Supreme Court Cases
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Chief Justice: Earl Warren Court Ruling: The 6th Amendment gives suspected criminals the right to counsel during police interrogations. Background: In 1960 Danny Escobedo's brother-in-law was murdered, and Danny was arrested based on the fact that another accused suspect told police that Danny had shot his brother-in-law because he abused Danny's sister. Danny asked to speak to his attorney but the police refused and interrogated him for over 14 hours during which Danny expressed knowledge of the crime that led to his conviction, which he appealed. Significance: Overruled in Miranda v. Arizona
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Chief Justice: Earl Warren Court Ruling: The Court ruled in favor of Griswold and declared that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guaranteed a general right to privacy, including marital privacy which they ruled Connecticut had violated. Background: In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that banned the use, sale, or encouragement of the use of contraceptives. Estelle Griswold was the executive director of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut and thus was found guilty of breaking this law and fined $100, but she appealed to the Supreme Court. Significance: This ruling rapidly expanded in other court cases to protect the general right to privacy, for example in Roe v. Wade.
Gideon v Wainwright (1963)
Chief Justice: Earl Warren Court Ruling: The court held that the right to the assistance of counsel was a fundamental right. Case remanded to the Supreme Court of Florida for "further action not inconsistent with this decision." Gideon is represented by prominent Washington attorney, and acquitted. Background: 1961 Clarence Earl Gideon is charged with burglary for breaking into a pool hall in Panama City, Florida. Cannot afford a council, and asks for a free one from the court. Florida state laws say that a council could only be appointed to someone charged with a capital offense. Gideon argues that the Supreme Court has entitled him to be represented. He feels his rights under the sixth amendment, as applied by the fourteenth amendment have been violated. He is sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. He appeals to the United States Supreme Court in a suit against the Secretary to the Florida Department of Corrections, Louie L. Wainwright.
Miranda v Arizona (1966)
Chief Justice: Earl Warren Court Ruling: In overturning Miranda's conviction, Chief Justice Earl Warren held that the prosecution may not use statements made by a person in police custody unless certain minimum procedural safeguards were in place. Before questioning, a person must be given what is now known as a "Miranda warning": that you have the right to remain silent; that anything you say may be used as evidence against you; that you may request the presence of an attorney, either retained by you or appointed by the court; and that you have the right, even after beginning to answer questions, to stop answering or request an attorney. Background: A kidnapping and sexual assault occurred in Phoenix, Arizona, in March 1963. On March 13 Ernesto Miranda, 23, was arrested in his home, taken to the police station, identified by the victim, and taken into an interrogation room. Miranda was not told of his rights to counsel prior to questioning. Two hours later, investigators emerged from the room with a written confession signed by Miranda. It included a typed disclaimer, also signed by Miranda, stating that he had "full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me," and that he had knowingly waived those rights. Two weeks later at a preliminary hearing, Miranda again was denied counsel. At his trial he did have a lawyer, whose objections to the use of Miranda's signed confession as evidence were overruled. Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape, and received a 20-year sentence. Significance: U.S. Supreme Court case (1966) in the area of due process of law. The decision reversed an Arizona court's conviction of Ernesto Miranda on kidnapping and rape charges. Identified in a police lineup, Miranda had been questioned, had confessed, and had signed a written statement without being told that he had a right to a lawyer; his confession was used at trial. The Miranda decision was one of the most controversial of the Warren Court. Under Chief Justices Warren Burger and William Rehnquist (who as a legal spokesman for the Nixon administration had proposed that Miranda be overturned), a Supreme Court more friendly to police operations limited its scope several times, although failing to reverse its central holding, and in 2000 the Rehnquist court, in an opinion authored by the chief justice, reaffirmed the original decision as a constitutional rule that may not be overturned by an act of Congress. Civil liberties groups have continued to protest that police routinely omit Miranda warnings.
