoning: The Court upheld the conviction of Fred Korematsu on the grounds that while all legal restrictions of civil rights are immediately subject to strict scrutiny, some restrictions are not inherently unconstitutional if the situation calls for such limitations, such as in times of war. The Supreme Court accepted the US military's argument of the possible existence of disloyal Japanese American citizens who sided with their home country; it would have been impossible to separate the disloyal from the loyal citizens, so the military thought it would be best to round up all the Japanese Americans in internment camps in order to eliminate the possibility of a threat to national security. Therefore, the Court determined that the security of the nation outweighed the Constitution's promise of equal rights. A previous case called Hirabayashi v. US also created a similar situation to this case, and the court ruled that Japanese residents in a military-designated zone can be restricted to their homes at certain times during the day.

Rasul v. Bush (2004)

Topic: Do federal courts have the jurisdiction to hear cases from foreigners being held by the U.S. Army, in territories where the US has little power? Background: Four Australian & British citizens were taken from Afghanistan and Pakistan during the War on Terror by the United States, and were imprisoned in the American military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The families of these imprisoned men petitioned for a writ of habeus corpus, which requested that the prisoners be released, be allowed to meet privately with their attorneys, and be given trials. In conflict, the U.S. argument, spearheaded by President Bush, centered around the fact that the Supreme Court had no right to even decide this case. Constitutional Issue: Governmental powers; 5th Amendment Due Process Clause; Article 1, Section 9 habeus corpus Decision: 6-3 in favor of the prisoners Reasoning: With a majority opinion written by Justice Stevens, the Court ruled that as the United States exercised total control over the military base at Guantanamo Bay, it still maintained authority over the men they held within the facility. As such, the rights of habeas corpus should be granted and applied to even those who are not official citizens of the United States.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Topic: Do same-sex couples have the right to get to married? Background: In 2014, a lengthy series of contradictory appeals court rulings (that same sex marriage was or was not protected by the Constitution) led to an almost inevitable supreme court review. Obergefell filed a case in 2013 in federal court when after his husband's death (they were married legally in Maryland), Ohio failed to recognize their marriage. Hodges was Ohio's health director, against whom Obergefell filed his case. (In federal court you cannot file a suit against the state, only against a state official). Constitutional Issue: 14th Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses) Decision: 5-4 in favor of Obergefell Reasoning: 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 this right applies to both same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex ones. The right to marry protects the most intimate association between two people, allowing them legal recognition to build a home and raise children - a marriage has been historically recognized as the keystone of social order. In respect to these principles, a same-sex couple is the same as an opposite sex one. By denying same-sex couples the right to marry, their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law is violated.

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995)

Topic: Do states have the power to alter the qualifications specifically listed in the Constitution for election to Congress? Background: Ray Thornton was a Arkansas representative, while the U.S. Term Limits was an advocacy group. In this case, Amendment 73 of the Arkansas State Constitution, called the "Term Limitation Amendment" was proposed. This amendment followed that if a Arkansas representative already served three or more years in the House of Representatives, he/she would not be eligible for re-election for the same office. Other limitations in the Amendment included that an Arkansas Senator who served two or more terms could not run again for the same office. Constitutional Issue:Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Decision: 5-4 decision in favor of Thornton Reasoning: Although Arkansas used the Tenth Amendment by arguing that they has the "reserved power" to limit the election of the Arkansas Congress candidates since they can exercise all powers the Constitution doesn't specify, and it not specify about eligibility requirements of Congress candidates. The Supreme Court reasoned back that this power was not within the "original power" of the States because the Constitution never states it. The court also reasoned that it was intent of the Framers to have only the Constitution to be the sole authority on election qualifications. Another argument Arkansas put forth was that this amendment would be utilizing the "Times, Places, and Manner of Holding Elections" in Article 1. But the Supreme Court shut them down once again by claiming that this is only maintained for "procedural regulations", but not to limit the qualifications.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Topic: Is it fair to both groups to separate white and African American children in public schools? Background: In 1896, the court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that segregation of schools was allowed, as long as the schools in question were "equal." To challenge this precedent, a group of thirteen Topeka parents (under the direction of the NAACP) attempted to enroll their kids in the nearest white school. All of them were denied access, and they proceeded to lead a class action lawsuit against the Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas. The district court upheld Plessy on the grounds that the schools in question in the Brown case were equal in all other aspects but race: buildings, teachers and curriculum. Constitutional Issue: 14th Amendment (equal protection) Decision: 9-0 in favor of Brown Reasoning: Segregation in public schools is inherently unequal because it causes a feeling of inferiority in minority children. This unanimous decision overturned the long held doctrine of "separate but equal" for good, at least in terms of public education.

