Constitutional History II Final

Bowers v Hardwick Context

- Hardwick was manifesting his love for another man in his own home; the police come and arrest Hardwick for the practice of sodomy for males and females: state police power (health, welfare, morals) allow GA to pass this law -the respondent was charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of the respondent's home -he asserted that he was a practicing homosexual, that the GA sodomy statute, as administered by the defendants, placed him in imminent danger of arrest, and that the statute for several reasons violates the Federal Constitution

Lemon v. Kurtzman Court Interpretation

, they commanded that there should be no law respecting an establishment of religion -a given law might not establish a state religion but nevertheless be one respecting that end in the sense of being a step that could lead to such establishment and hence offend the 1st Amendment (violation of Establishment Clause) -every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years; ultimately the Lemon Test -inquiry into the legislative purposes of the PA and RI statutes affords no basis for a conclusion that the legislative intent was to advance religion -on the contrary, the statutes themselves clearly state that they are intended to enhance the quality of the secular education in all schools covered by the compulsory attendance laws -however, the two legislatures have also realized that church-related elementary and secondary schools have a significant religious mission and that a substantial portion of their activities is religiously oriented -therefore, they have sought to create statutory restrictions designed to guarantee the separation between secular and religious educational functions and to ensure that State financial aid only supports the former -all these provisions are precautions taken in candid recognition that these programs approached the forbidden areas under the Religion Clauses: the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes in each State involves excessive entanglement between government and religion -some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable...judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on the circumstances of a particular relationship -we need and do not assume that teachers in parochial schools will be guilty of bad faith or any conscious design to evade the limitations imposed by the statute and in a school affiliated with his or her faith and operated to inculcate its tenets -with the best of intentions such a teacher would find it hard to make a total separation between secular teaching and religious doctrine. What would appear to be good citizenship might well for others border on or constitute instruction in religion -further difficulties are inherent in the combination of religious discipline and the possibility of disagreement between teacher and religious authorities over the meaning of the statutory restrictions -we do not assume that parochial teachers will be unsuccessful, but the potential for impermissible fostering of religion is present -a comprehensive, discriminating, and continuing state surveillance will inevitably be required to ensure that these restrictions are obeyed and the 1st Amendment otherwise respected...the restrictions and surveillance needed to ensure that teachers play a strictly nonideological role give rise to entanglements between Church and State -the history of government grants of a continuing cash subsidy indicates that such programs have almost always been accompanied by varying measures of control and surveillance: the government cash grants provide no basis for predicting that comprehensive measures of surveillance and controls will not follow -the government's post-audit power to inspect and evaluate a church-related school's financial records and to determine which expenditures are religious and which are secular creates an intimate and continuing relationship between church and state -it's going to be tricky for religious people teaching in Catholic schools to prevent from imparting their beliefs onto the children; it will put pressure on the teacher in an unfair manner, since that is what they believe and that is the path that the Catholic schools have chosen -the money cannot be used to promote a religious belief: this is hard to do, since these are teachers who have given their lives to believing that there are connections between the world and school subjects -reimbursement is only limited to courses offered in public schools and materials approved by state officials -schools seeking reimbursement must maintain accounting procedures -Burger: separation between Church and State is permeable -to police this subsidy and see that it is being misused to promote religion, government officials would have to sit in on -ULTIMATELY, these laws are unconstitutional because they violate the Establishment Clause

City of Boerne v. Flores Likely Decision

- the Court chose a lower court decision that not only exposed the weakness of RFRA, but allowed the Court to lecture Congress on separation of powers and, in effect, warn them not to commit such a silliness again

US v. Heart of Atlanta Why the Commerce Act?

-14th Amendment applies to states, not individuals, and Equal Protection did not apply yet -Wickard v. Filburn: commerce was a powerful tool to regulate everything (Commerce Clause could stop a farmer from planting a garden) -all the government has to do is prove that the motel relies on commerce to rule their actions unconstitutional

Rosenberger v. UVA Court Interpretation

-5-4: the Court could not discriminate against Wide Awake -Kennedy: denying funds to a student publication because of the content violated the Speech Clause -it is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys: viewpoint discrimination is an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or the perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction... -vital First Amendment speech principles are at stake here: 1. The first danger to liberty lies in granting the State the power to examine publications to determine whether or not they are based on some ultimate idea 2. The second danger Is from the chilling of individual thought and expression; this danger is especially real in a University setting, where the State acts against a background and tradition of thought and experiment that is at the center of our intellectual and philosophic tradition...so, for the University to cast disapproval on particular viewpoints of its students risks the suppression of free speech and creative inquiry in one of the vital centers for the nation's intellectual life -based on the formerly discussed principles, we hold that the regulation invoked to deny SAF support, both in its terms and in its application to these petitioners, is a denial of their right of free speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment -the exaction here is a student activity fee designed to reflect the reality that student life in its many dimensions includes the necessity of wide-ranging speech and inquiry and that student expression is an integral part of the University's education mission -the fee is mandatory, so the SAF cannot be used for unlimited purposes, or for the purposes of supporting religion -it does not violate the Establishment Clause for a public university to grant access to its facilities on a religion-neutral basis to a wide spectrum of student groups, which may include devotional exercises -this is even when upkeep, maintenance, and repair of the facilities attributed to those uses is paid from a student activities fund to which students are required to contribute -to obey the Establishment Clause, it was not necessary for the University to deny eligibility to student publications because of their viewpoint; instead, the course of action was a denial of the right of free speech and would risk fostering a pervasive bias or hostility to religion, which could undermine the very neutrality the Establishment Clause honors -there is no Establishment Clause violation in the University's honoring its duties under the Free Speech Clause -the University cannot fund a Jewish and a Muslim group but turn down funding for a Christian group, though the other groups were not making threatening arguments about going to hell -viewpoint vs content: WAP is making a specific argument about a specific set of beliefs; they are not just publishing general information about Christianity Dissenters -denied the violation of the Speech Clause; rallied again for the notion of a wall of separation -the Court today, for the first time, approves direct funding of core religious activities by an arm of the State; however, it does so only after erroneous treatment of some familiar principles of law implementing the 1st Amendment's Establishment and Speech Clauses, and by viewing the very funds in question as beyond the reach of the Establishment Clause's funding restrictions as such -Although the Court places great stress on the eligibility of secular as well as religious activities for grants from the Student Activities Fund, it recognizes that such evenhanded availability is not by itself enough to satisfy constitutional requirements for any aid scheme that results in a benefit to religion -this is another of the Court's attempts to circumvent the clear bar to direct governmental aid to religion

Mapp v. Ohio Effect

-Appeals to the State Court; Supreme Court adopts the Exclusionary Rule, so it now applies to the states as well, not just the federal government -the state courts now have to heed the Exclusionary Rule -there are those who say that the criminal might go free because the constable has blundered; this will undoubtedly be the result in some cases -there is another consideration: that of judicial integrity- the criminal goes free, if he must, because the law sets him free; nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws or disregard the charter of its own existence

Roe v. Wade Court Interpretation

-Blackmun's majority opinion not only declared that privacy included autonomy over one's body -our task is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and predilection -the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. However, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution...they make it clear the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education -this right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy -the detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice is evident 1. Maternity or additional offspring may force upon the woman a distressful life and future 2. Psychological harm may be imminent 3. Mental and physical health are taxed by child care 4. It is distressful to bring an unwanted child into a family already unstable -However, the Court's decision in recognizing a right to privacy also acknowledges some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate -a state may assert standards in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life -TX argues that life begins at conception- by adopting one theory of life, TX may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake: we do not need to resolve this -however, physicians focus on when the fetus is viable -for the Court, the compelling point is at the end of the first trimester: this is because of the established medical fact that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion is less than mortality in normal childbirth -the TX law sweeps too broadly: the statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early and later in pregnancy, and limits it to a single reason of saving the mother's life -the statute cannot survive the constitutional attack -7-2 decision: privacy does protect a woman's right to abortion -in the first trimester, the woman has an exclusive right to make a decision on her own: the State may not interfere in the woman's personal, private decision, except to provide support -the question of determining when life begins need not be decided: there are many viewpoints, and the federal government does not have to decide which of those philosophical, religious viewpoints are right -therefore, Texas cannot argue that life begins at conception: not in the court's jurisdiction -second trimester: the state has to have a compelling interest if it is going to infringe upon a constitutional right- the state has to demonstrate that its interest should be allowed to infringe upon the right instead of leaving the decision to the woman -life begins when the fetus is able to survive outside the womb; so, the state now does have an interest that may infringe on the woman's right to privacy -third trimester: the state's compelling interest dominates, though the woman can make an argument in Court as to why she would like to terminate the pregnancy -Blackman had previously been a lawyer at Mayo Clinic: used this experience Dissent -At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger to the health, but are unwanted for reasons like convenience, family planning, dislike of children... -there is nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's argument: the Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes -this is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review -a transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not private -the Court's sweeping invalidation on any restriction of abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify

US v. Heart of Atlanta Likely Result

-Commerce Power is extended to create a nondiscriminatory paradigm

Roper v Simmons Court Interpretation

-In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled that standards of decency have evolved so that executing minors is "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment -The majority cited a consensus against the juvenile death penalty among state legislatures, and its own determination that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for minors. Finally the Court pointed to "overwhelming" international opinion against the juvenile death penalty -juveniles are scientifically still maturing and their choices are not the best; the personality traits of a juvenile are also less fixed -dissent: some juveniles are mature enough to deserve the death sentence for their crimes

Gregg v Georgia Court Interpretation

-In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances -In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed. Georgia's death penalty statute assures the judicious and careful use of the death penalty by requiring a bifurcated proceeding where the trial and sentencing are conducted separately, specific jury findings as to the severity of the crime and the nature of the defendant, and a comparison of each capital sentence's circumstances with other similar cases -Moreover, the Court was not prepared to overrule the Georgia legislature's finding that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent to future capital crimes and an appropriate means of social retribution against its most serious offenders -liberals all manage to converge together to give their opinion

Engel v. Vitale Court Interpretation

-Justice Black is an absolutist in regard to the first Amendment -he also wanted total incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the States -the Court ruled that any mandatory prayer violated the 1st Amendment's ban on an establishment of religion -the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by the government -the 1st Amendment was added to guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support, or influence the kinds of prayer that American people can say- the people's religion must not be subjected to the pressures of government -neither the fact that the prayer can be denominationally neutral nor the fact that is observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the 1st Amendment, both of which are operate against the States by virtue of the 14th Amendment -the Establishment Clause does not depend on any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion, whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not -furthermore, government established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand -prayer breaches the wall of separation between Church and State; the decision is not hostility towards religion or prayer

Frontiero v Richardson Court Interpretation

-Justice Brennan, along with Justices Douglas, White, and Marshall, indicated his willingness to bring gender discrimination within the EPC, but he lacked one vote -instead, a violation of the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause: The Court held that the statute in question clearly commanded "dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated," violating the Due Process Clause and the equal protection requirements that clause implied.

Regents of the University of CA v. Bakke Court Interpretation

-Justice Powell: race could be a factor, but only one of many, used to seek a balanced class; race, however, had been used improperly here, so Bakke should be granted admission -because the special admissions program involved a racial classification, the supreme court of CA held itself bound to strict scrutiny. It then turned to the goals the University presented as justifying the special program; although the court agreed that the goals of integrating the medical profession and increasing the number of physicians willing to serve minority groups were compelling state interests, it concluded that the special admissions program was not the least intrusive means of achieving these goals -race: petitioner prefers to view it as establishing a goal of minority representation in medical school; respondent, echoing the courts below, labels it as a racial quota -the 14th Amendment guarantees equality to everyone; the court erred because white males are not a minority that requires protection from the political process; however, this rationale has never been invoked in our decisions as a prerequisite to subjecting racial or ethnic distinctions to strict scrutiny -the Court has embarked on the mission of interpreting the EPC with the view of assuring to all persons the protection of equal laws, in a Nation confronting a legacy of slavery and racial discrimination -however, the clock of our liberties cannot be turned back to 1868. It is far too late to argue that the guarantee of equal protection to all persons permits the recognition of special wards entitled to a degree of protection greater than that accorded others -the 14th Amendment is not directed solely against discrimination due to a 'two-class theory'- based upon differences of white and negro -the white majority itself is composed of minority groups; not all these groups can receive preferential treatment and corresponding judicial tolerance of distinctions drawn in terms of race and nationality -a preference could also not be benign: individuals may not be asked to suffer to enhance the societal standing of their ethnic groups -if it is the individual who is entitled to judicial protection against classifications based upon his racial or ethnic background because such distinctions impinge upon personal rights, rather than the individual only because of his membership in a particular group, then constitutional standards may be applied consistently -if a petitioner's purpose is to assure racial quotas, such a preferential purpose must be rejected not as insubstantial but as factually invalid -the State certainly has a legitimate and substantial interest in ameliorating, or eliminating where feasible, the disabling effects of ID'ed discrimination -the petitioner identifies that improving the delivery of health care services to communities currently underserved: it may be assumed that in some situations a State's interest in facilitating the health care of its citizens is sufficiently compelling to support the use of suspect classification- but, there is virtually no evidence in the record indicating that petitioner's special admissions program is either needed or geared to promote that goal; the petitioner simply has not carried its burden of demonstrating that it must prefer members of particular ethnic groups over all other individuals in order to promote better health care delivery to deprived citizens; it has not even showed that preferential classification is likely to have any significant effect on the problem -the fourth goal of UCLA is a diverse student body: this is a constitutionally permissible goal. In this light, petitioner must be viewed as seeking to achieve a goal that is of paramount importance in the fulfillment of its mission. Physicians serve a heterogeneous population: an otherwise qualified medical student with a particular background may bring to a professional school of medicine experiences, outlooks, and ideas that enrich the training of its student body and better equip its graduates to render with understanding their service to humanity -however, ethnic diversity is only one element in the range of factors a university properly may consider in attaining the goal of a heterogeneous student body. Reserving seats contributes to ethnic diversity, but UCLA's argument that this is the only way is seriously flawed -in summary, it is evident that the Davis special admissions program involves the use of an explicit racial classification never before countenanced by this Court. No matter how strong white applicants' applications are, they are never afforded the chance to compete with applicants from the preferred groups for the special admissions seats. However, the preferred applicants have the opportunity to compete for every seat in the class -the fatal flaw in UCLA's program is its disregard of individual rights as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment; when a State's distribution of benefits or imposition of burdens hinges on the color of a person's skin or ancestry, that individual is entitled to a demonstration that the challenged classification is necessary to promote a substantial state interest, and UCLA has failed to carry this burden -the court also failed to recognize the State has a substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions program involving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin. For this reason, so much of the CA court's judgment as enjoins petitioner from any consideration of the race of any applicant must be reversed -the court objects to the quota of races: setting aside a specific number of seats for minorities

Reynolds v. US Context

-Mormons believed that if a man could afford it, he should take more than one wife -the government thought this was contrary; they thought it would cause the destruction of western civilization. So, the government went after the Mormons, declaring that polygamy was destructive to the Union -so, the territory of Utah would not be admitted into the US until they stopped this practice -men with multiple wives were imprisoned, fined, had their political rights taken away from them... -Mormon Church wants a hearing to defend and make constitutional their practice of polygamy

Engel v. Vitale Context

-New York public schools opened each day with a nonsecretarian prayer composed by the Board of Regents, an entity of the state (the state wrote the prayer to be recited every morning in every classroom. Other states and localities used other invocations like the Lord's Prayer, or borrowed from sectarian services -the prayer was meant to be nondenominational; no one could object to it- vague, but had the right sentiment -does not matter that the state wrote the prayer or that it was nondenominational: the state is still favoring a religion, and this is discriminatory -Madison said that this was contrary to Liberty of Conscience; it is destroyed with a daily prayer -even if it is not destroyed by the prayer, it eventually will with some new state-mandated religious activity -the State of New York has adopted a practice (prayer) wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause: there can be no doubt that NY's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings is a religious activity -the petitioners contend that prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs -it is an unfortunate fact of history that when some of the very groups which had most strenuously opposed the established Church of England found themselves sufficiently in control of colonial governments in this country to write their own prayers into law, they passed laws making their own religion the official religion of their respective colonies

• Nixon v. Herndon, Nixon v. Condon

-Nixon, a TX resident, wanted the right to vote, so he challenged the primary -unconstitutional because state elections were in the hands of the state; they got ultimate power over deciding who got to vote -ultimately: state primaries should be open to all voters

Abrams v Johnson Court Interpretation

-No, in a five-to-four decision. -First, the Court held that in re-drafting the plans, the District Court had no obligation to preserve all three of the old plan's black-majority districts, if this would result in racial gerrymandering -Second, the Court supported the District Court's decision not to preserve two black-majority districts as it held that the area's black population was not sufficiently compact to sustain such a plan. Third, the Court ruled that the plan's creation of only one black-majority district would not violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act by causing a retrogression in the political position of Abrams and his fellow plaintiffs. The Court, in addition to noting Abrams' failure to meet his retrogression claim's population density requirement, found that in the last election, held under the challenged plan, all three black incumbents won re-election, two of whom while running against white candidates from white-majority districts. -Finally, the Court concluded that the District Court's redistricting plan did not violate the Constitution's guarantee of "one person, one vote." In addition to finding that the plan's overall and average population deviations were acceptable, the Court held that even if these deviations were slightly "off" they must be tolerated given their six year tenure in an area which has seen significant population shifts. Accordingly, any minor errors would be best corrected by the next census rather than by judicial intervention.