Brown v Board of Education (1955)
Chief Justice: Earl Warren Court Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy for public education, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and required the desegregation of schools across America. Background: In Topeka, Kansas, a black third-grader named Linda Brown had to walk one mile through a railroad switchyard to get to her black elementary school, even though a white elementary school was only seven blocks away. Linda's father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in the white elementary school, but the principal of the school refused. Brown went to McKinley Burnett, the head of Topeka's branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and asked for help. The NAACP was eager to assist the Browns, as it had long wanted to challenge segregation in public schools. The Board of Education's defense was that, because segregation in Topeka and elsewhere pervaded many other aspects of life, segregated schools simply prepared black children for the segregation they would face during adulthood. The board also argued that segregated schools were not necessarily harmful to black children; great African Americans such as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and George Washington Carver had overcome more than just segregated schools to achieve what they achieved.
Mapp v Ohio (1961)
Chief Justice: Earl Warren Court Ruling: evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts. Major Significance: During the next decade, approximately half of the states adopted the rule. Later the Supreme Court held that the rule had to be applied universally to all criminal proceedings. Justice Clark wrote the majority opinion that evidence obtained by illegal seizure could not be used in state courts, thereby greatly broadening the constitutional protection available to defendants.
Madison v. Marbury 1803
Chief Justice: John Marshall Court Ruling: Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Consequently, The Court found that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflicted. Background: This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams shortly before leaving office, but whose commission was not delivered as required by John Marshall, Adams' Secretary of State. When Thomas Jefferson assumed office, he ordered the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold Marbury's and several other men's commissions. Being unable to assume the appointed offices without the commission documents, Marbury and three others petitioned the Court to force Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. Significance: Marbury had the right to his commission but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Still was seen as a violation of a vested legal right.
Plessy v Ferguson (1896)
Chief Justice: Melville Fuller Court Ruling: The Court decided that Louisiana didn't violate the 13th Amendment and most saw no implication of black inferiority to violate the 14th Amendment. The final decision was that Plessy was wrong of accusing Louisiana of trying to make blacks inferior, and that separate facilities were fine as long as they were equal. Justice John Marshall Harlan provided dissent by saying that the case allowed for the creation of an American caste system and that would be as hated as the Dred Scott decision. Background: In Louisiana on 1890 Act 111 was passed that required railroads have separate but equal care for whites and non-whites. Homer Plessy, who was only 1/8 black, tried to site in the white section but was told to move because under Louisiana law he was considered black. After being arrested, he tried to prove that his 13th and 14th Amendment rights had been violated in Homer Adolph Plessy v The State of Louisiana, but John Howard Ferguson, the presiding judge, said Louisiana had the right to separate the races in its borders. The Supreme Court of Louisiana came to the same conclusion, so Plessy complained to the U.S. Supreme Court. Significance: The case was key in allowing the continued segregation in the south, and although it called for equal facilities, many states governments provided much better places for whites, the ruling was eventually overturned in Brown v Board of Education.
Dred Scott v Sandford (1857)
Chief Justice: Roger B. Taney Court Ruling: ". . . . . . We think they [people of African ancestry] are . . . not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. . . ." Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, speaking for the majority The Court declared that all blacks, slaves as well as free, were not and could never become citizens of the United States. Since they were not citizens, the Constitution, its amendments, and its guaranteed rights did not apply to any blacks and specifically Dred Scott. Without having these rights, the court ruled that Scott was not allowed the ability to sue in the American court system to get his freedom because he was not a citizen. The court also ruled that they did not have jurisdiction over matters within territories and could not prohibit slavery within a territory because it was not an official part of the U.S. In the end, Scott was not granted his freedom. Background: Dred Scott was an enslaved man, purchased around 1833 by Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. Army who served for over three years at Fort Armstrong, Illinois. Illinois was a free state, and Scott was eligible to be freed under its constitution. In 1836, Emerson was relocated to Wisconsin Territory, a free territory under the Missouri Compromise and the Wisconsin Enabling Act. In October 1837, Emerson was moved to St. Louis Missouri but left Scott and Scott's wife behind for several months, hiring them out. Hiring out Scott constituted slavery, and was clearly illegal under the Missouri Compromise, the Wisconsin Enabling Act, and the Northwest Ordinance. In November 1837, Emerson was transferred to Fort Jessup, Louisiana. The Scotts followed Emerson and his family, first to St. Louis and then to Fort Snelling, where they remained until May 1840. Emerson was then sent to fight in the Seminole War in Florida and left his wife and slaves behind in St. Louis. After his return, he moved to the free