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971)

Topic: Do the federal courts and the school districts have the authority to bus students and actively prevent segregation? Background: After the decision made in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that schools could no longer be segregated, North Carolina attempted to integrate its schools, however, due to the housing layouts, few schools were integrated and the issue still remained. The way in which the school districts were assigned, segregation was still a problem. In the school district of Charlotte-Mecklenburg, in North Carolina, 14,000 black students went to schools that were all black or 99% black. Therefore, the parents of James Swann, a six-year old black student, sued the district. As a result, the district was attempting to create different plans for their schools to force integration. However, whether or not this was constitutional, was debatable. It was uncertain as to whether or not the federal courts and the school districts had the power to bus students and force integration. Constitutional Issue: Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment Decision: 9-0 in favor of Swann Reasoning: By integrating the schools based on location, there was still segregation and thus each student did not have equal opportunities. Also, the Courts ruled that after a state has violated the order to integrate schools, and failed to integrate schools, the power of the Courts was lenient and flexible and the Courts had the power to bus students. However, there would be no strict guidelines about busing students. Also, any plans to integrate schools had to be legitimate by using ratios and math to determine the number of students to each place. Therefore, busing was legal in situations to prevent segregation and to follow the rulings in Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Topic: Does forcefully adapting racial segregation go against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? Background: In the state of Louisiana, there was a law, the Separate Car Act, that mandated separate railway cars for black and white people. Homer Adolph Plessy was a man who was ⅞ Caucasian who decided to sit in the white only department of the Eastern Louisiana Railroad. He was asked to move to the black zone, but refused and therefore, was arrested. Judge John H. Ferguson, who served for the criminal court of New Orleans, ruled in favor of of the state law enforcing segregation. Constitutional Issue: Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment, 13th Amendment Decision: 7-1 decision for Ferguson Reasoning: The Plessy decision set the precedent for the "separate but equal" segregation principle. It was thought that separate but equal is justified just as long as the separate facilities were equal. The judges maintained that the state law does not infringe upon the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment because it "implies merely a legal distinction." The court also said that this law does not have anything to do with involuntary servitude (13th) but avoided discussing the protection as assured in the 14th amendment. Other arguments included that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure the "absolute equality" of the white and black race, and that imposing a law that separated the two did not necessarily mean that one race was beneath another. In other words, segregation cannot be assumed to mean discrimination against the law. The judges held that if the blacks do feel inferior because of this law, which of course in the first place cannot be assumed to make them feel that way, it is because they chose to look at it that way.

Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)

Topic: Does the Attorney General have the power to prohibit the use of the substances for Physician-Assisted Suicide through the Controlled Substances Act? Background: During 1994, Oregon was the first state to pass the Death with Dignity Act, which allowed terminally ill patients to opt for physician-assisted suicide through injection of lethal doses of controlled substances. The Attorney General, John Ashcroft, claimed that this act violated the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and it would not be qualified as a "legitimate medical purpose". He motioned to take away the medical licences of all physicians who practiced this act. The federal district as well as the Ninth Circuit maintained that Ashcroft could not legally threaten them and could not enforce the Interpretive Rule. Constitutional Issue: Controlled Substance Act, Interpretive Rule Decision: 6-3 in favor of Oregon Reasoning: For the federal district courts and the court of appeals, the reasoning used was that the Controlled Substance Act was originally created as a way of preventing physicians from abusing their control over drugs, and to contain drug dealing. For the Supreme Court ruling, the court decided that the federal govt. can regulate drugs, but that the Attorney General had no constitutional right to threaten the Death with Dignity Act. The judges ruled that Ashcroft's directive was "unlawful and unenforceable"

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Topic: Does the Constitution allow abortions? Background: Roe, a resident of Texas, desired to abort her unborn child. However, she was prevented by Texas state law, which allowed abortions only to save the pregnant woman's life. Constitutional Issue: Right to privacy Decision: 7-2 for Roe Reasoning: In an opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, the Court reasoned that citizens had a certain right to privacy, under the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments, as shown in the case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Thus, women should be allowed to terminate their pregnancy, as conception should be considered a private matter. The Court ruled that women should be given complete control over their first trimester of pregnancy, and be reconsidered during the next two trimesters.