Oregon HR Dept v. Smith Court Interpretation

-Oregon law prohibits the knowing or intentional possession of a controlled substance, unless it has been prescribed by a medical practitioner. Peyote falls under this category. -the freedom of religion means the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires; however, laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they can with practices -Sherbert Test: governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a compelling governmental interest; we will not apply it to require exemptions from a generally applicable criminal law -Because respondents' ingestion of peyote was prohibited under Oregon law, and because that prohibition is constitutional, Oregon may, consistent with the Free Exercise Clause, deny the respondents unemployment compensation when their dismissal results from use of the drug Dissent -it is not the State's broad interest in fighting the critical war on drugs that must be weighed against respondents' claim, but the State's narrow interest in refusing to make an exception for the religious, ceremonial use of peyote -a government interest in 'symbolism, even symbolism for so worthy a cause as the abolition of unlawful drugs' cannot suffice to abrogate the constitutional rights of individuals

Palko v. CT Likely Effect

-Palko is ultimately executed after being found guilty of 1st degree murder -Selective incorporation was later challenged by Justice Black, who called for 'total incorporation' in the Adamson case

Oregon HR Dept v. Smith Context

-Sherbert v. Verner: the Court had consistently held that under the protection afforded free exercise of religion by the 1st Amendment, states had to make reasonable accommodations to the religious practices of their citizens. In most instances, the laws involved were general in their application, such as induction into military service or compulsory school attendance. These laws were also civil in nature -Smith worked as an alcohol and drug counselor in an agency in Portland; firsthand experience was the best experience -in order to get the job, Smith had to sign off on an agreement that while he was employed counseling people not to take drugs, he himself would also abstain from alcohol and drugs -one of the pieces of the Native American religion was the ingestion of peyote: a hallucinogenic -when Smith became a member of that Church, he practiced this custom -Alfred Smith and Galen Black were fired from their jobs because they participated in a peyote ceremony of the Native American Church and were then turned down for unemployment insurance -they appealed the decision based on Sherbert's rule that unemployment insurance could not be conditioned on a person's religiously required conduct -the difference was that in the cases following Sherbert, none of the religious activity had been in conflict with criminal laws; in Oregon, the ingestion of peyote, even for religious purposes, is considered criminal conduct

Lawrence v Texas Court Interpretation

-Three Questions to Answer: 1. Whether criminalizing sexual conduct between same-sex couples but not heterosexual couples violates the 14th Amendment EPC? -Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause 2. Whether petitioners' criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violates their vital interest in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause?- - After explaining what it deemed the doubtful and overstated premises of Bowers, the Court reasoned that the case turned on whether Lawrence and Garner were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," continued Justice Kennedy 3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick should be overruled? -yes, anti-sodomy rules are unconstitutional • What is the most likely effect of the decision? -greater rights given to same-sex couples

Bowers v Hardwick Court Interpretation

-a bare majority of the Court wanted to send a message that the right to privacy first adumbrated in Griswold is not absolute: the justices also recognized that homosexual sodomy, unlike martial privacy, had little public support, and by taking this stand they could rebut some of the charges that they had gone too far in allowing so-called permissive behavior -in a 5-4 decision, it loses: the Court rules that the GA legislation criminalizing such behavior is constitutional; state has a compelling interest to prevent such obscene and horrible behavior -The divided Court found that there was no constitutional protection for acts of sodomy, and that states could outlaw those practices. Justice Byron White argued that the Court has acted to protect rights not easily identifiable in the Constitution only when those rights are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (Palko v. Connecticut, 1937) or when they are "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition" (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). The Court held that the right to commit sodomy did not meet either of these standards. White feared that guaranteeing a right to sodomy would be the product of "judge-made constitutional law" and send the Court down the road of illegitimacy.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach Likely Effect

-a few weeks later, in Katzenbach v. Morgan, the Court upheld Section 4(e), which provided that anyone who had completed 6th grade in a Spanish-speaking Puerto Rican school could not be denied the right to vote because of an inability to read or write English -led to stringent regulations like the elimination of places to vote and stringent voter ID laws

• 24th Amendment

-abolished poll taxes for federal elections -elections are public affairs -the hope is incorporation into the states -furthermore, the federal elections are not that often (every 4-6 years); in the meantime, there are half a dozen state elections that people without the means to pay poll taxes cannot participate in -undercut the incentive of someone to vote

Richmond v. Croson Company Context

-affirmative action has always been a major flashpoint: how much preference, if any, should society provide groups that historically have been the victims of discrimination in order to help them compete in the future on an equal basis? -the Court upheld the idea of AA, but ruled some programs impermissible under the EPC -Fullilove v. Klutznik: the justices had approved a congressionally mandated set-aside program, in which a certain percentage of contracts in federally financed programs had to be reserved for minority contractors, which Congress defined with some specificity -the black majority city council in Richmond, VA established a set-aside program and adopted the same definitions of minorities as had Congress. -terms: required prime contractors to whom the city awarded construction contracts to subcontact at least 30% of the dollar amount of the contract to one or more Minority Business Enterprises (MBE) -The Croson Company tried diligently to find a minority contractor to work with, but none could meet the city's bonding requirements. When Croson informed the city of this, the council decided to rebid a contract initially awarded to Croson, and the company went into federal court -however, only 4.7% of all construction firms in the US were minority-owned and that 41% of these were located in 5 states; therefore, he predicted that the ordinance would thus lead to a windfall for the few minority firms in Richmond

Shaw v Reno Context

-after the 1990 census, many states had to redraw their congressional and state assembly district lines -the US Dept of Justice strongly encouraged the creation of a number of majority-minority districts: districts drawn such that racial groups that were a minority in the state as a whole would be a minority in the particular district: the states had little choice but to comply, but triggered the beginning of racial gerrymandering -in earlier cases, this was okay, but by the 1990s, conservatives argued that race should not be a factor in electoral districting: they argued that here as in other areas, the state's use of racial classification should be subject to strict scrutiny -with a conservative majority on the Court, they saw the time as right to challenge redistricting based on race -NC was given a 12th seat in the House; they already had one majority-black district, but the General Assembly drew up lines to have another -appellants allege that the revised plan, which contains district boundary lines of dramatically irregulat shape, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander this led to oddly configured districts that were not geographically sound in any way -really long districts: not compact enough; no sense of community/basic values/goals amongst the residents

Abrams v Johnson Context

-after the GA legislature had failed to develop a redistricting plan that met court requirements, the federal district court fashioned a plan of its own, which included one majority-minority district -the plan was attacked on the grounds that the court, while it had the power to draft a plan, had failed to follow the rules in such situations laid down by the Supreme Court in earlier decisions -Shortly thereafter the composition of another of the plan's districts was challenged in a District Court which, after unsuccessfully deferring the matter to Georgia's Legislature for redrafting, drew its own plan creating one black-majority district in place of the proposed three. After the 1996 elections were held under the court's new plan, Abrams and several other voters challenged its constitutionality Abrams v. Johnson: federal government no longer has the right to draw districts; that states now have this right -strict scrutiny: the state has to have a compelling interest and narrowly tailored solution to solve the problem -goal: to pull AA back into the body politic; why would they have participated earlier when the privatized primary was all that counted and their vote didn't matter?- this still preserved a number of seats for white candidates -Kennedy: race cannot be a factor; race affects the true intention of the drawing of the districts- this violates the 14th Amendment, which violates racial discrimination on the part of the state- the state cannot act on the basis of creating black districts; that's a recognition of race that's forbidden by the EPC -this decision essentially ends the majority-minority districts, which was where we started, because it argues that the state's compelling interest to pull AA voters back into the body politic cannot trump the 14th Amendment -race cannot be the dominating factor in drawing lines, given the shape of those lines; to redraw them would be redrawing literally 11/12 of the districts -the court cannot accept districts created on the basis of race -if the legislature fails to achieve the goal, the question is put before the Court -where a sufficient number of minority voters are clustered in a town, then the district does not have to be drawn like a snake; it can be drawn in a geographically accepted shape -in states where that is not the reality, it cannot -since then, the Court has not taken very many cases regarding gerrymandering -why cant the Court use the Enforcement Clause of the 14th Amendment? -the way the 14th Amendment is set up, the state can only react- it cannot use the 14th Amendment to enact or initiate action on its own -problem: how do we get 65% of the minority vote without creating a funny-looking district

NYT co v. US Likely Effect

-although hailed by the press as a resounding victory for the 1st Amendment, the decision broke no new ground, but reaffirmed the landmark ruling in Near

Abrams v Johnson Likely Effect

-although the Court never said that majority-minority districts were per se unconstitutional, after Abrams it appeared unlikely that state legislatures could create such districts except in large cities, where such districts could be created in any event -efforts to draw together minorities in rural areas into bizarrely shaped districts would in all likelihood fail the Court's strict scrutiny review

Darrin v Gould Context

-although the federal ERA went down to defeat, over a third of states adopted state ERAs, thus allowing state courts to set a higher standard against which to measure gender discrimination than that available under the 14th Amendment -Washington state court struck down rules prohibiting qualified girls from participating in interscholastic sports

RAV v. City of St. Paul Context

-another victory for free speech; even the most despicable free speech is still protected

Edwards v. Aguillard Likely Effect

-creation science cannot be taught in public school

• Harper v. Virginia

-ends the poll tax for state AND federal elections -HOWEVER, there is a method that remains to continue racial discrimination: 1. Gerrymandering the districts 2. Voter ID law 3. Literacy tests -not all AA were literate at the time -literacy tests were extremely convoluted and complicated -not reliably enforced

Rosenberger v. UVA Likely Effect

-fight between Church and State continues; this time, it's a victory to the Church -the Value Evangelicals have a legitimate place in the Marketplace of Ideas: they are constitutionally protected to spread their ideas; prior to this case, a state university with money coming from the people could not support groups like WAP -under the old interpretation, it would violate the Establishment Clause -this case brings together the Establishment and the Free Exercise Clause; gave Value Evangelicals an easier argument to make

Lee v. Weisman Likely Effect

-fight regarding the presence of prayer in schools continues, though 'no' takes another win

Gregg v Georgia Context

-following Furman, the states that imposed the death penalty rewrote their statutes to meet the imprecise constitutional standards implied in that case -new GA statute: the jury would first determine guilt or innocence; if it found the defendant guilty, it would then vote separately on punishment. The prosecution could then introduce aggravating circumstances and the defense mitigating factors -the issue in this case is whether the imposition of the sentence of death for the crimes of murder under the GA law violates the 8th and 14th Amendments -the GA statute retains the death penalty for: murder, kidnapping or ransom where the victim is harmed, armed robbery, rape, treason, and aircraft hijacking -A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

Wallace v. Jaffree Context

-following the outlawing of prayer in public schools, people and groups who wanted prayer and Bible readings in schools mounted a number of campaigns to overturn the Court's rulings -Senator Byrd: someone is tampering with America's soul -he proposed constitutional amendments that have been introduced into each session of Congress to permit Bible reading or prayers in public schools, and a prayer amendment came within nine votes of Senate passage in 1966 -the revival of a strong fundamentalist Christian movement in the 1980s led to repeated efforts to introduce a variety of religious activities into the public school system -Court struck down a KY statute requiring the posting of the 10 Commandments in all public school classrooms: the law was characterized as 'plainly religious' -the decision led Reagan and others to call for an amendment to have prayer in schools -in AL, the legislature tried to get around Engel with a series of laws: silent meditation, meditation or voluntary prayer, then to teachers leading willing students in prescribed prayer... (case deals with this) -Ishmael Jaffree is a resident of Mobile County, AL: he filed a complaint on behalf of his minor children because the children had been subject to various acts of religious indoctrination from the beginning of their school year: teachers saying certain prayers in unison, ostracism if they did not participate, services did not stop... -Jaffree went to law school in NYC and was a lawyer for the ACLU when he moved to AL

Zelman v. Simmnons-Harris Context

-for decades, the debate over the meaning of the Establishment Clause has been fought out by one group calling for a total 'wall of separation' between church and state and another, called accommodationist, who believe that government aid can go to religious institutions provided it is appointed on a nondiscriminatory basis -in most cases, the wall of separation prevails, but the accomodationists have won small victories to fund programs that have become increasingly religious in nature -in this case, the Court confronted a major challenge to the wall of separation when it heard a case testing the constitutionality of a program that enjoyed significant support among social conservatives, on one hand, and inner-city residents, on the other- government-funded vouchers for education that could be used in public or private schools -the State of Ohio has established a pilot program designed to provide educational choices to families with children who reside in the Cleveland City School District. The question presented is whether this program offends the Establishment Clause of the Constitution -there are 75,000+ kids in the CCCD: the majority of these children are from low-income and minority families, and few of these families enjoy the means to send their children to any school other than an inner-city public school; Cleveland's public schools have been among the worst performing public schools in the Nation -federal government declared that there was a crisis of magnitude and placed the entire district under State control -Pilot Project Scholarship Program: the program provides financial assistance to families in any Ohio school district that is or has been under federal court order requiring supervision 1. Provides tuition aid for students in K-8 to attend a participating school of their parents' choice 2. Continues to provide aid to students enrolled in public school

Bush v Vera Court Interpretation

-having concluded that strict scrutiny applies, we must determine whether the racial classifications embodied in any of the three districts are narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest -a district that is reasonably compact and regular, taking into account traditional districting principles such as maintaining communities of interest and traditional boundaries, may pass strict scrutiny without having to defeat rival compact districts designed by plaintiffs' experts in endless 'beauty contests' -In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the Texas redistricting plans were unconstitutional. Supporting its "strict scrutiny" approach, the Court noted that the proposed districts were highly irregular in shape, that their computerized design was significantly more sensitive to racial data, and that they lacked any semblance to pre-existing race-neutral districts -The Court also held that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the proposed districts would deprive minority groups of equal participation in the electoral political processes. Thus, the proposed districts violated the Voting Rights Act's "results" test prohibiting activity that "results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color." -Finally, with respect to proposed district 18, the Court held that Texas deliberately designed it to hamper the local African-American minority's ability to elect representatives of their choice. This violated the Voting Rights Act's "nonretrogression" principle, prohibiting state action from obstructing a minority's ability to elect representatives of their choice -creating these white districts reduced the value and the impact of her vote; his vote was diluted because of all the other white votes -one person, one vote Dissent -even if strict scrutiny applies, I would find these districts constitutional, for each considers race only to the extent necessary to comply with the State's responsibilities under the Voting Rights Act while achieving other race-neutral political and geographical requirements

267: Bush v. Vera Context

-in Shaw v. Reno, the Court did not reach the merits of majority-minority districting under an equal protection claim, but merely stated that such a claim could exist -encouraged by this, opponents of majority-minority districting launched dozens of lawsuits -this case grew out of a Texas districting plan, and it is clear that the Court could not agree either on a rationale or on appropriate tests once one got beyond the strict scrutiny standard -the plaintiffs, six Texas voters, challenged the state redistricting plan, alleging that 24/30 of Texas' 30 congressional districts constitute racial gerrymandering in violation of the 14th Amendment

• Smith v. Allwright

-in TX, the state could no longer deny blacks the right to vote in primaries, as it denied them equal protection in violation of the 14th Amendment -Democratic Party is a private club: it was appropriate to say that it was only open to whites -this is particularly destructive of open and free elections because the club essentially decided who would go to the primary, then win the general election...

Darrin v Gould Court Interpretation

-in sum, the WIAA rule discriminating against girls on account of their sex violates the state ERA: no compelling state interest requires a holding to the contrary -the overriding compelling state interest as adopted by the people of this state in 1972 is that: equality of rights and responsibility under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex -the WIAA rule forbidding qualified girls from playing on the high school football team cannot be used to deny the Darrin girls, and girls like them, the right to participate as members of that team. This is all the more so when the school provides no corresponding girls' football team on which girls may participate as players

Epperson v. Arkansas Context

-in the famous 'Monkey Trial' of 1927, John Scopes had been convicted in TN for violating the State's ban on teaching evolution in his biology class -Scopes was a mining engineer; however, he couldn't find a job mining, so he took a job teaching school. He was approached by a group that believed evolution should be taught in public schools, and he agreed to be at the front of the case. -first civil trial broadcast across the nation on radio -since his conviction had been thrown out on the TN Supreme Court on a technicality, it prevented a challenge to the antievolution law from going to the Supreme Court, so that the constitutionality of antievolution statutes in TN and other states had never been tested -40 years after the Scopes trial, a schoolteacher in AR sought a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of that state's law, which prohibited the teaching in state-supported schools of "the theory or doctrine that mankind is ascended or descended from a lower order of animals" -she claimed she could not teach her biology course from the assigned syllabus without running afoul of the law -Susan Epperson: degree in Biology; found a job teaching in AR- taught out of a textbook called 'Modern Biology', which did not have anything in it about evolution -so, she argued that biology should be taught -the AR law makes it unlawful for a teacher in any state-supported school or university to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals, or to adopt a textbook that teaches this: however, there are no records of prosecutions, so it is possible that the statute is presently more of a curiosity than a vital fact of life in AR -the challenged statute is vague and uncertain and is within the condemnation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment -Establishment Clause + Free Exercise Clause -Meyer v. Nebraska

Shaw v Reno Court Interpretation

-in this case, the Court agreed that white citizens of NC who lived in majority-minority districts had a justiciable claim under the EPC and that the Court would apply strict scrutiny -the first black-majority district is hook-shaped; the second is even more unnaturally shaped: it is approximately 160 miles long, and, for much of its length, no wider than the I-85 corridor. It winds through tobacco country, financial centers, and manufacturing areas until it gobbles in enough enclaves of black neighborhoods -argument: the deliberate separation of voters into separate districts on the basis of race violated their constitutional right to participate in a color-blind electoral process -we have rejected such perceptions elsewhere as impermissible racial stereotypes: by perpetuating such notions, a racial gerrymander may exacerbate the very patterns of racial bloc voting that majority districting is sometimes said to counteract. The message that such districting sends to elected representatives is equally pernicious. When a district obviously is crated, solely to effectuate the perceived common interests of one racial group, elected officials are more likely to believe that their primary obligation is to represent only the members of that group, rather than the constituency as a whole -we conclude that a plaintiff challenging a reapportionment statute under equal protection may state a claim by alleging that the legislation, though race-neutral on its face, rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification -racial gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions Dissent -while district irregularities may provide strong indica of a potential gerrymander, they do no more than that: in particular, they have no bearing on whether the plan ultimately is found to violate the Constitution • What is the most likely effect of the decision? -gerrymandering remains a hotly contested topic today 267: Bush v. Vera • Context -in Shaw v. Reno, the Court did not reach the merits of majority-minority districting under an equal protection claim, but merely stated that such a claim could exist -encouraged by this, opponents of majority-minority districting launched dozens of lawsuits -this case grew out of a Texas districting plan, and it is clear that the Court could not agree either on a rationale or on appropriate tests once one got beyond the strict scrutiny standard -the plaintiffs, six Texas voters, challenged the state redistricting plan, alleging that 24/30 of Texas' 30 congressional districts constitute racial gerrymandering in violation of the 14th Amendment • How did the Court interpret the law? -having concluded that strict scrutiny applies, we must determine whether the racial classifications embodied in any of the three districts are narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest -a district that is reasonably compact and regular, taking into account traditional districting principles such as maintaining communities of interest and traditional boundaries, may pass strict scrutiny without having to defeat rival compact districts designed by plaintiffs' experts in endless 'beauty contests' -In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the Texas redistricting plans were unconstitutional. Supporting its "strict scrutiny" approach, the Court noted that the proposed districts were highly irregular in shape, that their computerized design was significantly more sensitive to racial data, and that they lacked any semblance to pre-existing race-neutral districts -The Court also held that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the proposed districts would deprive minority groups of equal participation in the electoral political processes. Thus, the proposed districts violated the Voting Rights Act's "results" test prohibiting activity that "results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color." -Finally, with respect to proposed district 18, the Court held that Texas deliberately designed it to hamper the local African-American minority's ability to elect representatives of their choice. This violated the Voting Rights Act's "nonretrogression" principle, prohibiting state action from obstructing a minority's ability to elect representatives of their choice -creating these white districts reduced the value and the impact of her vote; his vote was diluted because of all the other white votes -one person, one vote Dissent -even if strict scrutiny applies, I would find these districts constitutional, for each considers race only to the extent necessary to comply with the State's responsibilities under the Voting Rights Act while achieving other race-neutral political and geographical requirements

Atkins v Virginia Context

-it has long been a tenent of common law that the insane, not being mentally competent to understand right from wrong, should not be punished for their crimes -instead they were to be kept away from the rest of society, usually in institutions, so they could do no further harm to other people -in the modern era, a debate arose over whether people who were clearly mentally retarded or ill but not necessarily insane and who could make moral judgments should be punished -as late as 1989, the Court held that states could impose the death penalty, but the wording of that opinion seemed to indicate that if a clear public consensus emerged on the issue against execution of the mentally retarded, the Court would revisit the issue -Daryl Renard Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. In the penalty phase of Atkins' trial, the defense relied on one witness, a forensic psychologist, who testified that Atkins was mildly mentally disabled (or "mentally retarded" in the vernacular of the day) -The jury sentenced Atkins to death, but the Virginia Supreme Court ordered a second sentencing hearing because the trial court had used a misleading verdict form. During resentencing the same forensic psychologist testified, but this time the State rebutted Atkins' intelligence -The jury again sentenced Atkins to death. In affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on Penry v. Lynaugh, in rejecting Atkins' contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is mentally retarded.