territory of Iowa but left Scott and his wife behind in St. Louis, again hiring them out. In December 1843, Emerson died unexpectedly. Scott and his family worked as hired slaves for the next three years, with Irene Emerson taking in the rent. In February 1846, Scott tried to purchase his freedom from Irene Emerson, but she refused. Dred Scott sued for his freedom, arguing that since he had been in both a free state and a free territory he had become legally free, and could not have afterwards reverted to being a slave. Significance: The decision was considered at the time a push to expand slavery. The expansion of the territories and resulting admission of new states meant that the Missouri Compromise would cause the loss of political power in the North as many of the new states would be admitted as slave states. Because of this, the Democratic Party politicians sought repeal of the Missouri Compromise and were finally successful in 1854 with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which naturally ended the "compromise." This act permitted each newly admitted state south of the 40th parallel to decide whether to be a slave state or free state. Now, with Dred Scott, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Taney sought to permit the unhindered expansion of slavery into the territories. Although Taney believed that the decision would settle the slavery question one and for all, it produced the opposite result. It strengthened the opposition to slavery in the North, divided the Democratic Party on sectional lines, encouraged, secessionist elements among Southern supporters of slavery to make even bolder demands, and strengthened the Republican Party. Abolitionists were outraged by the decision. The ruling had an explosive effect around the nation, making both pro- and anti-slavery citizens impassioned for their side. This decision is considered one of the many factors leading to the Civil War. Later the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments overturned this ruling by outlawing slavery, granting citizenship to African Americans, and ensuring Equal Protection of the Law.
Dred Scott v. Sanford 1857
Chief Justice: Roger B. Taney Court Ruling: ". . . . . . We think they [people of African ancestry] are . . . not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. . . ." Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, speaking for the majority The Court declared that all blacks, slaves as well as free, were not and could never become citizens of the United States. Since they were not citizens, the Constitution, its amendments, and its guaranteed rights did not apply to any blacks and specifically Dred Scott. Without having these rights, the court ruled that Scott was not allowed the ability to sue in the American court system to get his freedom because he was not a citizen. The court also ruled that they did not have jurisdiction over matters within territories and could not prohibit slavery within a territory because it was not an official part of the U.S. In the end, Scott was not granted his freedom. Background: Dred Scott was an enslaved man, purchased around 1833 by Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. Army who served for over three years at Fort Armstrong, Illinois. Illinois was a free state, and Scott was eligible to be freed under its constitution. In 1836, Emerson was relocated to Wisconsin Territory, a free territory under the Missouri Compromise and the Wisconsin Enabling Act. In October 1837, Emerson was moved to St. Louis Missouri but left Scott and Scott's wife behind for several months, hiring them out. Hiring out Scott constituted slavery, and was clearly illegal under the Missouri Compromise, the Wisconsin Enabling Act, and the Northwest Ordinance. In November 1837, Emerson was transferred to Fort Jessup, Louisiana. The Scotts followed Emerson and his family, first to St. Louis and then to Fort Snelling, where they remained until May 1840. Emerson was then sent to fight in the Seminole War in Florida and left his wife and slaves behind in St. Louis. After his return, he moved to the free territory of Iowa but left Scott and his wife behind in St. Louis, again hiring them out. In December 1843, Emerson died unexpectedly. Scott and his family worked as hired slaves for the next three years, with Irene Emerson taking in the rent. In February 1846, Scott tried to purchase his freedom from Irene Emerson, but she refused. Dred Scott sued for his freedom, arguing that since he had been in both a free state and a free territory he had become legally free, and could not have afterwards reverted to being a slave. Significance: The decision was considered at the time a push to expand slavery. The expansion of the territories and resulting admission of new states meant that the Missouri Compromise would cause the loss of political power in the North as many of the new states would be admitted as slave states. Because of this, the Democratic Party politicians sought repeal of the Missouri Compromise and were finally successful in 1854 with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which naturally ended the "compromise." This act permitted each newly admitted state south of the 40th parallel to decide whether to be a slave state or free state. Now, with Dred Scott, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Taney sought to permit the unhindered expansion of slavery into the territories. Although Taney believed that the decision would settle the slavery question one and for all, it produced the opposite result. It strengthened the opposition to slavery in the North, divided the Democratic Party on sectional lines, encouraged, secessionist elements among Southern supporters of slavery to make even bolder demands, and strengthened the Republican Party. Abolitionists were outraged by the decision. The ruling had an explosive effect around the nation, making both pro- and anti-slavery citizens impassioned for their side. This decision is considered one of the many factors leading to the Civil War. Later the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments overturned this ruling by outlawing slavery, granting citizenship to African Americans, and ensuring Equal Protection of the Law.