Furman v. Georgia (1972)

Topic: Does the death penalty constitute cruel and unusual punishment? Background: Furman was robbing a house when one of the family members who lived there found him. While trying to run away, Furman tripped and fell, causing his gun to accidentally go off and kill the person. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Furman appealed to federal court and eventually the supreme court, where his case was decided along with two others. The supreme court took this case due to the inconsistency with which the death penalty was administered throughout the country: given to some but not others for nearly identical crimes, or given to some because of their race. Constitutional Issue: Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Equal Protection Clauses, respectively) Decision: 5-4, in favor of Furman Reasoning: The judges signed off on a one page per curiam (by the court) opinion which stated that in these cases only, the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment and that those to whom it was given were denied their Fourteenth Amendment rights. However, although the judges agreed that the death penalty was unconstitutional, they did not agree on the nuances of why - as a result, over 200 pages of opinions (concurrences and dissents) were written by the judges to express their opinions on the controversial issue; There was no majority opinion. The Court's decision did not completely outlaw the death penalty (it enacted a moratorium on it), but forced the states and Congress to rethink the laws in place for capital offenses to ensure that the death penalty would be administered with consistency in the future, and not in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner, as it previously had been. In the four years following the Furman decision, 37 states put in place new death penalty laws in order to comply with the Court's ruling, after which the court ended the moratorium in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), a case in which they upheld the conditional use of the death penalty.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Topic: Does the state court have to provide a lawyer when the defendant cannot afford one? Background: Gideon was caught for breaking and entering into a bar with the intent of committing a misdemeanor, and stealing a few beers and coins. According to Florida law, this was considered a felony. The district court took him to trial, in which he asked the judge to give appoint him a lawyer to represent him since he had no money to get one himself. The judge denied his request because Florida law only permitted appointing counsel for capital offenses and he was immediately sentenced as guilty, Since he had no lawyer, he had to serve as his own attorney but he went to jail immediately after losing the case. After his appeal was denied in the Florida Supreme Court, he wrote to the Supreme Court that according to Amendment 6, he had the right to be guaranteed an attorney in state courts. In the precedent of Betts v. Brady, the court held that denying counsel to a defendant in state court may not necessarily go against the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Constitutional Issue: Amendment 6 "guarantee of counsel", Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment Decision: Unanimous, Betts v. Brady was overruled Reasoning: The Supreme Court decided that according to the Sixth Amendment, the right to counsel was crucial in conducting a fair trial. It applies to state courts because of the Due Process Clause. According to this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no one can be denied the "right to counsel" because everyone is protected under the 6th Amendment, whether it for a state or capital offense. It was stated in from the justices that a fair trial cannot be assured unless a counsel is provided for someone who can't afford a lawyer. In having an impartial trial, where every defendant is equal before the law, a poor man won't be equal unless he has a lawyer to assist him.

Tinker v. Des Moines Sch. Dist. (1969)

Topic: Is a prohibition of symbolic protest a violation of the student's right to free speech? Background: In December 1965, a group of students planned to wear black armbands during the holiday season in order to peacefully support a truce in the Vietnam War. Learning about the student's plan, the principal and board members of the school implemented a school policy that prohibited the wearing of armbands in support of the war, with suspension from school as a penalty. Students Mary Beth Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and John Tinker all wore armbands, and were sent home as a result. The students had their parents help sue the school district for restricting their right to free expression; however, the district court dismissed the case on the grounds that the school's policy was reasonable in order to uphold discipline within the school. There were previous cases of this similar issue in Bethel School District v. Fraser and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. In both of these cases, the court reasoned that students do not always have the same First Amendment rights as the adults do in certain situations and settings. Constitutional Issue: First Amendment, Freedom of Speech Decision: 7-2 in favor of Tinker Reasoning: The Supreme Court reasoned that the students had a right to free expression from the right to free speech in the First Amendment, and that this right is not lost if the students are on school property. A restriction of free speech would only be allowed in this case if the school officials could prove that the students behavior "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school. Moreover, the court reasoned that the unfair school policy stemmed from a fear of potential disruption, not the occurrence of any actual interference.

Oregon v. Smith (1990)

Topic: Is it acceptable for a state to deny unemployment benefits to someone who was dismissed from his job for using illegal drugs for religious reasons? Background: Working for a private rehabilitation organization, there were two Native American counselors who consumed a hallucinogen called peyote for religious ceremonies as directed by the Native American Church. The organization decided to fire the workers for consumption of illegal drugs, then the government denied them the compensation benefits of unemployment because they were fired for "misconduct." In the state court, the counselors lost the trial. But, the Supreme Court redirected the case back to Oregon to assess the legality of sacramental consumption of illegal drugs according to the the Oregon state drug laws. The court re-ruled that although the consumption of drugs for religious reasons was illegal according to the Oregon drug laws, the drug laws themselves went against the free exercise clause. Constitutional Issue: Free Exercise of Religion Clause in the First Amendment Decision: 6-3 decision in favor of Oregon Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that an individual's religious preferences never exempted him or her from following the law of conduct that the government has the lawful power to regulate. If there are exemptions allowed in all state laws and regulations regarding religion, then it would open the door to be avoiding an enumerated list of "civic obligations" such as military service, vaccines, and taxes. Even though technically the state would be denying the Free Exercise clause by illegalizing acts done on a religious premise, this same clause doesn't make individuals exempt from complying with the law that doesn't allow one to perform a certain religious act if the law itself does not target the religious practice.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