Darrin v Gould Likely Effect

-it was this type of decision that opponents of the ERA used to alarm people, claiming that if adopted, the ERA would do away with all sensible distinctions between males and females -to proponents of the ERA, the results of this decision were to be applauded because they wiped away still another artificial barrier between the sexes

• Breedlove v. Suttles (1937)

-says that the poll tax is constitutional because it applies to everyone

Baker v. Carr Likely Effect

-schemes invented to diminish the power of black folks and raise the power of white folks -this has the tendency to put all the minorities in one district, rather than intermingling white and minority voters

People v. Brisdane Likely Effect

-state rights gain more power -a response to cases like Mapp v. Ohio: a state may legislate about the 4th Amendment if the result provides more protection than does the federal law -the state claims sovereignty

Swann v. Charlotte BoE Court Interpretation

-school officials claimed that in the cities, racial segregation resulted from longstanding residential patterns and not from legal prescription. The Court rejected that reasoning, and declared that the current segregation pattern resulted from previous discrimination and was therefore subject to correction -moreover, he reaffirmed the great flexibility that the district courts had in fashioning appropriate remedies to achieve integration, including busing -the objective today remains to eliminate from the public schools all vestiges of state-imposed segregation; if school authorities fail in their affirmative obligations...judicial authority may be invoked -Racial Balances or Racial Quotas: any particular degree of racial balance or mixing would be disapproved and we would be obliged to reverse. The constitutional command to desegregate schools does not mean that every school in every community must always reflect the racial composition of the school system as a whole, but the use of mathematical ratios to was no more than a starting point, rather than an inflexible requirement. Awareness of the racial composition of the whole school system is likely to be a useful starting point in shaping a remedy to correct past constitutional violations; a school authority's remedial plan is to be judged by its effectiveness -One-Race Schools: in metropolitan areas, minority groups are often found concentrated in one part of the city: in some circumstances, certain schools may remain all or largely of one race until new schools can be provided or neighborhood patterns change -these schools will require close scrutiny to ensure that they are not part of state-enforced segregation -Remedial Altering of Attendance Zones: the maps demonstrate that one of the principal tools employed by school planners was gerrymandering of school districts and attendance zones. There was also pairing, clustering, or grouping of schools with attendance assignments made deliberately to accomplish the transfer of Negro students out of formerly segregated Negro schools and white students to formerly all-Negro schools -with no history of discrimination, it may be most convenient to assign pupils to schools nearest their homes -however, all things are not equal in a system that has been deliberately constructed and maintained to enforce racial segregation: the remedy for such segregation may be awkward, but this cannot be avoided in the interim period -Transportation of Students: the importance of the bus as a normal and accepted tool of educational policy is readily discernible in this and the companion case -the bus is convenient and available; desegregation plans cannot be limited to the walk-in school: an objection to transportation is only valid when the time or distance of travel is so great as to risk either the health of the children or significantly impinge on the educational process -at some point, school authorities should have achieved full compliance with the Court's decision in Brown; however, communities served by such systems might not remain demographically stable

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission Context

-the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 attempted to fix many issues that had arisen in the area of campaign finance in the previous decade -among other things, it banned contributions of soft money to national political parties and prohibited state and local political parties from using soft money in federal elections. It also barred corporations and labor unions from spending their general funds on television or radio election advertising within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election -corporations and labor unions could still spend funds from separate political action committees, but those too came with the state's hard dollar contribution limits -because BCRA tried to remedy so many evils, countless liberal and conservative groups filed suit to attack its legitimacy under the 1st Amendment Clause

Richmond v. JA Croson Company Court Interpretation

-the Court did not find all affirmative action programs unconstitutional, but rather declared that there had to be sufficient evidence of past discrimination in order to justify set-asides -the city council had in fact drawn a sloppy proposal and could not document the discrimination -the Court also drew a sharp distinction between Congress, which had enforcement powers under the 14th Amendment, and state and local governments, which did not -appellee: the city must limit any race-based remedial efforts to eradicating the effects of its own prior discrimination -Appellant: Fullilove is controlling, and as a result, Richmond enjoys sweeping legislative power to define and attack the effects of prior discrimination in its local construction industry -it is attempting to remedy various forms of past discrimination that are alleged to be responsible for the small number of minority businesses in the local contracting industry, including the exclusion of blacks from trade unions and skilled labor programs; unable to determine how many lives were affected -the Richmond Plan denies certain citizens the opportunity to compete for a fixed percentage of public contracts bases solely upon their race -in sum, none of the evidence presented by the city points to any identified discrimination in the Richmond construction industry. We therefore hold that the city has failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in apportioning public contracting opportunities on the basis of race. To accept Richmond's claim that past societal discrimination alone can serve as the basis for rigid racial preferences would be to open the door to competing claims for 'remedial relief' for every disadvantaged group - O'Connor further held that allowing claims of past discrimination to serve as the basis for racial quotas would actually subvert constitutional values: the dream of a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently unmeasurable claims of past wrongs -there is absolutely no evidence of past discrimination against Spanish, Oriental, Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut persons in any aspect of the Richmond construction industry -because the city of Richmond has failed to ID the need for remedial actions in the awarding of its public construction contracts, its treatment of its citizens on a racial basis violates the dictates of the EPC

Nollan v. Coastal Creation Court Interpretation

-the Court emphasized the government's permanent occupation of private property as well as the absence of any direct connection between the permit condition and the public interest -The Court agreed that a legitimate interest may be served by maintaining a continuous strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast -Had CA simply required the Nollans to make an easement across their beachfront available to the public on a permanent basis in order to increase public access to the beach, rather than conditioning their permit to rebuilt their house on their agreeing to do so, we have no doubt there would have been a taking -however, given that requiring uncompensated conveyance of the easement outright would violate the 14th Amendment, the question becomes whether requiring it to be conveyed as a condition for issuing a land-use permit alters the outcome...the Commission argues that among these permissible purposes are protecting the public's ability to see the beach, assisting the public in overcoming the 'psychological barrier' to using the beach created by a developed shorefront, and preventing congestion on the public beaches -if the CCC attached to the permit some condition that would have protected the public's ability to see the beach notwithstanding construction of the new house, like a height limitation or ban on fences, so long as the CCC could have exercised its police power -however, the evident constitutional propriety disappears if the condition substituted for the prohibition utterly fails to further the end advanced as the justification for the prohibition; the lack of nexus between the condition and the original purpose of the building restriction converts that purpose to something other than what it was. The purpose then becomes the obtaining of an easement to serve some valid governmental purpose, but without payment or compensation -it is impossible to understand how a requirement that people already on the public beaches be able to walk across the Nollans' property reduces any obstacles to viewing the beach created by the new house. It is also impossible to understand how it lowers any psychological barrier to using the public beaches, or how it helps to remedy any additional congestion on them caused by the construction -therefore, we find that the CCC's imposition of the permit condition cannot be treated as an exercise of its land-use power for any of these purposes -however, if CA wished to use its power of eminent domain to do so, it must provide just compensation to the Nollans and other beachfront property owners for the public use of their land -the State does not have the right to just take the Nollans' property because it's not in the State's Land Use Power; but, they can use eminent domain -Scalia: ownership of property gives the owner the right to exclusion Dissent -there can be no dispute that the police power of the States encompasses the authority to impose conditions on private development...the CCC, had it so chosen, could have denied the Nollans' request for a development permit, since the property would've remained economically viable still. Instead, the State sought to accommodate the Nollans' desire for new development, on the condition that the development not diminish public access to the coastline -there is a diminution of visual access, as well as an increased private usage of the shorefront: the public may get the impression that the beachfront is no longer available for public use -also, property value will go up: appellants benefit both as private landowners and as members of the public form the fact that new development permit requests are conditioned on preservation of public access

Loving v. Virginia Context

-the Court had, postponed on several occasions, taking up the issue of interracial marriage -more political than the state wanted to be -the precedent-setting case was Pace v. Alabama, in 1883 -Question: Could the state prohibit interracial marriage? Yes. -overturned an earlier statute which, during Reconstruction, had permitted interracial marriage, but as soon as it was safe to do so, the statute was repealed and replaced -by 1883, Alabama and the other states felt free of Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Amendments -marriage had always been a manifestation of sovereignty; age limits, etc had all varied across states: there was no federal intervention in marriage -the next case to come to the Court was Perez v. Sharp, in 1929 -the case was brought by two people who wanted to marry, but Ca law prohibited: Perez was ruled white, though she was a Mexican-American, and Sharp was African-American, so the marriage was forbidden -Argument: the law forbidding Perez and Sharp to marry was contrary to the First Amendment; they were both Catholics, and forbidding them to marry made it impossible to carry out their commitment to their religion- this argument did not succeed, but the Equal Protection Argument did -however, it is a Ca state case, so it did not apply to the Lovings -Virginia had antimiscegenation laws dating back to slave times. In the post-Civil war era, the states expanded their earlier laws barring interracial sexual relations to prohibit racial intermarriage as well -Mildred Jeter was black; Richard Loving was white, and they lived in southern VA, in a working-class county dominated by small farmers -Richard first came into contact with Mildred because he was friends with her brothers -after they had two children, they got married in DC, but moved back to VA. One night, when they were sleeping in their bed, police officers broke down their door and arrested the Lovings, saying their marriage certificate was no good -Richard was bailed out immediately, Mildred was initially denied bail and sends several days in jail, pregnant -a black woman and a white man, both residents of VA, had been married in DC; after returning to VA, they were arrested, convicted of violating the state's ban on interracial marriage, and had their one-year jail sentence suspended for 25 years on the premise that they leave the state and not return to VA for 25 years -they come before state judge Bazile, who finds them guilty of violating the statute against interracial marriage -God placed people of different colors on different continents: he did that to prevent interracial marriage -the Lovings were sentenced to a year in prison, but would postpone the decision if they left VA and didn't return for 30 years; if they ever returned, they would be arrested -over the next several years, they would sneak back home to VA, until they eventually went back and were re-arrested -while they were still living in DC, Mildred wrote a letter to AG Robert Kennedy, explaining their situation. He wrote back and referred a lawyer, Cohen, to them -the state claimed that there was no racial discrimination here, since the statute applied evenhandedly to both whites and blacks -that had been the rationale in the Naim case, which the Court had been criticized for refusing to review -in 1955, however, the Court wanted to focus on school desegregation, and only started spreading the equal protection doctrine to cover other areas of racial discrimination later on -in 1955, the name decision supported the validity of miscegenation laws, and the State Court concluded that its legitimate purposes were to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens, and to prevent the corruption of blood through a mongrel breed of citizens

Cruzan v. Director, MI Dept of Health Court Interpretation

-the Court recognized that a liberty interest in personal autonomy existed under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, giving people the right to terminate treatment, but the majority also held that a state's traditional interest in preserving life allowed it to set reasonable restrictions around that right to protect vulnerable individuals -in this Court, the question is simply and starkly whether the US Constitution prohibits Missouri from choosing the one rule of decision which it did; this is the first case in which we have been squarely presented with the issue of whether the US Constitution grants the 'right to die' -14th Amendment: the principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions -petitioners insist that under the general holdings of our cases, the forced administration of life-sustaining medical treatment, even of artificially delivered food and water essential to life, would implicate a competent person's liberty interest; the dramatic consequences involved in refusal of such treatment would inform the inquiry as to whether that deprivation is constitutionally permissible, but in this case, we think the Constitution would grant a competent person the protected right to refuse lifesaving nutrients -a surrogate can act for the patient, but there is a procedural safeguard to assure that the action of the surrogate conforms as best it may to the patient's wishes -MI requires clear evidence that the patient wishes to refuse treatment when incompetent; a state is required to guard against potential abuse in such situations -MI relies on its interest in the protection and preservation of human life, and MI can legitimately seek to safeguard the personal element of this choice through the imposition of heightened evidentiary requirements; it cannot be disputed that the Due Process Clause protects an interest in life as well as an interest in refusing life-sustaining medical treatment -Clear and Convincing standard of proof: the more stringent the burden of proof a party must bear, the more that party bears the risk of an erroneous decision; an erroneous decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment is not susceptible of correction -a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state -in this specific case, the testimony adduced at trial did not amount to clear and convincing proof of the patient's desire to have hydration and nutrition withdrawn: it reversed a decision of the MI trial court which had found that the evidence suggested Cruzan would not have desired to continue such measures- such a right comes from the Due Process Clause -there is no automatic assurance that the view of close family members will necessarily be the same as the patient's would have been had she been confronted with the prospect of her situation while competent Dissent -is there any reason to suppose that a State is more likely to make the choice that the patient would have made than someone who knew the patient intimately? -a State generally must either repose the choice with the person whom the patient himself would most likely have chosen a proxy or leave the decision with the patient's family -when medical technologies fail, as they did for Nancy, the next decisions do not go to the State

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris Court Interpretation

-the Court upheld the measure by a narrow margin: we hold that the program does not offend the Establishment Clause of the Constitution -there is a question of whether the Ohio program nonetheless has the forbidden 'effect' of advancing or inhibiting religion: to answer that question, our decisions have drawn a consistent distinction between government programs that provide aid directly to religious schools, and programs of true private choice, in which government aid reaches religious schools only as a result of the genuine and independent choices of private individuals -our jurisprudence with respect to true private choice programs has remained consistent and unbroken: three times we have confronted Establishment Clause challenges to neutral government programs that provide aid directly to a broad class of individuals who in turn direct the aid to religious schools or institutions of their own choosing -former cases: make it clear that where a government aid program is neutral with respect to religion, and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and private choice, the program is not readily subject to challenges under the Establishment Clause -a program that shares these features permits government aid to reach religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of numerous individual recipients -this incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual recipient, not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits -Cleveland's preponderance of religiously affiliated private schools certainly did not arise as a result of the program; instead, there has been a good mix of private and public schools participating -the constitutionality of a neutral aid program simply does not turn on whether and why, in a particular area, at a particular time, most private schools are run by religious organizations, or most recipients choose to use the aid at a religious school -in sum, the OH program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district, and permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. So, the program is a program, of true private choice -like Everson v. Ewing Township, the money is going to the parents, not directly to the schools, so the parents are free to do what they would like with the money; it is for the kids Dissent • Constitutional limitations are placed on government to preserve constitutional values in hard cases, like these: Legal Secularists are opposed to this • The money will pay for eligible students' instruction not only in secular subjects but in religion as well, in schools that can be fairly characterized as founded to teach religious doctrine and to imbue teaching in all subjects with a religious dimension

Furman v Georgia Court Interpretation

-the Court vacated about 600 death sentences on the grounds that capital punishment schemes, as then structured, violated the 8th and 14th Amendments -the Court holds that the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments -the judgment in each case is therefore reversed insofar as it leaves undisturbed the death sentence imposed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings -The Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. In over two hundred pages of concurrence and dissents, the justices articulated their views on this controversial subject. Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instances Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants

Epperson v. Arkansas Court Interpretation

-the Court, speaking through Justice Fortas, faced the establishment issue squarely -AR would interpret the statute 'to mean that to make a student aware of the theory...just to teach that there was such a theory "would be grounds for dismissal and for prosecution under the statute"; the Court says that it 'expresses no opinion' as to whether the Act prohibits "explanation of the theory of evolution or merely forbids teaching that theory is true" -in any event, we do not rest our decision upon the asserted vagueness of the statute. On either interpretation of its language, the ARK statute cannot stand; it is of no moment whether the law is deemed to prohibit mention of Darwin's theory, or to forbid any or all of the infinite varieties of communication embraced within the term 'teaching' -however, under either interpretation, the law must be stricken because of its conflict with the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof -AK's law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group regarding the origin of man -promotes one specific origin story -government must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice; 1st Amendment -the Court has not hesitated to condemn under the Due Process Clause 'arbitrary' restrictions upon the freedom of teachers to teach and of students to learn -punishment for teaching evolution is the loss of your job; corners teachers into promoting one specific method of thinking -the State does have power to prescribe the curriculum, but it held that these were not adequate to support the restriction upon the liberty of teacher and pupil; the challenged statute unconstitutionally interfered with the right of the individual, guaranteed by the Due Process Clause, to engage in any of the common occupations of life and to acquire useful knowledge -there can be no doubt that AR has sought to prevent its teachers from discussion of the theory of evolution because it is contrary to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive source of doctrine as to the origin of man -no suggestion has been made that AR's law may be justified by consideration of state policy other than the religious views of its citizens. The fundamentalist influence is clear... -AR's law cannot be defended as an act of religious neutrality: it did not seek to excise from the curricula of its schools and universities all discussion of the origin of man; the law's effort was confined to an attempt to blot out a particular theory because of its supposed conflict with the Biblical account, literally read -plainly, the law is contrary to the mandate of the 1st and 14th Amendments

Reynolds v. US Court Interpretation

-the First Amendment protected your right to believe whatever you wanted, but not your right to practice what you wanted -would we allow cannibalism if some group believed it? No.