US v. Nixon (1974)
Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Court Ruling: The Court ruled unanimously against Nixon and declared that no one is above the law, and that the President cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence in a criminal trial. Background: In the Watergate Scandal Investigation President Nixon was asked to hand over some of the tapes, but he only handed over a portion of them and they were edited. Not satisfied, the special prosecutor ordered the rest of the tapes, but both the prosecutor and Nixon appealed to the Supreme Court to settle whether the court could require Nixon to hand over the tapes. Significance: Furthered the checks and balances in the branches of government, led to President Nixon's resignation, and declared that the Supreme Court has the final say in determining what is constitutional.
Roe v Wade (1973)
Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Court Ruling: (1) the Court had jurisdiction; (2) Roe's case was not moot, despite the birth of her child, because the case was "capable of repetition, yet evading review;" (3) the right to privacy includes the right to abortion; (4) since abortion is a fundamental right, state regulation must meet the "strict scrutiny" standard, which means the state must show it has a "compelling interest" in having the law; (5) the word "person" in the 14th Amendment, does not apply to the unborn; (6) the state has an important interest in both preserving the heath of a pregnant woman and in protecting fetal life; (7) the state's interest in maternal health becomes compelling at three months; (8) the state's interest in fetal life becomes compelling at viability--six months; (9) the state may not regulate abortion at all during the first trimester; (10) the state may regulate abortion during the second three months, but only for the protection of the woman's health; (11) the state may regulate or ban abortion during the third trimester to protect fetal life. Significance: This case resulted in a landmark decision about abortion. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7 to 2 majority voting to strike down Texas abortion laws. The Roe Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny. The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's uterus, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health.
Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v Bakke (1978)
Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Court Ruling: Decided by a 5-4 ruling, Allan Bakke was admitted to The Med. School of the University of California. Case Background: The Med. School of the University of California had two admission programs for the entering class of 100 students, the regular and the special admissions programs. Under the regular program, if your overall GPA was below a 2.5, you were rejected. If you met that standard, your student profile was reviewed by a full admissions committee and from there they were able to make acceptance offers. Under the special admission program, you did not have to meet the overall 2.5 GPA average if you were a minority who wished to be considered as "economically and/or educationally disadvantaged." These candidates were chosen by a separate committee, a majority of which were members of a minority group. A total of 107 students were admitted to the school under both programs, but no disadvantaged whites were admitted under the special admissions program. The respondent, Allan Bakke, a white male applied in 1973 and 1974 and was rejected, only being considered under the general admissions program. After the second rejection, respondent filed this action in the California State Court for mandatory and declaratory relief to require his admission to the school, alleging that the special admissions program was in commission to exclude him based on his racial background in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (California Constitution), and Sec. 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that no person shall be denied from participating in any program receiving federal financial assistance because of race. Major Significance: This was the court's first major statement on whether affirmative action programs are constitutional. Bakke's rejection as a result of the special admissions program was declared in violation to the Constitution of the U.S. Nevertheless, race could be an important factor in admission programs as long as it wasn't the main factor determining an admissions decision.