Topic: Is it acceptable to require women who would like an abortion to wait 24 hours, get informed consent, and if a minor, get parental consent without going against rights established in Roe v. Wade? Background: A new Pennsylvania law, the Abortion Control Act, made adjustments to abortion control by added new provisions including waiting 24 hours before the procedure, getting minors to obtain the consent of one parent, and if the woman was married, notify her husband of the procedure. In response, many physicians and clinics claimed that these provisions did not guarantee the rights protected by Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade ruled on the premise that since the right to getting an abortion falls under the right to privacy as enforced by the Fourteenth Amendment, a women had complete authority over her body to end her pregnancy within the first trimester. When this was taken to the appeals court, it enforced all provisions excluding the one about spousal notification. Constitutional Issue: "liberty and privacy interests" , Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment Decision: 5-4 for Planned Parenthood Reasoning: The main decision held in the Supreme Court was the essential holding established in Roe. They confirmed that the right to obtain an abortion falls under the Due Process "right to privacy" clause, and that the State can restrict the procedure in certain circumstances except when a woman's health in in danger and if the State law has definite interests in protecting the health or life of the women and the life of the fetus. Stare decisis was a principle used in this ruling, and made the Court stand by its previous ruling, since that ruling has not been proven to be intolerable. A new concept was introduced in the ruling of this case that reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of the spousal notification provision. This was deemed unconstitutional because of the "undue burden" it would place on the woman, and how this could be a substantial obstacle to completing the procedure. The court decided that it should rule based on the population this ruling has to do with, not who will be affected by the ruling. The Court justified the ruling by claiming that abortions were limited to the first trimester; if the fetus could live outside the womb, the abortion is not possible.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Topic: Is preventing contraceptive use to married couples a violation of the right to privacy? Background: Estelle Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and Dr. Buxton opened a birth control clinic in Connecticut in 1961. At this time, this would have been legal in any other state, however, Connecticut passed the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1879 which made contraceptives illegal. As claimed by the text of this act, "any drug, medicinal article, or instrument for preventing the purpose of preventing contraception" was susceptible to a fine and/or imprisonment. After purposefully opening the birth control clinic that violated the Connecticut Comstock Act, Griswold and Dr. Buxton were arrested and charged $100 each. Griswold claimed that this law that forbid contraception was a violation of privacy and also violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Constitutional Issue: Because there is no right to privacy directly stated in the Constitution, the right to privacy is assumed through the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment, due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Ninth Amendment (right to "protection from government intrusion") Decision: 7-2 in favor of Griswold Reasoning: Although there was no direct reference to the right of privacy in the Constitution, it is assumed that together in the Bill of Rights, there were "penumbras" or zones that inferred the right of privacy. Each Supreme Court justice had their own interpretation of where in the Bill of Rights it implied that couples have the right to privacy. The clause in the Ninth Amendment says that citizens have the right to "protection from government intrusion" Government intrusion in this case, is legislation that prevents contraceptive methods. Several judges used the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming that this law was infringing on the liberties of the individual. It was concluded that the Connecticut law was a violation of the "right to marital privacy" and thus it was deemed unconstitutional.

D.C. v. Heller (2008)