Wallace v. Jaffree Court Interpretation

-the First Amendment was adopted to curtail the power of Congress to interfere with the individual's freedom to believe, worship, and express himself in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience -until the 14th Amendment was added, the 1st Amendment's restraints on the exercise of federal power did not apply to the States -but, when the Constitution was amended to prohibit any State from depriving any person of liberty without due process of law, that Amendment imposed the same substantive limitations on the States' power to legislate that the First Amendment had always imposed on the Congress' power -the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed accepted by the majority -the addition of 'or voluntary prayer' indicates that the State intended to characterize prayer as a favorable practice. Such an endorsement is not consistent with the established principle that the Government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion -in applying the purpose test; the first part of the Lemon Test, it is appropriate to ask whether government's actual purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion...in this case, the answer is dispositive. It reveals am unambiguous affirmative answer and reveals that the statute had no nonreligious purpose

Reynolds v US Likely Effect

-the Head of the Mormon Church has a revelation that polygamy should end -polygamy is also formally outlawed -you may not be able to practice whatever you believe, because Congress will step in and prohibit it if it is illegal -if Congress determines that a practice of a belief is deleterious or jeopardizes the well-being of the public, Congress can regulate it -states are given greater rights to regulate actions/practices of religion • Congress can only react to, not initiate, legislation -however, the goal of a reaction is to be remedial and cause reform -states passed their own laws Vaccination Exemptions: a matter of health -matter of health to others and to the person who does not have the disease -Christian Scientists don't really believe in medicine of any sort -they argue that the reality that we see is false; the only reality that exists is the spiritual reality, not the physical reality -parents withhold ordinary medical care like vaccines (religious freedom restoration act; struck down; came under state supervision)

City of Boerne v. Flores Context

-the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not attempt only to reverse specific decisions of the Court, like when Congress declared that the Court had decided wrongly in Smith and other cases and set out a particular interpretation of the 1st Amendment for the Court to follow -a decision by local zoning authorities to deny a church a building permit was challenged under the RFRA: this case calls into question the authority of Congress to enact RFRA, and we conclude that the statute exceeds Congress' power -St. Peter's Catholic Church in Boerne is too small for everyone: in order to meet the needs of the growing congregation, the Archbishop of San Antonio gave permission for the parish to plan alterations to enlarge the building -a few months later, the Boerne City Council passed an ordinance authorizing the city's Historic Landmark Commission to prepare a preservation plan; under the ordinance, the Commission must preapprove construction after affecting historic landmarks or buildings in a historic district -so, city authorities denied the building permit on the basis that the Church was in a historical district -the Archbishop relied upon RFRA as one basis for relief from the refusal to issue the permit. The District Court concluded that by enacting RFRA Congress exceeded the scope of its enforcement power; the Circuit Court above found it constitutional; the Court finds it unconstitutional and reverses it again -the stringent test RFRA remands of state laws reflects a lack of proportionality or congruence between the means adopted and the legitimate end to be achieved

Lee v. Weisman Context

-the appointment of conservative justices by presidents Reagan and Bush led many to hope that the liberal activist decisions of the Warren and Burger eras could be reversed; in this case, conservatives hoped that the Court would abandon the proscription against school prayer, as decided in Engel -in Providence, RI, the Weisman family had complained when at a middle school graduation of one of their children, there had been an official prayer -when another child was scheduled to graduate, the school invited a rabbi to deliver the prayers and furnished him with a list of guidelines in order to make the prayer as nonsectarian and inoffensive as possible -Deborah raised a challenge on the grounds that prayer at any school function involving a captive audience violated the Establishment Clause

Regents of the University of CA v. Bakke Likely Effect

-the case did not answer the larger questions, but paved the way for Court approval of other affirmative action programs -Bakke was let into UCLA's medical program because they could not prove that they were successfully carrying their burden

Lee v. Weisman Court Interpretation

-the controlling precedents as they relate to prayer and religious exercise in primary and secondary schools compel the holding here that the policy of the city of Providence is an unconstitutional one, as even for those students who object to the religious exercise, their attendance and participation in the state-sponsored religious activity are in a fair and real sense obligatory, even though it is technically not required to attend a diploma ceremony in order to get a diploma -we find nothing to refute the petitioners' argument that the prayers were a good-faith attempt by the school to ensure that the sectarianism which is so often the flashpoint for religious animosity be removed from the graduation ceremony -the question is not in the school's good faith, but rather in the legitimacy of its undertaking that enterprise at all when the object is to produce a prayer to be used in a formal religious exercise which students, for all practical purposes, are required to attend -the degree of school involvement here made it clear that the graduation prayers bore the imprint of the State and thus put school-age children who objected in an untenable position -our decisions in Engel recognize that prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion; the undeniable fact is that the district's supervision and control places public and peer pressure on students to stand up or maintain respectful silence during the invocation -this pressure is subtle and indirect, but in our society, remaining silent has a deep meaning; silence can mean participation in the rabbi's prayer -for the school-age dissenter, who feels that she is being forced by the State to pray, the injury is real -we do not think, consistent with the Establishment Clause, that the State should place children in this position -law reaches past formalism: to say that a teenage student has a real choice not to attend her high school graduation is formalistic in the extreme -we do not hold that every state action implicating religion is invalid if one or a few citizens find it offensive; people take offense at a plethora of things, not all of them are a violation. But, this is improper because the State has in every practical sense compelled attendance and participation in an explicit religious exercise at an event of singular importance to every student Dissent -the Court lays waste a tradition that is as old as graduation: nonsecretaion prayer to God at public celebrations generally -from our nation's origin, prayer has been a prominent part of governmental ceremonies and proclamations -Lemon is irrelevant because it is perpetually ignored now; unfortunately, it has been replaced with the Court's psycho-coercion test, which suffers the double disability of having no roots whatever in our people's historic practice

Engel v. Vitale Likely Effect

-the decision created a huge uproar because many Americans had become used to beginning school days and public functions with a prayer -many people, and nearly all the mainstream religious groups, accepted Justice Black's argument that a prescribed prayer violated the Establishment Clause, but many fundamentalist sects did not -these sects claimed that there had always been a national commitment to prayer -now that the Court had banned God from the schools, they intended to use all possible means to overturn the ruling

Epperson v. Arkansas Likely Effect

-the decision did not end efforts to ban evolution from the schools

Richmond v. JA Croson Company Likely Effect

-the decision in the case has often been misinterpreted. The Court did not find all affirmative action programs unconstitutional, but rather declared that there had to be sufficient evidence of past discrimination in order to justify set-asides; the city council had drawn a sloppy proposal and could not document the discrimination

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris Likely Effect

-the economic problems confronting most state governments make expansion of voucher programs unlikely in the near future

Lawrence v Texas Context

-the example of ethnic minorities and women successfully utilizing the courts to secure equal protection and freedom from discriminatory legislation led gay and lesbian groups to pursue the same path -liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places -the question before the Court is the validity of a TX statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct

Edwards v. Aguillard Context

-the growth of a powerful conservative religious and social movement in the 1980s led to a number of legislative attempts to undo what militant religious leaders viewed as dreadful mistakes of the Court -the AL legislature tried to overturn the ban on state-sponsored school prayer -in this instance, LA resumed the fundamentalist fight against evolution by mandating that if a school taught 'evolution science', it had to give equal time to 'creation science' -most reputable scientists dismissed creation science as a blind for teaching the creation as told in Genesis; science, they maintained, is a system built on doubt and questioning, not on blind faith -the Creationism Act forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools unless accompanied by instruction in 'creation science'. No school is required to teach evolution or creation science. If either is taught, however, the other must also be taught. The theories of creation and evolution are statutorily defined as 'the scientific evidences for creation or evolution and inferences from those scientific evidences' -appellees, who include parents of children attending LA public schools, LA teachers, and religious leaders, challenged the constitutionality of the Act in District court, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief. Appellants, LA officials charged with implementing the Act, defended on the ground that the purpose of the Act is to protect a legitimate secular interest; namely, academic freedom

Edwards v. Aguillard Court Interpretation

-the majority dismissed the law as a ploy, though newly named Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Scalia, continued his pattern of deferring to the legislative will and calling for a greater accommodation of religion with the state -The Establishment Clause forbids any enactment of any law 'respecting an establishment of religion'. The Court has established a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation complies (Lemon) 1. The legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose 2. The statute's principle of primary effect must be one that neither advances nor prohibits religion 3. The statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion -the public school is the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny: children who attend are also young and impressionable -the Act's stated purpose is to protect academic freedom...however, even if academic freedom is read to mean 'teaching all of the evidence' with respect to the origin of human beings, the Act does not further this purpose: the goal of providing a more comprehensive science curriculum is not furthered either by outlawing the teaching of evolution or by requiring the teaching of creation science -it is also clear that from the legislative history, the purpose of the legislative sponsor, Senator Bill Keith, was to narrow the science curriculum; the Act provides LA schoolteachers with no new authority -under the Act, teachers who were once free to teach any and all facets of the subject are now unable to do so. Moreover, the Act fails even to ensure that creation science will be taught, but instead requires the teaching of this theory only when the theory of evolution is taught...thus the Act does not serve to protect academic freedom, but has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with teaching of creation science...the purpose is to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind -Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the 1st Amendment -this is a mandate, masquerading as all about neutral -it is clear that the purpose of the legislation was to promote a particular scientific belief Dissent • The LA legislators who passed the Act overwhelmingly and specifically articulated the secular purpose they meant it to serve. Although the record contains abundant evidence of the sincerity of that purpose, the Court today holds, essentially on the basis of 'its visceral knowledge regarding what must have motivated the legislators, that the members of the LA legislature knowingly violated their oaths and lied about it • Striking down a law approved by the democratically elected representatives of the people is no minor matter • Witness after witness urged the legislators to support the Act so that students would not be indoctrinated but would instead be free to decide for themselves, based on a fair presentation of the scientific evidence, about the origin of life • It is true that there is tension between evolution and the religious beliefs of many children -even if one concedes that the LA legislature voted for this Act partly in order to foster Christian fundamentalist beliefs, our cases establish that that alone would not suffice to invalidate the Act, as long as there was a genuine secular purpose as well

McConnell v Federal Election Commission Court Interpretation

-the majority voted to uphold the various provisions of BCRA -the soft money ban does not violate the First Amendment protection of the freedom to speak -regulations on the source, content, or timing of political advertising in the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 do not violate the First Amendment's free speech clause -Because the regulations dealt mostly with soft-money contributions that were used to register voters and increase attendance at the polls, not with campaign expenditures (which are more explicitly a statement of political values and therefore deserve more protection), the Court held that the restriction on free speech was minimal -in response to challenges that the law was too broad and unnecessarily regulated conduct that had not been shown to cause corruption (such as advertisements paid for by corporations or unions), the Court found that such regulation was necessary to prevent the groups from circumventing the law. Justices O'Connor and Stevens wrote that "money, like water, will always find an outlet" and that the government was therefore justified in taking steps to prevent schemes developed to get around the contribution limits. -The Court also rejected the argument that Congress had exceeded its authority to regulate elections under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. The Court found that the law only affected state elections in which federal candidates were involved and also that it did not prevent states from creating separate election laws for state and local elections.

Stanley v. Georgia

-the possession of obscene matter in his home -the police came for another reason, but discovered the videos -Stanley is able to watch obscene videos if he wants to because of privacy -the right to privacy in your house//criteria to the right to privacy: is to the person -Cat: goes into a phone booth, makes a bet, and collects money; the FBI puts listening devices on top of the phone booth, and they arrest him

Furman v Georgia Context

-the question of whether capital punishment violated the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment had been pushed upon the Court for nearly a decade before the justices agreed to tackle the issue in late 1971 -fairer and more consistent application of the death penalty -equal treatment was based on severity of cases and based on race -Furman was mildly retarded, difficult for him to hold a job, turned to petty robberies -during a break in, he shot and killed a father: considered premeditated -defense: he was leaving, and the gun happened to go off -tried, convicted, and sentenced to death: was the crime heinous, or an accident? -court takes the case to reform Due Process -SC: limits the way that the death penalty is carried out to make it less capricious and less arbitrary -application of 'time works changes' to make the penalty more humane and mindful -punishment is cruel and unusual if it does not conform to human dignity -separates the process; the jury decides guilt and then decides penalty

Oregon HR Dept v. Smith Likely Effect

-the response to this case, in which the Court held that religious activity could not trump general criminal laws, led to the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act -the state can deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes: the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws

US v Virginia Court Interpretation

-the state ourt gave VMI three options: admit women, establish an equivalent all-women's program, or transform VMI into a private school -the US maintains that the Constitution's equal protection guarantee precludes VA from reserving exclusively to men the unique educational opportunities VMI affords -such inherent differences like sex are no longer accepted as grounds for separation; they should be appreciated and celebrated -Because it failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions policy, Virginia violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause -Virginia failed to support its claim that single-sex education contributes to educational diversity because it did not show that VMI's male-only admissions policy was created or maintained in order to further educational diversity. Furthermore, Virginia's VWIL could not offer women the same benefits as VMI offered men -The VWIL would not provide women with the same rigorous military training, faculty, courses, facilities, financial opportunities, or alumni reputation and connections that VMI affords its male cadets -Finally, the Fourth Circuit's "substantive comparability" between VMI and VWIL was misplaced. The Court held that the Fourth Circuit's "substantive comparability" standard was a displacement of the Court's more exacting standard, requiring that "all gender-based classifications today" be evaluated with "heightened scrutiny." When evaluated with such "heightened scrutiny," Virginia's plan to create the VWIL would not provide women with the same opportunities as VMI provides its men and so it failed to meet requirements of the equal protection clause. Dissent -by making this decision, the Court rejects the finding that there exists 'gender-based developmental differences' -I shall devote most of my analysis to evaluating the Court's opinion on the basis of our current equal protection jurisprudence, which regards this Court as free to evaluate everything under the sun by applying one of three tests: rational basis scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny. These tests are no more scientific than their names suggest

Frontiero v Richardson Context

-the success of blacks in invoking the EPC to invalidate racial discrimination led other groups to seek similar results: women attacked long-standing patterns of classification that imposed an inferior status upon them and secured major legislative achievements in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act of 1973 -in the Supreme Court, the justices struck down a number of gender-based distinctions, but as in this case, shied away from declaring sex a constitutionally suspect classification akin to race -this case involved an attack on a long-standing army regulation that denied married servicewomen the same fringe benefits paid to their male counterparts -the question before us concerns the right of a female member of the uniformed service to claim her spouse as a dependent for the purposes of obtaining increased quarters allowances and medical and dental benefits on an equal footing with male members -under the statutes, a serviceman may claim his wife as a 'dependent' without regard to whether she is in fact dependent upon him for any part of her support, but a servicewoman may not claim her husband as a 'dependent' unless he is in fact dependent on her for over ½ of his support

Rosenberger v. Rector and UVA Visitors Context

-there is a clash between the right to practice religion/participate and public debate regarding religion -two clusters: believers and secularists- Value Evangelists (not all the people that adhere to this group/support them are not Evangelical; meant to make it a more inclusive group of people of various faiths who come together because they all believe that if they are permitted to speak in this public debate, they will focus on 'what really matters'): want to reach people outside their faith groups -all Americans will then realize 'what really matters', because of Value Evangelicals vs. Legal Secularists: believed that Church and State should be staunchly separate -Wide Awake Publications, a student-sponsored Christian evangelical magazine, sought funding from UVA, claiming that as a student organization it should not be denied funds simply because it focused on religious rather than secular matters -UVA declined, arguing that to support this club would be violating the Establishment Clause -however, the university funded other religious groups like the Jewish Hillel Society and a Muslim student organization -WAP was established to publish a magazine of philosophical and religious expression, to facilitate discussion which fosters an atmosphere of sensitivity to and tolerance of Christian viewpoints, and to unite Christians of multicultural backgrounds -WAP is a Contracted Independent Organization (CIO): no religious organization is allowed to be a CIO; however, they were denied funding to print their paper -subsequent appeals were denied without explanation -the University says that the State must have substantial discretion in determining how to allocate scarce resources to accomplish its educational mission; content- based funding decisions are both inevitable and lawful -WAP did not seek a subsidy because of its Christian editorial viewpoint; it sought funding as a student journal

Reynolds v. Sims Likely Effect

-there was a brief and spasmodic attempt to overturn the decision by constitutional amendment, but that failed as soon as new state governments, elected under the decision, came into power -one man, one vote

Wallace v. Jaffree Likely Effect

-this Act was made illegal; there can be no time for voluntary prayer in schools

Regents of the University of CA v. Bakke Context

-this case arose from a preferential admissions program at this program, which held 16/100 slots for minority candidates -Allan Bakke, a white male, failed to gain admission in 1973 and 1974, though his grades and MCAT were higher than many of the students accepted under the minority program. After a third rejection, he successfully sued in state court, claiming he had been denied his rights and that the Davis program violated both the EPC and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -on appeal, 4 members of the high court believed that race could be a factor in admissions decisions in order to correct any previous injustices; four others believed that any racial considerations violated Title VI

Roper v Simmons Context

-this case requires us to address whether it is permissible under the 8th and 14th Amendments to execute a juvenile offender who was older than 15 but younger than 18 when he committed a capital crime -at 17, Christopher Simmons committed murder, and after he had turned 18, he was tried and sentenced to death: he had said before that he wanted to murder someone, but did it before he turned 18 because he thought he could get away with it -however, he was tried as an adult and sentenced to death

Blakely v. Washington Likely Effect

-this immediately triggered a wave of states and federal suits by prisoners who had also their sentences changed by judges, and the following term, the Court had to impose some limits on the reach of Blakely