New Jersey v T.L.O. (1985)
Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Court Ruling: Decided by a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Case Background: Two female New Jersey students were caught smoking at their high school in a girls' bathroom. Smoking in the school itself was not prohibited, but students were allowed to smoke only in a designated area. A teacher caught the girls smoking and took them to the school's principal's office. One of the girls denied ever smoking when the Vice Principal questioned her, so he demanded to search her purse. In it he found a package of cigarettes, marijuana, plastic bags, a sizeable amount of money, and an index card containing the names of students who owed her money for drugs. Major Significance: This decision indicated that the Court did not view the rights of students in a public school as equivalent to the rights of adults in a non-school setting. Police need to demonstrate a probable cause that individuals they search have violated or are violating a law. School officials, by contrast, need to have only reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct to justify a search of students in school. School authorities, in this view, may restrict the rights of students in behalf of the school's compelling educational purpose.
Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Court Ruling: In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the students had the right to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Justice Abe Fortas wrote for the majority. He first emphasized that students have First Amendment rights: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." While schools certainly have the right to establish rules relating to "the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style... [Or] aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations," this case does not involve any of those issues. "The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners' interference ...with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students." Justice Hugo Black dissented. He pointed out that the case involved a small number of students who refused to obey the instructions of school officials, and argued that allowing this behavior would have a negative effect on schools and on the country as a whole. Background: In 1965, John Tinker, his sister Mary Beth, and a friend were sent home from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The school had established a policy permitting students to wear several political symbols, but had excluded the wearing of armbands protesting the Vietnam War. Their fathers sued, but the District Court ruled that the school had not violated the Constitution. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court, and the Tinkers appealed to the Supreme Court.
Texas v Johnson (1989)
Chief Justice: William H. Rehnquist Court Ruling: The majority of the court agreed and ruled in favor of Johnson, believing the personal rights outweighed the importance of keeping national symbols sacred, but the decision was not unanimous. The dissent, most coming from Rehnquist, was that the flag was a special symbol to Americans and that seeing a display such as Johnson's could provoke violence from onlookers. Rehnquist also believed that Johnson was at fault for not choosing a different way to express his dissent for the country, a way that would not seem as such a provocation. The ruling of the court overturned laws against flag burning in 48 states, but did little to change the negative opinion most Americans have toward flag burning. Background: Gregory Johnson was part of a demonstration in Dallas protesting the Reagan administration outside the Republican National Convention. During the protest Johnson set an American flag on fire. The state charged him with one year in jail and a $2000 fine because he destroyed a respected object. He took his case to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals which ruled that flag burning was protected under the 1st Amendment, but the case was then given the Supreme Court. Significance: Texas v Johnson inspired United States v Eichman one year later, where the same 5 - 4 ruling in favor of flag burning repeated itself. Since Texas v Johnson, there have been many attempts to pass laws protecting the American flag from desecration, but so far most attempts have been defeated narrowly in the Senate.
Hazelwood School Dist. v Kuhlmeier (1988)
Chief Justice: William H. Rehnquist Court Ruling: public school officials may impose some limits on what appears in school-sponsored student publications. Significance: held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression. It was decided on January 13, 1988 in favor of Hazelwood School District, overruling a Court of Appeals reversal of a District Court ruling.
Gitlow v New York (1925)
Chief Justice: William H. Taft Court Ruling: In an earlier ruling, the Court had decided that state laws could not be stopped by the federal government from restricting rights. The Court partially overturned this decision in Gitlow v New York, stating that the 14th Amendment did extend to state government. Gitlow, however, was not cleared of his charges, because of the "due process of law" clause, he was still not convicted under New York's law for trying to promote the overthrow of the government. Dissent was provided by Justice Holmes, who thought that because so few people cared about the socialist material his was distributing and that the material itself did not call for an immediate rebellion, he wasn't much of a danger. Background: Benjamin Gitlow was arrested in New York for handing out a "left wing manifesto" that promoted socialist ideals and strikes. New York's Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902 prohibited the promotion of overthrowing the government by force, and was used to arrest him. Gitlow argued his actions were protected by the 14th Amendment. Significance: Although Gitlow was convicted in the end, the case did take place after the Red Scare and was important in broadening the amount of protection free speech was given to Americans. While his actions themselves were not hostile, they were used to help define "clear and present danger", because the ideas he promoted could have led to violent actions against the government, he was decided to be dangerous.