Topic: Is prohibiting average citizens from possessing guns a violation of their right to bear arms? Background: The registration of handguns is banned under the District of Columbia's laws; legal firearms must also be unloaded and disassembled with a trigger lock unless they are kept or used in lawful recreational activities and settings. Previously, in a case known as United States v. Miller (1939), Jack Miller was arrested for violating the National Firearms Act when he possessed a sawed-off double barrel shotgun while traveling between states. The court upheld the conviction of Jack Miller on the grounds that there was no evidence to support that his possession of this weapon had any relationship to the operation of a state militia. Therefore, the Second Amendment would not protect his right to bear arms. In the D.C. v. Heller case, special police officer Dick Heller was refused the right to register a handgun to possess within his home. Heller filed a lawsuit to the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia, and sought an injunction against the three provisions of the district's Firearms Control Regulation Act (1975). Constitutional Issue: Second Amendment, Right to bear arms Decision: 5-4 in favor of Heller Reasoning: The Supreme Court reasoned that from the direct wording of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, all individuals are guaranteed the right to possess firearms unconnected with a state militia, and to use such weapons for lawful purposes like self defense within a home.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Topic: Is reciting a prayer at the start of each school day a violation of the Establishment clause of the First amendment? Background: In 1951, the New York State Board of Regents allowed school districts to implement a voluntary recitation of prayer every school morning. The Board believed that this implementation would develop good character and citizenship within the students. Steven Engel was Jewish, and his son attended a school in the Herrick School District. After learning about the voluntary recitation of prayer at school, he and nine other families filed suit in a New York state court in order to ban the school prayer, arguing that the prayers went against their beliefs and posed burdens upon their children. William J. Vitale Jr. was the president of the board of education of the Herrick School District, and was the defendant of this case. Constitutional Issue: First Amendment's Establishment Clause Decision: 6-1 in favor of Engel Reasoning: The Supreme Court reasoned that the New York State Board of Regents decision to allow a school prayer was unconstitutional because it essentially approved religion in a government-funded building. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was instituted to prevent government interference with religion. A recitation of prayer was essentially the promotion of religion in a government-funded public school; it was inherently a government interference with religion, which is unconstitutional. The recitation also violated the establishment clause because it took time out of the school day to perform a religious activity. Since people and their children engage in a variety of different religions, the government cannot endorse any particular religious activity of any kind. All of these factors combined led to the decision that the voluntary recitation of prayer is unconstitutional and cannot be implemented in school districts.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Topic: Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act unconstitutional because Congress cannot legislate the case under the Commerce clause? Background: The Gun-Free School Zones Act states that an individual cannot carry a concealed weapon into places that he knows to be school grounds. 12th grade student Alfred Lopez carried a concealed handgun to his high school in San Antonio, Texas. He was convicted in a federal court for violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act, and was sentenced to six years in prison. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, ruling that Congress could not convict the student using the Commerce Clause, stating that doing so was exceeding the powers of the legislative branch. The powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause allows for the regulation of commerce with foreign nations, commerce between states, and commerce among Indian tribes. Constitutional Issue: Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (Commerce Clause) Decision: 5-4 in favor of Lopez Reasoning: The Supreme Court found the Gun-Free School Zones Act unconstitutional because regulating firearms in local school districts is not related to any economic activities associated with the commerce clause. The Commerce clause if often associated with activities pertaining to commerce, dealings with foreign nations, and interstate commerce. This case did not directly affect any purposes of the commerce clause; therefore, it is not applicable to the conviction of Lopez.

Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)

Topic: Is the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional because it doesn't include an exception necessary to protect the health of the mother? Background: The Congress created the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in order to ban the abortion procedure in which the fetus is killed halfway out of the mother's body. Dr. Leroy Carhart and a couple of other doctors filed a lawsuit against the ban stating that this act could lead to restrictions of other abortion procedures such as D&E (dilation and extraction or evacuation). Such potential restrictions would stop late-term abortions and would create an "undue burden" on the mother, which is unconstitutional according to the precedent from Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which ruled than any restrictions on abortion cannot create a burden on the mother. Another argument by Carhart was that this act is unconstitutional because there is no inclusion of an exception of the ban in order to ensure the safety of the mother; failing to include this provision is a violation of the Fifth Amendment's personal liberty. Attorney general Alberto Gonzales represented the case for the government; this case has an important precedent called Stenberg v. Carhart. In that case, the Court upheld that the Nebraska statute that banned partial birth abortion creates an undue burden on the mother, through fears of prosecution, conviction, or imprisonment. Constitutional Issue: Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause Decision: 5-4 in favor of Gonzales Reasoning: The Court decided that the Partial Birth Abortion Act did not create an undue burden on the mother, because the ban only applied to the partial birth abortion, and did not include more common abortion procedures like the dilation and evacuation procedure. Therefore, they reasoned that the provisions within the act are not vague. In addition, the Court determined that the health exception cannot prove that the act is unconstitutional because the D&E procedure is never medically necessary for any situation.

U.S. v. Windsor (2013)

Topic: Is the federal government denying same sex marriage? Background: Edith Windsor experienced the death of her spouse, Thea Clara Spyer, and became the sole executor of Thea's property. While the gay couple's marriage was recognized by the New York State Law, it was not recognized under the federal law; therefore, $363,000 worth of marital taxes were imposed on Thea's estate. Had their marriage been recognized by the federal law, those taxes would not have to be paid. This issue in part arises from the Defense of Marriage Act, in which the marriage between a couple is stated to be between one man and one woman. Thus, Windsor filed a lawsuit to challenge the DOMA and have the court rule the act unconstitutional. The president and the executive branch supported her argument by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Constitutional Issue: Fifth Amendment - Due Process Clause Decision: 5-4 in favor of Windsor Reasoning: The federal government was denying same sex marriage under the establishment of the Defense of Marriage Act. As such, the Court determined that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it imposes an unfair disadvantage on couples of the same sex, violating the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Act denies marital rights to gay couples, which are given to other couples recognized under the federal law. The Supreme Court reasserted that the states have the authority to define marital relationships through the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment allowed states to provide equal protection of laws to their residents. The New York State Law allowing gay marriage was instituted to eliminate the inequality that laws like DOMA established.