Atkins v Virginia Court Interpretation

-those mentally retarded persons who meet the law's requirements for criminal responsibility should be tried and punished when they commit crimes -because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct; moreover, their impairments can jeopardize the reliability and fairness of capital proceedings against mentally retarded defendants -the Court held that executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Since it last confronted the issue, the Court reasoned that a significant number of States have concluded that death is not a suitable punishment for a mentally retarded criminal -Moreover, the Court concluded that there was serious concern whether either justification underpinning the death penalty - retribution and deterrence of capital crimes - applies to mentally retarded offenders, due to their lessened culpability. "Construing and applying the Eighth Amendment in the light of our 'evolving standards of decency,' we therefore conclude that such punishment is excessive and that the Constitution 'places a substantive restriction on the State's power to take the life' of a mentally retarded offender," wrote Justice Stevens -defense argued that if mentally disabled, one could not be held liable -not insane, but mentally challenged: not in control of conforming his behavior to some norm -SC: mentally challenged persons are categorically exempt from the death penalty -reduced capacity provides additional justification for exemption -not national standard, but states decide what counts as mentally deficient -low IQ = does not have the capacity for full reason of a normal adult

Frontiero v Richardson Likely Effect

-though the Court had not utilized the strict scrutiny in gender cases that it employs for racial classification, there is no doubt that it applies a higher standard than mere rational basis and also that is does not automatically defer to legislative judgment on those matters -RBG military case: equal protection for medical benefits for men and women -ends the practice of having separate regulations for men and women Reed v. Reed: Iowa had a law that said that only a man could be executor of an estate -mother was upset that she could not be the executor; leads to the argument before the Supreme Court -RBG represented Reed and won; there was no equal protection, and in order to win, the state would have to argue that women are less competent than men, and they couldn't logically make that argument anymore

• US v. Classic

-voting registrars 'punished' for improperly inflicting voting guidelines and miscounting ballots, as though the registrar was doing something entirely scrupulous -discriminatory state laws are allowed to continue; even if the registrar lost his job, another would simply take its place -by branding the registrar as the outlier, no one was going to focus on the actual root of the problem: the discriminatory laws of the states

Randall v Sorrell Court Interpretation

-we hold that both sets of limitations are inconsistent with the First Amendment: well-established precedent makes clear that the expenditure limits violate the 1st Amendment -The opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer held that the Court should let stand the Buckley decision and its invalidation of expenditure limits. Vermont's argument that such limits prevent candidates from spending too much time fund-raising was deemed irrelevant because it was "perfectly obvious" and would not have changed the result in Buckley -the Court affirmed that some limits on political contributions are constitutional, but perceived "danger signs" indicating that Vermont's exceptionally low limits could prevent candidates from campaigning effectively. Applying a 5-part test, the Court held that Vermont's contribution limits were "disproportionate to the public purposes they were enacted to advance." -Buckley is a controlling and unfavorable precedent

Randall v Sorrell Context

-we're here to consider the constitutionality of a VT campaign finance statute that limits both 1) the amounts that candidates for state office may spend on their campaigns and 2) the amounts that individuals, organizations, and political parties may contribute to those campaigns

US v Virginia Context

-while most male-only schools had desegregated by the 1990s, VIM and the Citadel clung to their traditional role of educating male officers and gentlemen -the Citadel found itself the object of bad press when it totally mishandled the court-required admission of young women, with authorities allowing cadets to harass the women well beyond the scope of tradition or common sense -the state ourt gave VMI three options: admit women, establish an equivalent all-women's program, or transform VMI into a private school -though the Virginia Assembly founded VWIL, the Justice Dept argued that a separate program for women could not be equal, and appealed to the Supreme Court

The standard to determine if someone was insane:

Criminal penalties, including death, is a deterrent that will prevent other people from doing the same things that will warrant the same consequences -we don't actually know if deterrence works or not • Up until 1843, the standard in England and the US was that in order to be recognized in a court of law as insane, one had to fit the Wild Beast Thesis: -in order for someone to be categorized as insane, the person on trial had to be totally without reason -an insane person could not be put to death, but in order for the defendant to prove insanity, they had to be unable to reason without any sense of right-wrong -it was a test that essentially no one could pass • A Scottish woodcutter named Daniel McNaughtin decided he was going to kill Robert Peel- he was convicted as not guilty -due to the law that replaced the Wild Beast standard, which was more reasonable -McNaughtin was found to be insane on a lower standard than the WB standard

Ford v Wainwright Interpretation

In a 7-2 decision, Justice Thurgood Marshall writing for the majority noted that English common law found executing the insane "savage and inhumane." in addition, no State permitted such executions. Opponents of such executions maintained that it "offends humanity" and that such executions had neither a deterrent nor a retributive effect On the second question, Marshall observed that no state court had heard arguments that Ford was insane. In addition, Florida's competency procedures were inadequate Powell argued that Florida's procedure for determining the competency of the inmate violated due process.

Stanley v Georgia Court Interpretation

The Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibited making private possession of obscene materials a crime. In his majority opinion, Justice Marshall noted that the rights to receive information and to personal privacy were fundamental to a free society. Marshall then found that "[i]f the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds." The Court distinguished between the mere private possession of obscene materials and the production and distribution of such materials. The latter, the Court held, could be regulated by the states

City of Boerne v. Flores Court Interpretation

The District Court concluded that by enacting RFRA Congress exceeded the scope of its enforcement power; the Circuit Court above found it constitutional; the Court finds it unconstitutional and reverses it again -the Court decided Congress had no such authority to pass anything like the RFRA 1. If an objector can show a substantial burden on his free exercise, the State must demonstrate a compelling governmental interest and show that the law is the least restrictive means of furthering its interest -the substantial costs RFRA exacts, both in practical terms of imposing a heavy litigation burden on the States and in terms of curtailing their traditional general regulatory power, far exceed any pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct under the Free Exercise Clause in Smith -when Congress acts within its sphere of power and responsibilities, it has not just the right but the duty to make its own informed judgment on the meaning and force of the Constitution -RFRA was designed to control cases and controversies; but as the provisions of the federal statute here invoked are beyond congressional authority, it is this Court's precedent, not RFRA, which must control... Dissent -Congress enacted RFRA to more rigorously enforce the Free Exercise Clause; I remain that Smith was wrongfully decided, and I would use this case to reexamine the Court's holding there -if the Court were to correct the misinterpretation of the Free Exercise Clause set forth in Smith, it would simultaneously put our 1st Amendment jurisprudence back on course and allay the legitimate concerns of a majority in Congress who believed Smith improperly restricted religious liberty -we would then be in a position to review RFRA in light of a proper interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause

• US v. McGuinn: Grandfather Clause

black and white people are eligible to vote if you had a relative who voted earlier -state laws were passed that said that if you had a relative that voted in 1867, then you were eligible to vote -of course, African-Americans were not eligible to vote in 1867 -abolition of slavery did not explicitly encompass the right to vote, though that was the initial hope; therefore, Grandfather Clause only applies to white voters -there would also only be authority over federal elections -Taft wanted to reach out to Black republicans prior to the convention, which he hoped would re-nominate him for a run at the presidency -he asked Congress to prohibit Grandfather Clauses from being applicable in federal elections; becomes unconstitutional, but only covers participation in federal elections

Cruzan v. Director, MI Dept of Health Likely Effect

the right to die exists but is strictly regulated

Mass Supreme Court

• Abner Rogers is a prisoner at the Charles Street Prison: he comes to the conclusion that the warden of the prison is out to get him -he kills the prison warden, and goes to trial • He knew the difference between right and wrong, but the Court rules that though he knew the difference, he was compelled by an irresistible impulse to kill the warden -he had to do it anyway • This opens the gate for that argument; so, gradually, most states drop the insanity argument: it was impossible to escape conviction by arguing that you were insane -two psychiatrists from two opposing sides can go back and forth on whether they think someone is insane or not; does not help the jury and leads to more problems and confusion

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

• After the Court denied a rehearing in Smith (258), a broad coalition of religious groups began working legislation to force the Court to return to the broader view of free exercise • The coalition attracted broad bipartisan support, but the effort almost bogged down in details because conservatives wanted provisions that liberals felt crossed the line between Church and State, so in the end, vague language was adopted • The RFRA aimed to bind government at all levels and branches • Why was Congress allowed to pass the RFRA? Because, unlike the Reconstruction amendments with their Enforcement Clauses, the first eight amendments bind Congress and do not give them any enforcement authority • Ensures that religious freedom interests are protected Congressional Findings • Laws neutral towards religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise • In Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral towards religion • The compelling interest test is workable for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests Free Exercise of Religion Protected • Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless 1. It is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest 2. Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest • Any person whose free exercise has been violated can seek appropriate relief against the government

Printz v US

• After the attempt to assassinate Reagan • There was a push to regulate the sale and usage of guns • Reagan promoted the idea • In order to make a piece of Congressional legislation effective, they asked local law authorities to take up the slack and nominally bring them in to the mechanism which was meant to see to the regulation and sale of weapons • Some of the local sheriffs said they would not enforce the legislation because they legally did not have to uphold it: Congress of the US does and should not have the power to compel state officials to do something: therefore, the legislation is struck down- it existed, but was only present in the hands of a small number of federal officials, so it was unenforcable

US v Miller

• An Arkansas federal district court charged Jack Miller and Frank Layton with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 ("NFA") when they transported a sawed-off double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun in interstate commerce. Miller and Layton argued that the NFA violated their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. • The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.

DC v Heller

• An auxiliary police officer was spurred by the NRA to take on this issue: to bring the issue of the 2nd Amendment before the Supreme Court • DC had very strict gun laws at the time: the murder rate in DC had skyrocketed; significant African-American population on the fringe of the economy vs. high-ranking government officials • He was a zealous gun owner and defender of the use of weapons- he applied for a handgun; there was a handgun ban in DC, but police chiefs were able to license them out • Heller applied for a handgun license, but was denied • Is the meaning of the 2nd Amendment restricted by the handgun ban? • Prefatory phrase: the right to bear arms (the second part) is independent from the prefatory phrase • Preamble: purpose of the legislation • The purpose of gun regulation/tying it to a militia is what the 2nd Amendment is all about • If the government became too powerful, there would be a militia to overthrow it • If there was a standing army, the government would be too powerful: a professional corps of soldiers, supported by taxes, at order at the crown • The fear was that if there were not militias, the federal government would establish a standing army and dominate the states, as the states would not have the recourse if/when they attacked • Every able-bodied male should be able to have a weapon • The ban on registering handguns and the requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional with a trigger lock mechanism violate the Second Amendment • In American colonial history, guns were stored at a central location, where militiamen went to if necessary. Every individual man did not have an individual gun • In colonial times, the gun was for defending your home: this is not the case anymore • Both the majority opinion, by Scalia, and the dissenting opinion, by Stevens, relies on originalism and history, not the law, not the cases that came before the Court regarding the guns -Kennedy and his Indian Savages, defending the home...

Aktins v Virginia

• Atkins convicted of murder and robbery, but his attorney claimed that he was mentally challenged, and therefore unable to be held liable for his actions- has an IQ of 59 -some emotional responses and ability to reason, but he is not in control of what he does • What social purposes does the death penalty serve? • The reduced capacity of mentally incapable offenders provides second justification making such offenders ineligible for the death penalty -mentally incapable offenders are unable to make as persuasive of a statement, even if they were allowed to make a mitigated argument • General standard of determining how brilliant (or not) we are: IQ -at what IQ scores are the cutoffs? 59 vs 60? • There is a connection between Atkins and Roper v Simmons: minors, the insane, and the mentally challenged have come under the protection of the US- excludes them from the death penalty

Ford v Wainwright

• The 8th Amendment prohibits the execution of someone proven to be determined insane • Proportionality argument: • Created a standard for insane people: they cannot be put to death, because it violates the constitution and the proportionality argument • The court has taken the step to reinforce our human dignity, not to put insane people to death • The impact of this decision is: In 1974, a Florida court sentenced Alvin Bernard Ford to death for first-degree murder. At the time of the murder, trial, and sentencing phase, there was no indication that Ford was suffering from any mental deficiencies. While awaiting execution, Ford's mental condition worsened. His competency was assessed in accordance with Florida procedures. Following this assessment, Florida's Governor signed Ford's death warrant. A state court declined to hear arguments raised about Ford's competency. Without the benefit of a hearing, Ford's habeas corpus petition was then denied by the a federal district court.

Kemler

• Tried and convicted, and sentenced to death for murdering his wife • He was to be executed around the same time that the electric chair was invented • There was a competition between two engineers to electrify New York City: lots of animals were put to death in the process of testing out different currents of electricity • Argued for the incorporation of the 8th Amendment through the 14th for the states • Plessy was decided in 1890 too: they decided that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states • Since the federal government could not do anything, it was left to the state legislature This case arose from the first execution by electrocution in New York. The defendant argued that his execution would constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and that the Eighth Amendment should be incorporated against the States. observed that the state courts had held that execution by electrocution would not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under that provision, on the grounds that "th[e] act [adopting electrocution] was passed in the effort to devise a more humane method of reaching the result" and that "upon the evidence the legislature had attained ... the object [it] had in view in [the act's] passage

Powell v. Alabama: Precedent Case to Palko

• There was an equal number of black and white riders on the train; however, both races wanted the gondola car: easier to get into than other types of train cars, and more protective of the wind too • The African American riders were in the gondola car first, so a fight broke out between the black and white riders • There are two women, dressed as men, involved in this fight as well • Black men tossed the white men off of the train; the white men went to the Sheriff, who rounded up his posse to meet the train when it stopped in Paint Rock • The white women, dressed as men, said that the black men had tried to rape them on the train: a capital crime • There is a mob that meets the black men as well; some of the mob hangs the black men, and the police say that they are not responsible because they are overpowered by the mob • The black men escape from jail and make a run to the cars, but they don't go because the mob had cut the wires • No lawyer in the town wants to take their case, but an old real estate attorney comes out to say that he will take the African Americans' case -doubtful as to whether he had been involved in a capital crime case before -at that moment, another lawyer from TN came as well to help the African American boys, per request of their parents; did not know they were charged with rape • There are nine of them, and they were tried in three groups • Two juries: they would alternate what groups they heard • They were all guilty and were to be sentenced to death by hanging • While they were waiting to be hanged, the NAACP and a communist group both sent lawyers; the two groups had a squabble about who got to represent the boys -similar: Herndon trying to form an independent black communist state in the South • The NAACP lawyer makes an appeal to the Supreme Court of Alabama; they uphold all the convictions • Then, they appeal to the Supreme Court of the US • The Bill of Rights, especially the 5th and 6th Amendments, have not been incorporated and do not apply to a state criminal trial • The only stipulation was that in the Alabama law, the Due Process statutes were reasonably and commonly used; a definition with gigantic loopholes -Supreme Court couldn't touch this; had to recognize the reasonableness of Alabama Due Process Laws- no argument or attack to be made here • The Court did say that because the trial took place surrounded by a howling, armed mob, they believed that it was not a fair trial -they also remanded the case back to Alabama; the decision made by the Court was a warning/lesson to Alabama as to what they should be doing (not had to) -the way the trial went violated reasonable norms • The Bill of Rights is not incorporated, but it is a warning that steps will be taken to intervene if Alabama's Due Process Clause does not start improving -warning that Courts will start intervening in state criminal jurisdictions • Overall, there end up being five trials; eventually, the men are imprisoned instead of hung • A trial that brought to the attention of the public that State Due Process was an invitation to arbitrariness, and certainly to people of color This case was an early example of national constitutional protection in the field of criminal justice.

Trop v Dulles

• Trop was a soldier serving in WWII in Africa, until he deserted • His passport was removed; he sued Dulles (SoS) • Dulles' lawyer: time works changes • Proportionality: to strip a person of his citizenship is not proportional to the crime he committed -he should not have deserted, but it was not during a critical time, and he only went a few miles before coming back • After WWII, there are thousands of stateless people: Warren says this is a horrible thing • Trop also did not involve himself with a foreign state • The Constitution does not allow for Congress to take citizenship away because they have committed a crime • Taking away someone's citizenship might be a cruel/unusual punishment in proportion to Trop's crime: Warren is on the cusp of declaring that 'cruel and unusual punishment' is open to definitional changes • There is an evolving standard of decency: articulated by Warren -people who are mentally challenged and/or determined to be insane and/or minors have been excluded from the death penalty

Weems v US: 1910

• Weems is caught taking money; selling fake tickets- in the Philippines • Under Philippine law, which came from Spain, he is sentenced to twenty years in prison with a ball and chain, and diet of bread and water -when he completes the sentence, then he will still not have any civil rights (no voting, contracts, and he will be under guard all times) • Argued that the punishment did not fit the crime • Justice McKenna: legislation, both statuatory and constitutional, is enacted from evils, but in general language, should not be confined- means that: time works changes- time brings new conditions and changes -our contemplation cannot only be what has been, but also what may be -the target for these words are: cases to end capital punishment the Court determined that the sentence of 15 years in prison was unconstitutionally cruel and unusual In particular, the Court noted that the conditions of incarceration specifically included being chained from wrist to ankle and compelled to work at "hard and painful labor." Citing a line of cases related to 8th Amendment concerns, the Court demonstrated also that such a severe penalty for so relatively minor a crime was impermissible in fact, the Court stated that even if the least severe form of punishment statutorily allowed for this crime had been ordered, this would have been "repugnant to the Bill of Rights.