N.Y. Times v. U.S. (1971)

Topic: Is the government violating the First Amendment by attempting to censor the publishing of "classified information"? Background: In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg leaked a copy of the Pentagon Papers to New York Times reporters Neil Sheehan and Hedrick Smith. Both of these reporters scrutinized the copy and wrote following reports of the information which was published in the New York Times. President Nixon was notified of this event and asked the court to prevent further publications of the information, claiming that the spread of the news could pose a danger to national security. The Supreme Court allowed a temporary stop in the publication of the pentagon papers. Dozens of other newspapers like the Washington Post gained access to the pentagon papers, and published many excerpts and information about them. This issue is related to the case of Washington Post Co. v. United States, in which the Washington Post faced the same problem as the NY Times. Constitutional Issue: First Amendment's freedom of speech Decision: 6-3 in favor of the New York Times Reasoning: The Supreme Court reasoned that the publication of the documents did not pose an inevitable or direct danger to national security, therefore the federal government could not censor the publishing of the Pentagon Papers by the press. Justice Hugo Black stated that the purpose of the First Amendment's freedom of press was to allow the press to inform the people of any deception or misinformation that would negatively impact them. Therefore, the press is protected by the Bill of Rights in order to carry out its duty of serving the people and sharing the information that the people have a right to know.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Topic: Is the police violating the Fifth and Sixth Amendment when they fail to clearly inform the individuals of their right to remain silent and right to be represented by a lawyer? Background: Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape, kidnapping, and robbery. The police interrogated him for two hours without a notification to remain silent and have a lawyer represent him; he eventually confessed to having committed the crimes. However, Miranda never finished ninth grade, and had a history of mental instability, which could have influenced his confession. The prosecutor at his trial convicted him solely on his confession, and he was then sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Ernesto appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court that the police unconstitutionally obtained his confession, but the Court disagreed and upheld his conviction. Therefore, he appealed to the Supreme Court. There were other cases that contributed to the case such as Vignera v. New York, in which the individual made oral admissions and signed an inculpatory statement without being notified of his right to counsel a lawyer. Other cases like California v. Stewart and Westover v. United States were similar to the Miranda case in that the individuals were interrogated and had to sign statements without being notified of their right to counsel. Constitutional Issue: 5th Amendment's Right to remain silent and 6th Amendment's Right to Counsel Decision: 5-4 in favor of Ernesto Miranda Reasoning: The police must notify the individual of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel per the 5th and 6th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Failing to notify him of these rights is tantamount to denying him these rights. These rights allow a check on government abuse and unfair intimidation during an interrogation. Such influences could lead to false confessions, and intrude upon the basic liberties of the individual. Therefore, any evidence obtained without notifying the individual of their rights is invalid.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Topic: Is the right to free speech infringed upon with the Ohio criminal syndicalism law, which prohibits speech that references illegal activities? Background: As a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, Brandenburg gave a speech at a rally advocating his cause. His speech was about taking revenge on the government if it continued squashing the rights of the white race. He was immediately arrested and penalized for violating the Ohio criminal syndicalism rule. According to this rule, it was against the law to advocate activities such as crime, violence, or terrorism for the sake of reform and that forming an assembly, group, or society, or such persons to practice criminal syndicalism is also unlawful. The question to consider became whether or not this Ohio law was constitutional. Constitutional Issue: "right to free speech" of the 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment Decision: Unanimous decision for Brandenburg Reasoning: The Court held that the Criminal Syndicalism Act was unconstitutional because it violated the right to free speech. Practicing Per Curiam, the Court used a two-step methodized process to determine the validity of the speech act. Speech can be restricted if and only if it is pointed at instigating "imminent lawless action" ( this was the first step), and if the speech itself is probable to causing or producing those actions ( this was step two). According to the Criminal Syndicalism Act, it was against the law to promote or teach this practice without regard to whether or not this teaching would actually produce a lawless response. Since this Act could not make it past step two, where evidence was needed to prove that this speech was causing those actions, the Act was declared as unconstitutional.

Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Topic: Should a slave from a slave state who moves to a free state, become free? Background: Dred Scott, a slave residing in the slave state of Missouri, was taken by his owner to Illinois, a free state under the Missouri Compromise, for 10 years. After returning to Missouri, Scott was sold to Sanford. Scott sued his new master in Missouri, arguing that as he had lived in a free state for such a long time, he was now a free man and citizen. Yet, his master maintained that no slave could be allowed citizenship in America. Constitutional Issue: Civil Rights Decision: 7-2 in favor of Sandford, the master Reasoning: The Court believed that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, that declared Scott to be a free man in Illinois, was unconstitutional with regard to the Fifth Amendment and should be declared void. The Court's reasoning was that Scott, as well as all other slaves, are considered to be property, not people, and thus aren't eligible for having citizenship under the Constitution.

U.C. Regents v. Bakke (1978)

Topic: Should minority students be treated equally in the admissions process? Background: The UC Davis Medical School had reserved 16 out of 100 spots for minority students. Allan Bakke, a white applicant to the UC Davis Medical School, was rejected admission twice, though he was more qualified. After his second rejection, Bakke filed a case against the school, claiming that his denial was solely reflective of his racial status, which was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. Constitutional Issue: Civil Rights - a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment. Decision: 5-4 in favor of Bakke's admission but in support of affirmative action. Reasoning: In an opinion written by Justice Powell, the Court said that UC Davis' maintaining of a particular quota (of 16%) for minority students, discriminated against white and qualified students such as Bakke. However, it did hold that race could be a factor in the admissions process, as long as other qualifications were considered as well.

U.S. v. Nixon (1974)

Topic: Should the President be granted executive privilege from presenting evidence in court? Background: During Nixon's presidential campaign in 1974, there was a burglary within the Democratic National Committee's headquarters, located in the Watergate apartment complex in Washington D.C.. The break-in was connected to highly-ranked officials in the White House, and was eventually traced back to then-President Nixon, who denied connections to the burglary. Known as the Watergate scandal, the Department of Justice discovered Nixon's possession of audiotapes of conversations between the President and the burglars. After refusing to turn over the tapes with the reasoning that he was immune from judicial review, Nixon lost in the District Court, and then appealed the case to the Supreme Court. Constitutional Issue: Executive powers Decision: 8-0 in favor of U.S. Reasoning: In an opinion written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, the Court ruled that Nixon had to turn over the tapes, as it was immensely likely that the tapes held conversations pertaining to the charges against the President. The Court also rejected Nixon's claim that his executive privilege allowed him to withhold the tapes from the Court, reasoning that the President's right to executive privilege is not absolute. Instead, executive privilege should only apply if the tapes were being withheld to ensure national security, which they were not. The President should not be immune from having to follow court orders, like any other citizen.

Dennis v U.S. (1951)

Topic: Should the discussion of communistic beliefs be illegal? Background: Raymond Dennis and his co-workers, were members of the Communist Party. They attempted to gain the services of the National Labor Relations Board, which required all officers to be non-Communist and submit affidavits as proof, by filing false affidavits. The men were caught conspiring to commit fraud on the NLRB. The men were convicted with a violation of the Smith Act, which made it a criminal offense to knowingly advocate or commit to the overthrowing of a government. The men then challenged this act's constitutionality, since it also prohibits academic discussions on the positive aspects of the overthrowing of government. Constitutional Issue: 1st amendment, freedom of speech Decision: 7-2 in favor of Dennis Reasoning: In an opinion written by Chief Justice Vinson, the Court ruled that the "clear and present" danger test must be given in such a situation, and that as the men had deliberately plotted and conspired to commit fraud, the constitutionality over the issue was undebatable. The Court reasoned that the discussion of overthrowing the government was a sufficient reason for limiting the freedom of speech.

Reno v ACLU (1997)

Topic: To what extent is the online transmission of obscene and indecent material legal? Background: The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was designed to protect minors from viewing explicit material on the Internet, by making the transmission of obscene and inappropriate messages to any minor illegal. After being prohibited from enforcing these provisions, Attorney General Reno appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the Act failed to define the term "obscene" or "offensive" found within its provisions. Constitutional Issue: 1st amendment rights - free speech Decision: 9-0 for Reno Reasoning: The Court ruled that the Act placed restrictions upon the freedom of speech, especially as it failed to clearly and adequately define what it qualified to be "indecent," and also failed to place restrictions on the people it was geared towards.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Topic: Was Marbury's appointment as a judge legal? Could he receive this appointment through a legal order (writ of mandamus)? Could the Supreme Court give Marbury this legal order and thus force Madison to give Marbury his appointment? Background: There were two conflicting parties during the 1800's, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. John Adams was a Federalist and Thomas Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican. During Adam's last few days as president, he appointed several "midnight judges" who were justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. All of these positions were approved by both the president and the Senate. However, the justices were not given their jobs when Jefferson became president because Jefferson told his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to give these justices their commissions. William Marbury, one of these appointed justices, sued James Madison for not giving him his commission, which he was legally entitled to. Marbury went to the Supreme Court and asked the Supreme Court to give him a writ of mandamus, which was a legal order that would force Madison to give the appointment to Marbury. The issue at hand was whether or not the Supreme Court had the power to issue this writ of mandamus and whether Marbury could even ask for this writ of mandamus. Section 13 of the Judicial Act of 1789 claimed that the Supreme Court had the right to issue this writ of mandamus, but the issue at hand was whether this was constitutional. Constitutional Issue: Article III, Section 2: the power of the federal courts Decision: 5-0 in favor of Marbury (technically both) Reasoning: Although the justices agreed that Marbury was entitled to a writ of mandamus and that his appointment was fair and just and that he should be given his appointment as well as a writ of mandamus, the justices agreed that the Supreme Court was not given the power to issue this writ of mandamus under Article III, Section 2. John Marshall argued that Section 13 of the Judicial Act of 1789 violated Article III Section 2 of the Constitution because it gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue a legal order (writ of mandamus), which was unconstitutional. Even though this ruling took away the power of the Court to issue a legal order, it established judicial review, which essentially gave the Court more power in the long-term. The Supreme Court now had the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