Gideon v. Wainwright Outcome

-Betts was overturned and the 14th Amendment now applied to the 6th Amendment's right to counsel to the states -the decision was retroactive, so that thousands of prisoners in Florida and elsewhere who had been retried without an attorney had to be either retried or released -in Gideon's case, retrial with an attorney led to his acquittal Strengthens Criminal Due Process -The Supreme Court decided that the 6th Amendment applied to the states

Roe v. Wade Likely Effect

-Blackmun named a new substantive due process as the basis for noneconomic individual rights -even some people who favored abortion criticized the Court for judicial activism and for having involved itself before the political process at the state level had sufficient time to work out the problem -there was no precedent for Roe -defenders have praised the decision, claiming it is necessary to constantly revise and update our understanding of individual liberties

Miranda v. Arizona Context

- Miranda had kidnapping/rape charges against him; is whisked away straight to police headquarters -He was picked guilty out of a lineup -Then, he was interrogated for some time, but his lawyer was not present -He was told that when the police finished questioning him, then the lawyer could come and talk to him -The lawyer was waiting in another room in the police station while waiting for the police to finish questioning Miranda -the police are looking for a confession out of Miranda; the first thing a lawyer would say to a client would be to tell him to stay quiet, so Miranda could not receive that advice and talked -After a time, Miranda makes self-incriminating statements -Difference between incriminating statement and confession: confession is an outright admission of guilt; incriminating statement is saying anything else that could frame the suspect as guilty -I robbed the liquor store vs. I was outside of the liquor store when it was robbed • How can a confession be accepted? -the confession has to be voluntary: it can't come from torture or punishment -if someone's confession was not voluntary because he was manipulated into saying something, then he could argue in Court that the confession was not admissible; then, the police have to have other evidence that supports the suspect's confession -Miranda's confession was not voluntary because he was never informed of his 5th Amendment Rights (no self-incrimination) and he was never given the opportunity to talk to his lawyer -The 5th Amendment currently only applied in Court, on stand: nowhere else -you could argue that you did not want to give evidence that would be detrimental to you, but only in Court -did not currently apply to Miranda's situation -Warren Court said that the rights had to be clear and read out: they could not be vague or wishy washy -when a suspect is not free to leave, the Miranda Rights have to be read -up to the point of a voluntary confession, a suspect is free to leave because he is not being held -however, when there is evidence to put him at the scene of a crime, he is no longer free to leave voluntarily because he has been arrested: then, he has to be read his rights -ultimately, Miranda is dealing with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha Likely Effect

- implication that there is no longer any such thing as a political question that can avoid court scrutiny -the Act is found unconstitutional -the choices we discern as having been made in the Convention impose burdens on governmental processes that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but these hard choices were made by men who lived under a government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked...with all the obvious flaws and delays, we have not yet found a better way to preserve freedom than by making the exercise of power subject to the carefully crafted restraints spelled out in the Constitution

Brandenburg v. Ohio Court Interpretation

-ACLU was the lawyers for the KKK -the Court voided the statute because of the overly vague definition of criminal activities, which restricted the rights of assembly and advocacy --the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute was enacted in 1919, and in a three year period, 20 states followed suit -Whitney v. California sustained the constitutionality of Ca's law: advocating violent means to effect political and economic change involves such danger to the State's security that it may be outlawed -however, Whitney has been thoroughly discredited: free speech and press do not permit a State to forbid or prescribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where there is imminent lawless action//such action can be incited or produced -teaching is not the same thing as preparing for incitement: a statute which fails to draw this distinction intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the 1st and 14th Amendments -measured by this test, Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act cannot be sustained: neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions to the jury in any way refined the statute's bald definition of the crime in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action -such a statute falls within the condemnation of the 1st and 14th Amendments -New Standard: advocacy of violence is covered and protected under the Freedom of Speech -this exceeds the Clear and Present Danger test; the mere advocacy of violence is protected, until it turns into violence

Roe v. Wade Follow Up: Planned Parenthood v. Casey

-Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure) -A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement -the Court again reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortion -life begins when the fetus is viable outside the womb: seemed to be a common sense reality -Scalia's dissent berated the position of O'Connor -O'Connor said the trimesters should be replaced; this was the scheme that caused the outrage and differences; she was looking to a moderate solution to a crisis that affected the Court's power and reputation -undue burden: the right to abortion stands; the state may regulate it, but not in such a way to cause the woman who seeks the service an undue burden -vague phrase meant to bring calm -the only part of the legislation that failed the undue burden test was the husband notification

Palko v CT context

-An example of State Due Process: the statutes that CT had on its books to handle and regulate crime; in particular, murder -Palko is a CT man charged with murder -The CT jury convicts him of second-degree murder -1st: cruel and brutal murder -2nd: not cruel and brutal; still murder but with a lesser punishment (life in prison, rather than execution) -After a jury had convicted Palko of second-degree murder, the state appealed, and the state supreme court ordered a retrial, in which Palko was found guilty of first-degree murder -Palko claimed that such a procedure would be barred in federal courts under the Fifth Amendment's ban against double jeopardy, and further argued that all of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights now extended to the states through the 14th Amendment -In CT, the state had the right to appeal the jury verdict at this time; Palko is tried twice -This raises controversy about the Due Process that is implemented in the states

Baker v. Carr Court Interpretation

-Brennan ruled that questions of reappointment were in fact justiciable and therefore could be entertained by the Courts -this overturned Colgrove: here, Justice Frankfurter labeled reapportionment a political question and declared the requested relief beyond the Court's 'competence to grant' -Brennan then referred the issue to the district court for adjudication and delegation; however, soon after, the Court would be asked to review the lower courts' orders -Brennan: questions of redraw are of the jurisdiction of the Court -state legislature has not been responsive; you can take your case to the Court and mandate redraws every 10 years -the District Court was uncertain whether the cases withholding federal judicial relief rested upon a lack of federal jurisdiction or upon the inappropriateness of the subject matter for judicial consideration: nonjusticiability -in the instance of nonjusticiability, consideration of the case is not wholly and immediately foreclosed; rather, the Court just needs to decide whether the duty can rightly be asserted Dissent -it may well impair the Court's position as the ultimate organ of the 'supreme Law of the Land' in that vast range of legal problems, often strongly entangled in popular feeling, on which the Court must pronounce -the Court must have complete detachment, in fact and appearance, from political entanglements and by abstention from injecting itself into the clash of political forces in political settlements, to sustain public confidence in its moral sanction

Palko v CT Court Interpretation

-Cardozo rejected Palko's claim and denied that the 14th Amendment automatically carried all of the Bill of Rights into effect against the state; rather, it only applied to those that are 'of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty', and it would be the courts that determined which rights met this criterion -CT says that Palko is not in Federal Court; the state of CT gave the prosecutor the right to retry -there is no such general rule that whatever is a violation of the original bill of rights if done by the federal government is now equally unlawful by force of the 14th Amendment if done by a state -the state is not attempting to wear the accused out by a multitude of cases with accumulated trials. It asks no more than this, that the case against him shall go until there shall be a trial free from the corrosion of substantial legal error...this is not cruelty at all, nor even vexation in any immoderate degree. If the trial had been infected with error adverse to the accused, there might have been review at his instance, and as often as necessary to purge the vicious taint. A reciprocal privilege, subject at all times to the discretion of the presiding judge...has now been granted to the state

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chad Court Interpretation

-Chief Justice's opinion is noteworthy not only for striking down the legislative veto -It is argued that these cases present a nonjusticiable political question because Chadha is merely challenging Congress' authority under the Naturalization Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause; it is argued that these two laws give it unreviewable authority over the regulation of aliens -however, what is challenged here is whether Congress has chosen a constitutionally permissible means of implementing that power -resolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches cannot be evaded by courts because the issues have political implications in the sense urged by Congress -the decision to provide the President with a limited and qualified power to nullify proposed legislation by veto was based on the profound conviction that lawmaking was a power to be shared by both Houses and the President -the one-House veto operated in these cases to overrule the Attorney General and mandate Chadha's deportation; absent the House action, Chadha would remain in the US. Congress had acted and its action had altered Chadha's status...disagreement with the AG's decision on the deportation, Congress's decision to deport Chadha, no less than Congress' original choice to delegate to the AG the authority to make that decision, involves determinations of policy that Congress can implement in only one way; bicameral passage followed by presentment to the President. Congress must abide by its delegation of authority until that delegation is legislatively altered or revoked -the bicameral requirement, Presentment Clauses, President's veto, and Congress's power to override a veto were intended to erect enduring checks on each Branch and to protect the people from the improvident exercise of power by mandating certain prescribed steps. To preserve those checks, and maintain the separation of powers, the carefully defined limits on the power of each Branch must not be eroded -to accomplish what has been attempted by one House of Congress in this case requires action in conformity with the express procedures of the Constitution's prescription for legislative action: passage by a majority of both Houses and presentment to the President -the veto here is a shortcut; clearly, it is easier for action to be taken by one House without submission to the President; but it is clear from the records of the Constitutional Convention that the Framers ranked other values a lot higher than efficiency -The Court held that the particular section of the Act in question did violate the Constitution. Recounting the debates of the Constitutional Convention over issues of bicameralism and separation of powers, Chief Justice Burger concluded that even though the Act would have enhanced governmental efficiency, it violated the "explicit constitutional standards" regarding lawmaking and congressional authority

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chad Context

-Congress has long delegated a variety of powers to the executive, but one device it used to retain control was the legislative veto: through this device, one or both houses could either approve or disapprove of certain executive or administrative decisions -not mentioned in the Constitution, but used since 1932 and allowed Congress to respond to changing circumstances and make adjustments in continuing programs without having to pass new legislation or trying to anticipate all future contingencies -However, presidents normally opposed the use of the veto, and Carter wanted a test case to determine the constitutionality of the legislative veto -test: the INS ruled that Jagdish Rai Chadha could stay in the US, but the ruling was canceled when one member of the House secured a resolution barring residency to Chadha and several others -Chadha sued, and the case went to the Court

Mapp v. Ohio Context

-Following the introduction of the exclusionary rule in Weeks, the Supreme Court had applied the rule only to exclude illegally seized evidence from use in federal trials -this was the state of the law when Ohio police raided Mapp's apartment without a warrant, and accidentally discovered pornography during the search -Mapp was later indicted and convicted for the possession -when the case came to the Court, both sides of the litigation saw it as a 1st Amendment case, and neither side briefed nor applied the exclusionary rule -However, she was not convicted because of the Exclusionary Rule: evidence turned up from unlawful searches and seizures cannot be used in Court to convict someone -Appeals to the State Court from the Ohio Supreme Court; Supreme Court adopts the Exclusionary Rule, so it now applies to the states as well, not just the federal government -Since the 4th Amendment's right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the 14th, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government: the very essence of a healthy federalism depends upon the avoidance of needless conflict between state and federal courts

Griswold v. CT Likely Effect

-Griswold has been simultaneously praised on one hand for its creative jurisprudence and damned on the other for its judicial activism -Griswold is a landmark case in which the Court resurrected substantive due process not to protect property, but to safeguard privacy and other individual 'liberty interests' -the state cannot interfere in private marriages -state cannot block access to {information about} contraceptives -opens the door to abortion -opened the door to a plethora of rights that alarmed the legal community -John Hart Eli called Griswold frightening, from a constitutional prospect; others called it curious -not embraced by conservatives or liberals alike -both groups willing to acknowledge the presence of privacy; however, it was not clearly present in the Constitution -when the issue of abortion came to the Court, Griswold made it inevitable

Roe v. Wade Follow up Cases: Webster v. Reproductive Health

-In 1986, the state of Missouri enacted legislation that placed a number of restrictions on abortions. The statute's preamble indicated that "[t]he life of each human being begins at conception," and the law codified the following restrictions: public employees and public facilities were not to be used in performing or assisting abortions unnecessary to save the mother's life; encouragement and counseling to have abortions was prohibited; and physicians were to perform viability tests upon women in their twentieth (or more) week of pregnancy -Lower courts struck down the restrictions -the Court held that none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri legislation were unconstitutional -First, the Court held that the preamble had not been applied in any concrete manner for the purposes of restricting abortions, and thus did not present a constitutional question -Second, the Court held that the Due Process Clause did not require states to enter into the business of abortion, and did not create an affirmative right to governmental aid in the pursuit of constitutional rights -Third, the Court found that no case or controversy existed in relation to the counseling provisions of the law -Finally, the Court upheld the viability testing requirements, arguing that the State's interest in protecting potential life could come into existence before the point of viability -The Court emphasized that it was not revisiting the essential portions of the holding in Roe v. Wade

Engel v. Vitale

-New York public schools opened each day with a nonsecretarian prayer composed by the Board of Regents. Other states and localities used other invocations like the Lord's Prayer, or borrowed from sectarian services -the State of New York has adopted a practice (prayer) wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause: there can be no doubt that NY's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings is a religious activity -the petitioners contend that prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs -it is an unfortunate fact of history that when some of the very groups which had most strenuously opposed the established Church of England found themselves sufficiently in control of colonial governments in this country to write their own prayers into law, they passed laws making their own religion the official religion of their respective colonies

Nollan v. Coastal Creation Likely Effect

-Supreme Court is putting emphasis on the ownership of public property; Conservatives are going to run with this -this is the kind of confrontation that environmental policy has all the time: Can you build on a wetland? No. Can it be done? Yes. -this signals that the liberal Warren Court's days are over

Shelby County v. Holder Context

-The Fourteenth Amendment protects every person's right to due process of law -The Fifteenth Amendment protects citizens from having their right to vote abridged or denied due to "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." -The Tenth Amendment reserves all rights not granted to the federal government to the individual states -Article Four of the Constitution guarantees the right of self-government for each state. -The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted as a response to the nearly century-long history of voting discrimination. Section 5 prohibits eligible districts from enacting changes to their election laws and procedures without gaining official authorization -Section 4(b) defines the eligible districts as ones that had a voting test in place as of November 1, 1964 and less than 50% turnout for the 1964 presidential election. Such districts must prove to the Attorney General or a three-judge panel of a Washington, D.C. district court that the change "neither has the purpose nor will have the effect" of negatively impacting any individual's right to vote based on race or minority status. -Section 5 was originally enacted for five years, but has been continually renewed since that time. -Shelby County, Alabama, filed suit in district court and sought both a declaratory judgment that Section 5 and Section 4(b) are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement -The district court upheld the constitutionality of the Sections and granted summary judgment for the Attorney General -The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that Congress did not exceed its powers by reauthorizing Section 5 and that Section 4(b) is still relevant to the issue of voting discrimination.

Swann v. Charlotte BoE Context

-The Warren Court's activism left a number of unresolved issues for its successor, especially in the area of school desegregation -In US v. Montgomery County BoE, Justice Black set guidelines to achieve racial mixes of faculty at individual schools that would reflect a ratio of white to black teachers in a school system- the first time the Court had endorsed numerical goals as a remedy. But, the decision was vague regarding specifics and apparently left the lower courts a great deal of leeway -in an issue arising in North Carolina, the federal district court prescribed a specific mix of white (71%) to black (29%) students, and ordered extensive busing to achieve that goal

Shelby County v. Holder Court Interpretation

-Yes, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act imposes current burdens that are no longer responsive to the current conditions in the voting districts in question. Although the constraints this section places on specific states made sense in the 1960s and 1970s, they do not any longer and now represent an unconstitutional violation of the power to regulate elections that the Constitution reserves for the states. The Court also held that the formula for determining whether changes to a state's voting procedure should be federally reviewed is now outdated and does not reflect the changes that have occurred in the last 50 years in narrowing the voting turnout gap in the states in question. -In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional in addition to Section 4. He wrote that the blatant discrimination against certain voters that Section 5 was intended to prohibit is no longer evident. Without such extraordinary circumstances, Congress cannot constitutionally justify placing the burden of Section 5 on the states in question. Dissent -Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent in which she argued that Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments encompasses legislative action such as the Voting Rights Act. The legislative history and text of the Amendments as well as previous judicial precedent support Congress' authority to enact legislation that specifically targets potential state abuses. However, Congress does not have unlimited authority but must show that the means taken rationally advance a legitimate objective, as is the case with the Voting Rights Act. The evidence Congress gathered to determine whether to renew the Voting Rights Act sufficiently proved that there was still a current need to justify the burdens placed on the states in question. She also argued that, by holding Section 4 unconstitutional, the majority's opinion makes it impossible to effectively enforce Section 5

US v. Heart of Atlanta Motel Context

-a motel in Atlanta is accessible to interstate highways 75 and 85, and state highways 23 and 41 -it solicits patronage from outside Georgia through various national advertising media, including magazines of national circulation; it maintains over 50 billboards and highway signs within the State, soliciting patronage for the motel; it accepts convention trade from outside Georgia and approximately 75% of its registered guests are from out of state -after the passing of the Civil Rights Act, they denied lodging to African Americans -Motel discriminates on the basis of race: the argument was that they were a private business -it was their proximity to the interstate highways that made them a part of interstate commerce

San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez Likely Effect

-a number of state constitutions did include education as a listed basic right -in those states, similar lawsuits provided successful in other state courts, forcing NJ and other states to completely overhaul their systems of financing public education to equalize spending among other districts -the need is apparent for tax reform; it must come from the lawmakers and the democratic pressures of those who elect them

Richmond Newspapers Context

-in the 1970s, courts reluctantly opened their doors to the media, fearing that they would disrupt the pursuit of justice. The prospect of graphic press accounts also disturbed jurists who believed that impartial justice demanded an isolated courtroom -Richmond, VA: the trial of a person on a single charge of murder had ended in mistrial or had otherwise been aborted three times -both the defense and the prosecution agreed to the trial judge's suggestion that the courtroom be closed to everyone to ensure that the 4th trial went to completion: the judge had that power under state law, but he never held hearings to determine whether if it was necessary or if there might be a better way to proceed -local papers, barred from the trial, brought suit -the case raised an issue the Court previously skirted: the relationship between the 1st Amendment's Press Clause and the 6th Amendment right to a public trial -Under the 1st and 6th Assembly, the right to assembly holds that the papers should be able to sit in on the trial

NYT v. Sullivan Context

-among areas traditionally considered outside 1st Amendment protection, libel had always been viewed as an abuse of speech or press, and the common law had punished libelers severely -this particular libel action grew out of an ad placed in the NYT by a group protesting a wave of terror against blacks engaged in nonviolent demonstrations in the South -Sullivan, the elected police and fire commissioner of Montgomery, claimed that his reputation had been injured and that the ad contained factual errors 1. It claimed that MLK had been arrested seven times; he had been arrested four -Sullivan was a city official in Montgomery: he took offense at an advertisement that appeared in the NYT; someone paid for a full-page ad about what was going on in the South during the Civil Rights Movement -Sullivan brought suit against the three black pastors who were heading up the ad/movement, and the NYT: for monetary gain -the issue begins in Alabama State Court: libel law says in Alabama: libel per se- even though Sullivan's name was not mentioned in the advertisement, the ad was critical of civil authority in Alabama -therefore, he could bring suit against the ad because it was inaccurate and was also generally critical of civil authority -once libel per se has been established, the defendant has no defense as to stated facts unless he can persuade the jury that they were true in all their particulars...unless he can discharge the burden of proving truth, general damages are presumed, and may be awarded without proof of pecuniary injury -Libel Law was about reputation: if your reputation was damaged, you could bring a libel suit against the person who published/printed something against you -speech is about slander -in state court, Sullivan is awarded $500,000: in other states, there have been 10 cases involving the same argument with different people, so the Alabama Court sets precedent for all these other cases -it was clear that these suits intended to put the NYT out of business -How many suits could the NYT take before being negatively affected? -NYT appeals: 1. holds that its articles are protected by the Constitution 2. Is trying to save itself from monetary damage -Constitutional Limitations on Newspapers 1. Clear and present danger 2. Obscenity: of no use in a reasonable argument 3. libel

Virginia v. Black Likely Effect

-another victory for free speech; even the most despicable free speech is still protected