Topic: Was it constitutional for the Florida Supreme Court to manually recount the votes in only certain counties? Background: During the election of 2000, in which Al Gore, the Democrat, was running against George W. Bush, the Republican, both members were fighting for the swing state of Florida. The difference in votes in Florida was so miniscule and Florida law said that such a miniscule difference would require an automatic recount. After this recount, the margin between Bush and Gore was even smaller, with Gore still behind. Because of this, the Florida Supreme Court (quite liberal at the time) allowed Gore to do a manual recount in four counties of his choice. Bush claimed that the Florida Supreme Court could not do such a thing as it was unconstitutional and demanded for the recount to stop. Meanwhile, Gore tried to manually recount all that he could in the short amount of time. Constitutional Issue: Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment Decision: 7-2 in favor of Bush Reasoning: By ordering a manual recount of votes only in select districts, votes in one county that looked the exact same as votes in another county would not be treated equally. In one county where the manual recount was occurring, it could have counted for a vote for Gore when in another county, it could have not counted at all as a vote. Either way, each vote does not have equal value in the different counties and thus does not give each voter equal protection, therefore violating the 14th Amendment. Every vote should be counted the same and thus the Florida Supreme Court's decision was unconstitutional, deeming Bush the winner of the 2000 presidential election.

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)

Topic: Was the section in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that required all individuals to purchase health insurance considered constitutional? Is it constitutional to punish those who do not obtain health insurance? Background: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as well as the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, is a new proposal that will extend health insurance to all members of the United States. The purpose of these acts was to make healthcare more affordable and better quality, as well as help a larger number of people. Obamacare also wanted to expand Medicaid. Kathleen Sebelius was the Secretary of Health and Human Services who supported Obamacare. The opposition was the National Federation of Independent Businesses. This organization is a conservative lobbying organization who along with many other groups, sued the Department of Health and Human Services, but these cases were consolidated into one, NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). There were multiple aspects of Obamacare that were analyzed in this, but the official opinion was only written about the "individual mandate" to get health insurance. One of the issues was whether or not the Supreme Court had the power to assess the individual mandate aspect of Obamacare because under the Anti-Injunction Act, this was debatable. Another aspect that they had to assess was whether or not Medicaid could constitutionally be expanded and of course, whether or not insurance could be mandatory. Constitutional Issue: Commerce Clause, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 Decision: 5-4 in favor of Sebelius Reasoning: The judges agreed that under Congress' power to tax, the individual mandate was constitutional, but that it did not fall under the powers given to Congress through the Necessary and Proper Clause.There were many different opinions on the issue of expanding Medicaid, with some judges wanting to allow the complete expansion of Medicaid, whereas others wanted an expansion of Medicaid, but with certain conditions. In general, the Court agreed that it was constitutional for Obamacare to require all people to get health insurance, and if they don't they will have to pay a tax.

Miller v. California (1973)

Topic: What defines obscenity as forbidden by the law? Background: The supreme court struggled to define obscenity in a series of cases that took place before Miller, with the most pertinent of these cases being Roth v US and Memoirs v Massachusetts. In the Roth decision, the Court defined obscenity as material whose "dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient [lustful] side" of the "average person, applying to contemporary community standards." The Memoirs decision redefined the Roth test by defining obscenity as that which is "patently offensive" and "utterly without redeeming social value," but left the state of the law in the field of obscenity confused and unclear. In California, the obscenity laws were based on Memoirs and Roth, and under these laws, Miller was found guilty of obscenity after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material. He was caught after recipients of the ads complained to the police. Constitutional Issue: First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Decision: 5-4 in favor of Miller Reasoning: The Court held that obscene materials were not protected by the First Amendment, but also overturned the test for obscenity established in the Roth and Memoirs decisions. The new test for obscenity had three parts: (1) whether the average person would find the work appealing to the prurient (lustful) interest (2) whether the work depicted or described in an offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by the state law, and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacked serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.