San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez Context

-by the time of his assassination, MLK had begun to draw the nation's attention to the relationship between civil rights and poverty, arguing that poor people could never enjoy full status as citizens -the petitioners attacked the TX system of financing public schools, which relied primarily on local property taxes. As a result, rich residential districts, as well as districts with large amounts of valuable real estate, spent considerably more than poorer areas on schools -parents of Mexican American children initiated the suit on behalf of all children residing in districts with a low property tax base, claiming violation of equal protection -the District court accepted the argument and ruled poverty a suspect classification and education a fundamental right

Virginia v. Black Context

-certain categories of speech, like obscenity and fighting words, do not enjoy the protection offered by the 1st Amendment -the Court has also differentiated between expression and action, with expression of ideas and political views enjoying near total protection and pure act enjoying protection only insofar as it expresses an idea -hate speech remains protected under the 1st Amendment, and the Court has held that the use of symbols to express an idea is also protected -the burning of crosses by the KKK was held by the Court to be protected symbolic speech; in this case, the Court moved to make symbolic speech, when it embodied a threat against a person or group, more of an action and therefore unprotected as speech -this case investigates whether VA's statute banning cross burning with an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons violates the 1st Amendment -this is a speech case: symbolic speech- an action that says something to those who know its meaning -the intent of the person burning a cross is to intimidate African-Americans -VA enacted a statute to prohibit burning crosses in order to protect African-Americans against racial discrimination: it seemed like a good thing to do -Barry Black led a KKK rally, which concluded with cross burning -Black was charged with burning a cross with the intent of intimidating a person or group of persons; Black was fined -he petitioned, saying that the court discriminated on the basis of content since only cross burning was selectively chosen because of its distinctive message

Washington v. Glucksberg Court Interpretation

-common law: self-murder is the most unnatural -today, because of advances in medicine and technology, Americans today are increasingly likely to die in institutions, from chronic illnesses, so public concern is sharply focused on how to protect dignity and independence at the end of life -Due Process Clause includes and protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment; by extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action -however, the State does have an interest in protecting the preservation of human life, the integrity and ethics of the medical profession, and vulnerable groups like the elderly and disabled from abuse and mistakes; these groups are more likely to be pressured into assisted suicide -the assisted suicide ban does reinforce the State's belief that all lives are equally important; they are afraid that permitting assisted suicide will lead to voluntary and involuntary euthanasia -the Washington ban on assisted suicide does not violate the 14th Amendment, either on its face or as applied to competent, terminally ill adults who wish to hasten their deaths by obtaining medication prescribed by their doctors

Blakely v. Washington Context

-ever since the Due Process Revolution of the Warren era, the Court has been concerned with ensuring that the criminal justice system, from initial contact (Miranda warnings) to the final appeals process, runs smoothly and fairly -the Court has recently attempted to assess the meaning of trial by jury in light of factors like the sentencing guideline reforms enacted by both the federal government and the states via the 6th Amendment -Ralph Howard Blakely married his wife Yolanda in 1973. He was evidently a difficult man to live with, having been diagnosed at various times with psychological and personality disorders, including paranoid schizophrenia. His wife ultimately filed for divorce -in 1998, he abducted her from their home, bound her with duct tape, and forced her at knifepoint into a wooden box in the bed of his pickup truck. In the process, he implored her to dismiss the divorce suit and related trust proceedings -when their son, Ralphy, returned from school, Blakely followed him in another car, threatening to harm Yolanda with a shotgun if he did not do so. Ralphy escaped and called the police, but Blakely went all the way to Montana with Yolanda. -Blakely pleaded guilty to the kidnapping of Yolanda; the maximum sentence was 53 months, but the Judge gave 90, saying he had acted with 'deliberate cruelty'. The Court is considering whether this violated the petitioner's 6th Amendment right to trial by jury

Washington v. Glucksberg Likely Effect

-five justices wrote concurrences saying that if states made end-of-life decisions too narrow, they would revisit the decision

South Carolina v. Katzenbach Context

-following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, leaders of the black community urged Congress to pass a measure protecting the right to vote -in Alabama, though blacks made up about ½ of the state's population, they accounted for only 1% of registered voters -in 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, which authorized the attorney general to send federal registrars into any county where discrimination was suspected; suspended the use of literacy tests; and allowed the AG to supervise voting registration -in Selma, the percentage of voting-age blacks rose from 10% to 60%, and translated into elected black legislators, sheriffs, and mayors -the law was passed under the authority of Section 2 of the 15th Amendment, which gave Congress power to enforce Section 1, which prohibited the denial to any person of the right to vote on the basis of race -Southern states claimed that Section 2 only gave Congress the general power to forbid voting rights violations, not the authority to fashion specific remedies -the Voting Rights Act was designed by Congress to banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century

People v. Brisendine Context

-four men had been arrested for illegally camping and having an open fire. When the four were arrested, the police, without a warrant, searched their backpack for weapons, a legitimate procedure since it was a search incident to an arrest. They did not find weapons, but did find drugs, and the four men were later convicted on drug charges as well -on appeal, the men claimed that the CA constitution protected them against such a warrantless search and established a higher level of protection than did federal standards enunciated by the Supreme Court -what are the goals of the two different governments, in regard to the 4th Amendment? As pointed out by the Court's decision, there is a question of the extent of privacy -without a warrant, the police cannot take what they found -in the federal court, the court would say that there was reasonable evidence to claim an unwarranted search was necessary -Holmes: intervened in the Scottsboro Case; federal government is going to intervene in state criminal proceedings

Dolan v. City of Tigard Likely Effect

-further strengthened the of ownership of private property over the public good -the test is now that the government must prove a clear nexus between the restriction and a public interest and then show a rough proportionality between the condition and the desired outcome

Reynolds v. Sims Context

-in Baker, the Court ruled that apportionment questions were justiciable; in Reynolds, the Court dealt directly with the problem, and its decision completely altered the face of state government -there were six companion cases, representing different apportionment schemes, including one in which voters had approved a system of disproportional representation -in his dissent in Baker, Frankfurter warned the Court of the dangers of getting involved in the political thicket -Justice Douglas, in a challenge to the Georgia county unit system, had come up with a simple standard of 'one man, one vote', which immediately impressed the nation as eminently fair and which the Court adopted in Sims -Wesbury clearly established that the fundamental principle of representative government in this country is one of equal representation for equal numbers of people, without regard to sex, race, economic status, or place of residence -our problem is to ascertain whether there are any constitutionally cognizable principles which would justify departures from the basic standard of equality among voters in the apportionment of seats in state legislatures -a predominant consideration in determining whether a State's legislative apportionment scheme constitutes an invidious discrimination violative of rights asserted under the Equal Protection Clause is that the rights allegedly impaired are individual and personal in nature -the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society: since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized

Blakely v. Washington Court Interpretation

-in this case, the petitioner was sentenced to more than three years past the maximum because he had acted with 'deliberate cruelty', according to the Judge. The facts supporting that finding were neither admitted by petitioner nor found by a jury -the relevant statutory maximum is not the max sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum sentence a judge may impose without any additional findings -when a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts 'which the law makes essential to the punishment', and the judge exceeds his proper authority -because the State's sentencing procedure did not comply with the 6th Amendment, the petitioner's sentence is invalid -by reversing the judgment, we are not finding determinate sentencing schemes unconstitutional; this case is not about whether determinate sentencing is constitutional, only about how it can be implemented in a way that respects the 6th Amendment: ultimately, our decision cannot turn on whether or to what degree trial by jury impairs the fairness of efficiency of criminal justice -currently, every defendant has the right to insist that the prosecutor prove to a jury all facts legally essential to the punishment: under the dissenters' alterative, he has no such right -the Court struck down a sentence in which the judge, acting independently of the jury's findings, increased a defendant's sentence -the Court ruled that under the 6th Amendment, the jury had to determine not only guilt but the punishment as well Dissent -if you want to constrain the sentencing discretion of judges and bring some uniformity to sentencing, it will cost you- dearly: Congress will trim or eliminate altogether their sentencing guidelines because of these new burdens -today's decision casts constitutional doubt over and threatens an untold number of criminal judgments

Gideon v. Wainwright Context

-in Betts v. Brady, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not apply the 6th Amendment's Right to Counsel to the states, but the due process clause might apply in certain situations, like when the cases were highly technical or the defendant was illiterate (capital cases) -in the next 20 years, there was a deluge of cases to state and federal courts of people claiming special circumstances, and the federal court was usually able to reverse convictions by finding these special circumstances, without overruling Betts -in the meantime, many states adopted the simpler expedient of providing counsel to poor defendants in all felony cases -Gideon did not have special circumstances; he was not illiterate or mentally ill or the victim of racial prejudice, and the issue of law was not complicated: he had been accused and convicted of breaking and entering a poolroom to commit petit larceny -he wanted a lawyer, and since he had no money, he wanted Florida to provide one for him, but Florida was still operating under the Betts rule - Gideon charged in FL with breaking and entering a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor; he wanted a lawyer, but in FL, you only got a lawyer for capital cases; Gideon told the court that the Court said he was entitled to be represented by a lawyer -Gideon conducted his defense about as well as could be expected from a layman. He made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the State's witness, presented witness in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made a short argument emphasizing his innocence to the charge contained in the information field in this case -the Jury found him guilty, to spent 3-5 years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition for appeal, but the state court did not appeal in his favor, so he appealed again -Gideon had gotten his coins from playing poker, not the drink machine, but he did not tell the truth because he did not want his landlady to know that he had been gambling -the Supreme Court, by chance, is looking for such a case -he sent an Improper Petition to the Court: a handwritten petition on legal paper -When the Court hears that Gideon has no lawyer, the Court appoints him one -his appeal came at a moment when the majority believed that Betts should be overturned anyway -Found guilty in FL; appealed to the Supreme Court -Gideon is re-tried, and at his re-trial, he is offered support by the ACLU, but he turns it down to be represented by a home-grown FL lawyer

NYT Co v. US Court Interpretation

-in a 6-3 ruling, the justices struck down the injunctions, but could not agree on the reasoning -so, the Court issued a brief per curiam decision, holding the injunctions invalid as prior restraints, and each justice wrote a separate reason for the opinion -the injunction was issued before publication had taken place; this was the Nixon administration's plan, but it was foiled -the injunction was also meant to be permanent; Nixon did not want the papers ever published -the papers essentially said a decade ago that the Vietnam War could not be won -said LBJ misled America into the war with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution -claimed that our nationalist allies in Vietnam were also shady -the report was specific and accurate about what was going on in Vietnam: it made everyone from the military to policymakers look bad -the rationale of policy was at stake, as well as the propaganda that had been made in favor of the Vietnam War -the Government thus carried a heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such a restraint: two district courts and an appeals court decided that the government did not meet that burden; the Court agreed -Black: every moment's continuance of the injunctions against these newspapers amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the 1st Amendment -only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government: if a President had inherent power to halt the publication of news, it would wipe out the 1st Amendment -Douglas: the 1st Amendment leaves no room for governmental restraint on the press; there is also no statute barring the publication by the press of the material which the Times and Post seek to use -the dominant purpose of the 1st Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information: open debate and discussion of public issues, especially Vietnam, are vital to our national health -Brennan: First Amendment tolerates absolutely no prior judicial restraints of the press predicated upon surmise or conjecture that untoward consequences may result -there is a single, extremely narrow class of cases in which the 1st Amendment's ban on prior judicial restraint may be overridden...

Dolan v. City of Tigard Context

-in recent years, governments have become increasingly concerned about the effects of development upon the environment and the strains put upon existing municipal resources like schools, police, and fire protection -the court keeps striking down environmental zoning ordinances however -Dolan has a plumbing business that sits on a paved parking lot. Dolan decides business is good, so she will expand on the parking lot; a drainage issue. therefore, the State requires that they will only grant her a permit if she commits to improving flood control and water traffic; State doesn't want the runoff from her parking lot to flow into Fanno Creek underneath -this runoff could contribute to flooding or pollute the stream -the State also wanted her to dedicate an additional 15-foot strip of land adjacent to the floodplain as a pedestrian/bicycle pathway -Dolan contends that the city has forced her to choose between the building permit and her right under the 5th Amendment to just compensation for the public easements: she argues that the city has identified no special benefits conferred on her, and she has not identified any special quantifiable burdens created by her new store that would justify the particular dedications required from her which are not required from the public at large -State responds that there is an Oregon statute that allows the environmental commission to intervene in these situations to protect the environment; the Oregon Supreme Court says its within the State's police powers -State Court ultimately said she: 1. Had to control runoff from the expansion of her parking lot 2. Since the expansion would block a previous pathway for bicycles, she had to reconstruct a new bike path somewhere else

Brandenburg v. Ohio Context

-in the 1960s, a number of states still had criminal syndicalism laws on their books, some of them dating back to the Red Scare following WWI -the Ohio statute outlawed 'advocating the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform', as well as 'voluntarily assembling with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism' -Brandenburg, the leader of a KKK group, had been convicted under this statute for advocating terrorism as a means of political reform; he addressed two groups while mumbling obscenities against Jews and blacks, and urging Caucasians to fight for their rights -a man telephoned a reporter on the staff of a Cincinnati TV station and invited him to come to a KKK rally on a farm: with the cooperation of the organizers, the reporter and a cameraman attended the meeting and filmed the events, and parts were broadcast on a local station's national network -one film showed 12 hooded figures, some of which carried firearms; they were gathered around large wooden crosses that they burned, while making derogatory racial comments -the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute was enacted in 1919, and in a three year period, 20 states followed suit -Whitney v. California sustained the constitutionality of Ca's law: advocating violent means to effect political and economic change involves such danger to the State's security that it may be outlawed -however, Whitney has been thoroughly discredited: free speech and press do not permit a State to forbid or prescribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where there is imminent lawless action//such action can be incited or produced

Brandenburg v. Ohio Likely Effect

-it was applauded as combining the best of Holmes, Brandeis, and Hand, in that in areas of speech it made freedom the rule and restriction the restraint, permitted restriction only when a clear connection could be shown between speech and an illegal activity, and required the state to spell out its rules clearly -Marketplace of Ideas

Branzburg v. Hayes Context

-journalists had long claimed that in order to secure news effectively, they had to be protected against legal orders to divulge confidential sources, and they sought a 'reporter's privilege' akin to the old common law protection afforded priest and penitent, doctor and patient, or lawyer and client -some states had enacted such a privilege, but the press sought grounding for it in the 1st Amendment -three separate instances of reporters being penalized for refusing to divulge confidential sources to a grand jury led only to the Supreme Court examination of the issue -the three journalists press 1st Amendment claims that may be simply put; that to gather news it is often necessary to agree either not to ID the source of information published or to publish only part of the facts revealed, or both; that if the reporter is nevertheless forced to reveal these confidences to a grand jury or at a trial unless and until sufficient grounds are shown for believing that the reporter possesses information relevant to a crime the grand jury is investigating, that the information the reporter has is unavailable from other sources, and that the need for the information is sufficiently compelling to override the claimed invasion of 1st Amendment interests occasioned by the disclosure -cases requiring that official action with adverse impact on 1st Amendment rights be justified by a public interest that is compelling or paramount, and those precedents establishing the principle that have justifiable governmental goals may not be achieved by unduly broad means having an unnecessary impact on protected rights of speech, press, or association -the heart of the claim is that the burden on news gathering from compelling reporters to disclose confidential information outweighs any public interest in obtaining that information -Branzberg wanted to aruge that the 1st Amendment extended to the point where Freedom of the Press protected him as a newspaper reporter; because of the importance of Freedom of the Press and how it comes upon witnesses sworn to secrecy but have information crucial to the rest of the public, insiders...what the reporter wants is the protection that will embrace that standard -Freedom of the Press protects the person who put together the publication, as well as the publication itself -the weapon that the state uses to try and use the information, because Branzberg doesn't have the protection of the 1st Amendment, is by asking him to testify in Court, under oath, with a grand jury -there is no case at issue; the purpose of a grand jury is to discover information and make it possible -there is no case at issue; the purpose of a grand jury is to discover information and make it possible for a prosecutor to go after these people -Branzberg wrote an article about drugs; court wanted him to reveal who these people were -How did the drugs get into KY? Where did they come from? He wanted to curtail the drug trade and alert the police to what was going on -the only way that Branzberg gets information about this is by speaking to people on the inside; if he was to publish their name, the person who gave the reporter that information would be swiftly prosecuted -Branzberg pledges not to reveal the sources' name to print information without jeopardizing the life of the person who gave him the information

Branzberg v. Hayes Likely Effect

-journalists never got a federal law/constitutional interpretation

Reynolds v. Sims Court Interpretation

-legislators represent people and are elected by voters: the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system -if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times...the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted -logistically, it seems reasonable that a majority of people in a State could elect a majority of that State's legislators -diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment just as much as invidious discriminations based upon factors like race or economic status -a denial of constitutionally protected right demands judicial protection; our oath and our office require no less of us...to the extent that a citizen's right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen -the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the opportunity for equal participation by all voters in the election of state legislators; diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment just as much as discriminations based on race or economic status -a citizen is no more or no less because he lives in the city or on a farm -simply put, an individual's right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with votes of citizens living in other parts of the state

Swann v. Charlotte BoE Likely Effect

-neither school authorities nor district courts are constitutionally required to make year-by-year adjustments of the racial composition of student bodies once the affirmative duty to desegregate has been accomplished and racial discrimination is officially eliminated; this does not mean the federal courts are without power to deal with future problems, but further intervention should be unnecessary

Gideon v. Wainwright Court Interpretation

-on the basis of historical data, the Betts Court refused to accept the contention that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel for indigent federal defendants was extended to or made obligatory upon the States by the 14th Amendment. Had the Court concluded that appointment of counsel for an indigent criminal defendant was a fundamental right, it would have held that the 14th Amendment requires appointment of counsel in a state Court, just as the 6th Amendment requires in a federal court -We think the Court in Betts is wrong in concluding that the 6th Amendment's guarantee of counsel is not one of these fundamental rights -in making the decision it did, the Betts court made an abrupt break with its own well-constituted precedents. In returning to these old precedents, sounder we believe that the new, we but restore constitutional principles established to achieve a fair system of justice -not only these precedents, but also reason and reflection, require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person hauled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him: this seems to be an obvious truth -from the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law -this noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him...

NYT Co. v US Context

-portions of secret DoD studies and reports regarding the Vietnam War had been illegally copied and made available to the press -the NYT began publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, and the Washington Post followed -the Nixon administration immediately sought to restrain publication, and in a week, the case went through two district and two circuit courts; one district court issued an injunction, while the other did not -the Supreme Court granted certiorari on an expedited basis to hear the case -papers are stolen by Daniel Ellsburg; his aim was to publish them so that some more serious thought would be given to the reasons why/why not the US was involved in Vietnam -AG asked for an injunction against the NYT and Post to stop them from publishing about the Pentagon Papers; the argument was national security -Nixon administration thinks that because the issue is a matter of national security, the injunction should hold at the Supreme Court level

Miranda v. Arizona Court Interpretation

-prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed -the defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney there can be no questioning -likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him -the mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned -the constitutional issue we decide in each of these contested cases is the admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way: in each, the defendant was questioned by police, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world -In none of the cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process -in all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and in 3 of them, signed statements as well -if, at any point, the individual indicates that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease Dissent -the Court's opinion reveals no adequate basis for extending the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination to the police station; far more important, it fails to show that the Court's new rules are well supported or compelled by 5th Amendment precedents -the new rules actually derive from quotation and analogy drawn from precedents under the 6th Amendment, which should properly have no bearing on police interrogation...

Washington v. Glucksberg Context

-right-to-die advocates began to push for the right of people with terminal illnesses, regardless of whether they were on life support, to end their suffering with the help of 3rd parties like physicians -Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a retired pathologist, began to help people commit suicide -suicide had once been a felony but it was decriminalized, though assisting suicide was still a crime. a number of advocacy groups, in particular the Washington-based Compassion in Dying, as well as individuals like Dr. Timothy Quill, began challenging these laws -on the West Coast, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that Washington's ban on assisted suicide violated the 14th Amendment. On the East Coast, the 2nd Circuit struck down a similar NY law, arguing that allowing persons on life support to terminate treatment, but forbidding people not on life support to end their lives, violated the Equal Protection Clause -it has always been a crime to assist suicide in Washington: petitioners are saying that this law is unconstitutional

Nollan v. Coastal Creation Context

-the 1930s saw a shift away from the Court's former primary interest: property rights. However, the nation's shift back to the right in the 1980s saw the appointment of more conservative justices to both state and federal benches, and litigants claiming that their property rights had been violated began to appear in the courtroom -the CA commission had required public access to private beachfront property as a condition for issuing a building permit -known as an exaction: developers and landowners are often required to meet certain conditions in order to get building permits -James and Marilyn Nollan appealed from a decision of the CA Court of Appeals ruling that the California Coastal Commission could condition its grant of permission to rebuild their house on the transfer to the public of an easement across their beachfront property -the Nollans own a beachfront lot in CA; a quarter mile north of their property is Faria County Park, an Oceanside public park with a private beach and recreation area. Another public beach lies south of their lot, and a concrete seawall separates the beach portion of the Nollans' property from the rest of the lot -the Nollans originally leased their property with an option to buy. The building on the lot was a small bungalow that was rented out to vacationers, but eventually fell into disrepair -their option to purchase was conditioned on their promise to demolish the bungalow and replace it, and in doing so, they were required to obtain a coastal development permit from the CCC; CCC staff conditionally approved their permit if they allowed the public an easement to pass across a portion of their property bounded by the mean high tide line on one side, and the seawall on the other side. This would make it easier for the public to get to Faria County Park and the Cove -legislation to safeguard the coast; what could or could not be done with property that was in close proximity to the coast -the idea was the preservation of the coast -Nollan wanted to expand a current beach house property and move in, but it was conditional that they had to make a public walkway to make the beach accessible through their private property -however, this further required that not only were people supposed to be allowed to walk through, they could also stand on the walkway and look at the ocean, and the Nollans would have to reconfigure their property to allow this -the justification was that the beach was public and belonged to the State, and was to be used for public enjoyment -Coastal Commission: we are protecting the beach and its views for the people -police power was used to enforce this -But, the State has taken the Nollans' property without compensation, in order to enhance the larger public's experience at the beach; Nollan says they don't want their property taken, but the state says they have the right to take property

People v. Brisdene Court Interpretation

-the CA court agreed and enunciated its rationale for following state rather than federal standards -we conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that the search was legitimately concerned with weapons and not contraband. Since it was necessary for officers to be in close proximity with the defendants, the circumstances reasonably warranted a weapons search, as well as a pat down -however, the officers' subsequent intrusion into the opaque bottle and envelopes inside the backpack cannot be justified by the limited purpose which validated the search in its inception. Therefore, we hold these items were obtained by means of an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the CA Constitution -the pat-down revealed a bottle and envelopes; it is unreasonable to argue that there might be an oddly shaped weapon in either container. If, during the pat-down, an object that reasonably felt like a weapon was found, a further search would be warranted, but in this case, it was not -therefore, since the contraband was illegally seized, we hold that it was erroneously received as evidence. Since it was also the sole evidence against the defendant, its admission was prejudicial error and the judgment must be reversed -this case illustrates the conclusion that the CA Constitution is a document of independent force: thus, in determining that CA citizens are entitled to greater protection under the CA Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures than that required by the US Constitution, we are embarking on no revolutionary course. Rather, we are simply reaffirming a basic principle of federalism- that the states are bound together by a fundamental federal law but independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of their citizens

Baker v. Carr Context

-the Constitution assigns two senators to each state and a number of representatives according to the state's share of the total population determined in the decennial census, but it is silent as to how these representations are to be assigned within each state -Madison implied that the arrangements should be equitable, and many states did in fact periodically redraw their congressional and state assembly lines to ensure voter equality -12 states had not redrawn their lines, including Alabama, Delaware, and Tennessee -the situation in Alabama was shut down in the Court as being gerrymandering; however, the Court was careful to avoid implying that the case was related to issues of reapportionment -The Court finally took jurisdiction over reapportionment in Tennessee: voting representation districts in the state of TN: Congressional lines had not been redrawn since 1905, even though it was required to be withdrawn every 10 years -lots of people moved into the cities instead of rural areas, and they were misrepresented -The cities, which had greater problems and more possibility for improvement, were underrepresented, and the rural counties, from which people were fleeing, had greater power and more control over what could occur in the legislature -this was also parallel in California, until Warren pushed for change -A violation of Equal Protection to not redraw the lines; TN said that since states had control over elections, they could draw the lines when/where they pleased -Baker was a progressive Republican: looking to make that change -TN wanted to modernize and create more jobs to be more beneficial to the people living in the cities; the rural counties were happy with what they had and were not seeking change

Virginia v. Black Court Interpretation

-the Court decides that while a State, consistent with the 1st Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the VA statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form -the 1st Amendment is applicable to the States through the 14th, and affords protection to symbolic or expressive conduct as well as actual speech; but, it allows a State to ban a 'true threat' -intimidation is a true threat since a speaker directs a threat to a person with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death -VA statute does not run afoul of the 1st Amendment insofar as it bans cross burning with the intent to intimidate; cross burnings that are intentionally intimidating are allowed to be outlawed. However, the prima facie evidence provision, as interpreted by the Model Jury Instruction, renders the statute unconstitutional- the prima facie provision strips away the very reason why a State may ban cross burning with the intent to intimidate, as it permits a jury to convict in every cross-burning case in which defendants exercise their constitutional right not to put ion a defense, and even when they do put on a defense, the PF evidence makes it more likely that the jury will find an intent to intimidate regardless of if there was one or not. This might create the unacceptable risk of the suppression of ideas -burning a cross could be constitutionally proscribable intimidation or core political speech; the intent must be analyzed, but PF evidence blurs the lines between the various meanings -political protest is still constitutionally protected; sometimes, cross burning is a statement of ideology and a symbol of group solidarity as well -the VA law is constitutional, so long as the intent wasn't to intimidate -the 1st Amendment cannot prohibit content: ideas -however despicable the idea is, it is protected Dissent -in our culture, cross burning has almost invariably meant lawlessness and understandably instills in its victims well-grounded fear of physical violence. Further, the KKK hates so many types of people that even if a white Catholic man saw a burning cross, he would call the police. For a square or circle, he would call the fire department

San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez Court Interpretation

-the Court declined, by a narrow majority, to accept this reasoning and to constitutionalize a right to equal education -we must decide whether the TX system of financing public education operates to the disadvantage of some suspect class or impinges upon a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, thereby requiring strict judicial scrutiny -we find neither the suspect-classification nor the fundamental-interest analysis persuasive: there is reason to believe the poorest families are not necessarily clustered in the poorest property districts- a recent CT study found that the poor were clustered around commercial and industrial areas- those same areas provide the most attractive sources of property tax income for school districts; there is no basis on the record for assuming that the poorest people are concentrated in the poorest districts in TX -education is a fundamental right because it is essential to the effective exercise of First Amendment freedoms and to intelligent utilization of the right to vote -the marketplace of ideas is an empty forum for those lacking basic communicative tools; yet, we never presumed to possess the authority or the ability ot guarantee the most effective speech or the most informed electoral choice -therefore, this is a direct attack on the way in which Texas has chosen to raise and disburse state and local tax revenues; they want the Court to interfere on an area traditionally delegated to the States -there is no scheme of taxation that is completely free of discrimination: the Court does well not to impose too rigorous a standard of scrutiny lest all local fiscal schemes become subjects of criticism under equal protection Dissent -for districts with a low per-pupil real estate tax base, the TX system utterly fails to extend a realistic choice to parents because the property tax, which is the only revenue-raising mechanism extended to schools, is practically and legally unavailable. Requiring the State to establish only that unequal treatment is in furtherance of a permissible goal, without also requiring the State to show that the means chosen to effectuate that goal are rationally related to its achievement, makes equal protection analysis no more than an empty gesture -education directly affects the ability of a child to exercise his First Amendment interests: therefore, this factor compels us to recognize the fundamentality of education and to scrutinize with appropriate care the bases for state discrimination affecting equality of educational opportunity in TX school districts -in group wealth discrimination, the disadvantaged individual has no significant control and is no reflection of the individual's characteristics or his abilities

NYT v. Sullivan Court Interpretation

-the Court extended freedom of speech and the press to invalidate much of the traditional law of libel and, except in very limited circumstances, made criticism of public figures immune from legal retaliation -the question before us is whether the libel per se rule, as applied to an action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct, abridges the freedom of speech and press -libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations; it must be measured by standards that satisfy the 1st Amendment -debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials -the present ad, as an expression of grievance and protest, would seem clearly to quality for the constitutional protection -allowance of the defense of truth, with the burden of proving it on the defendant, does not mean that only false speech will be deterred. Under such a rule, would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be/is true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so -the rule thus dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate; inconsistent with the 1st Amendment -criticism of government officials is fundamental to the maintenance of a democratic society -if you feel you have been libeled, you have to prove that: there is deliberate recklessness- the paper set out to deliberately criticize a public official -one has to show the error is deliberate: the reporter knew otherwise, but he deliberately put in wrong facts to ruin the reputation of the subject- that is a high bar -the Court wants to bolster, not diminish, criticism of public officials -totally wrong for Trump to call newspapers the enemy of the people -cannot punish a paper for doing its job

Richmond Newspapers Court Interpretation

-the Court found the 1st and 6th Amendments complementary, since the press, by its reporting of criminal trials, informed the public, who could not attend, how well the criminal justice system was working -from common law and precedent, we are bound to conclude that a presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under our system of justice -despite the history of criminal trials being open since before the Constitution, the State presses its contention that neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights contains any provision which by its terms guarantees to the public the right to attend criminal trials -it raises the question whether the Constitution affords protection against exclusion of the public from criminal trials -the Bill of Rights was enacted against the backdrop of the long history of trials being presumptively open; in guaranteeing freedoms such as speech and press, the 1st Amendment can be read as protecting the right of everyone to attend trials so as to give meaning to those explicit guarantees -the State argues that the Constitution nowhere spells out a guarantee for the right of the public to attend trials, and that accordingly no such right is protected; but, the Court has acknowledged that certain unarticulated rights are implicit in enumerated guarantees -the Court agreed that the paper had the right to sit in on the trial -we hold that the right to attend criminal trials is included in the 1st Amendment; without it, freedom of speech and press will be eviscerated -especially in this case, the trial judge made no findings to support closure; no inquiry was made as to whether alternative solutions would have met the need to ensure fairness; there was no recognition of any right under the Constitution for the public or press to attend the trial

Adamson v. CA Result

-the Court has incorporated most amendments, but kept Cardozo's principle of selective incorporation -caused the nationalization of the Criminal Due Process -In Adamson, beginning in the late 19th century, a defendant was given the opportunity to testify in his defense; prior to this, it was not possible -when this rule was put in place in MA, Holmes said that it was a stupid rule

Continuing the Constitution: the Shift to Modernity

-the Court has shifted from liberal to conservative; most of Brennan's liberal colleagues have already retired, his day has passed, and he is on the defensive -John Marshall: the Constitution is a law and therefore subject to judicial interpretation, but is also an organic outline of government -How should the Constitution be interpreted? 1. Strict adherence to the intent of the Framers; claims that there is sufficient contemporary evidence to tell judges just what the Founding Fathers meant in particular clauses of the Constitution 2. Times have changed so dramatically since the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 that the documents of that time are at best only a starting point in constitutional construction -Judicial Activists: the Court's responsibility to make sure that the Constitution remains relevant to contemporary social needs -Justice William J. Brennan Jr. was considered by many to be the leading exponent of judicial activism -the Constitution is fundamentally a public text- the monumental charter of a government and a people- and a Justice of the Supreme Court must apply it to resolve public controversies

Miller v CA Interpretation

-the Court recognized that the States have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material when the mode of dissemination carries with it a significant danger of offending the sensibilities of unwilling recipients or of exposure to juveniles: it is in this context that we are called on to define the standards which must be used to ID obscene material that a state may regulate -reasonable that people could not agree on a definition of obscene: for in the area of freedom of speech and press the courts must always remain sensitive to any infringement on genuinely serious literary, artistic, political, scientific...expression -obscene material is unprotected by the 1st Amendment: there are inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression -we confine the permissible scope of such regulation to works which depict or describe sexual conduct Basic Guidelines: 1. Whether the average person would find that work appealing to the prurient interest 2. Whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law 3. Whether the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value Standard Prohibited Material 1. Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated 2. Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals -sex and nudity in film may not be exploited without limits any more than live sex or nudity cannot be exploited; must have serious literary, artistic, scientific, political...value to merit 1st Amendment protection -suppression of unprotected obscene material is permissible to avoid exposure to unconsenting adults and juveniles, though there is no indication of how the division between protected and nonprotected materials may be drawn with greater precision for these purposes than for regulation of commercial exposure to consenting adults only -no one will be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene material unless this material depicts or describes hard core sexual conduct against the law -it is neither realistic nor constitutionally sound to read the 1st Amendment as requiring the people of Maine to accept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in NYC -people in different states have different tastes and attitudes Dissent -to send men to jail for violating standards they cannot understand, construe, and apply is a monstrous thing to do in a Nation dedicated to fair trials an due process -I do not think the judges were ever given the constitutional power to make definitions of obscenity: let people define by constitutional amendment what standards they want the legislatures to apply

Dolan v. City of Tigard Court Interpretation

-the Court reiterated its commitment to property rights and held that governmental regulation of land is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny to ensure that under the guise of legitimate exactions the state does not in effect confiscate land -the Court also distinguished between land-use regulations that simply imposed restrictions on use and those that required the landowner to transfer parts of the land to government for its uses -undoubtedly, the prevention of flooding along Fanno Creek and the reduction of traffic congestion qualify as the type of legitimate public purposes we have upheld -we think the term 'rough proportionality' best encapsulates what we hold to be the requirement of the 5th Amendment: no numbers are calculated, but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required calculation is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development -wanted to make sure the land wasn't being confiscated from her -bike path did not pass the test: Court overturned Oregon court, which made the rule in the name of protecting the environment -Two-Pronged Test: in evaluating the petitioner's claim, we must first determine whether the essential nexus exists between the legitimate state interest and the permit condition exacted by the city. If we find the nexus exists, we must then decide the required degree of connection between the exactions and the projected impact of the proposed development -the city says there is a legitimate nexus between preventing flooding and limiting development, as well as reducing congestion and a green strip, but fails to show that the city's permit conditions bear the required relationship to the projected impact of the petitioner's proposed development, so it is unconstitutional: NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH -Court says that the protection of private property trumps the protection of the environment -the City didn't express need for the changes positively enough; 'could offset some' is a weak argument; no conviction- the city has not met its burden of demonstrating that the additional number of vehicles generated by the petitioner's development reasonably relate to the city's requirement for the dedication of a public greenway Dissent -in our changing world one thing is certain: uncertainty will characterize predictions about the impact of new urban developments on the risks of floods, earthquakes, traffic congestion, or environmental harms. When there is doubt concerning the magnitude of these impacts, the public interest in averting them must outweigh the private interest of the commercial entrepreneur

Engel v. Vitale Court Interpretation

-the Court ruled that any mandatory prayer violated the 1st Amendment's ban on an establishment of religion -the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by the government -the 1st Amendment was added to guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support, or influence the kinds of prayer that American people can say- the people's religion must not be subjected to the pressures of government -neither the fact that the prayer can be denominationally neutral nor the fact that is observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the 1st Amendment, both of which are operate against the States by virtue of the 14th Amendment -the Establishment Clause does not depend on any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion, whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not -furthermore, government established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand -prayer breaches the wall of separation between Church and State; the decision is not hostility towards religion or prayer

South Carolina v. Katzenbach Court Interpretation

-the Court upheld all provisions of the law -Congress assumed the power to prescribe these remedies from Sec. 2 of the 15th Amendment, which authorizes the National Legislature to effectuate by appropriate measures the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination in voting -we hold that the sections of the Act which are properly before us are an appropriate means for carrying our Congress' constitutional responsibilities and are consonant with all other provisions of the Constitution -we deny South Carolina's request that enforcement of these sections of the Act be enjoined -Congress concluded that the unsuccessful remedies which it had prescribed in the past would have to be replaced by sterner and more elaborate measures in order to satisfy the clear commands of the 15th Amendment -discriminatory administration of voting qualifications has been the principal method used to bar Negroes from the polls: whites are given help or easy tests; blacks get difficult versions -these were first solved on a case-by-case basis: local officials have defied and evaded court orders or have closed their registration offices to freeze the polls -the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is challenged on the fundamental ground that it exceeds the powers of Congress and encroach on an area reserved to the states -coverage formula: violates the principle of the equality of States, denies due process, and bars judicial review... -the language and purpose of the 15th Amendment, the prior decisions construing its several provisions, and the general doctrines of constitutional interpretation point to the principle that Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting -The Voting Rights Act prescribes remedies for voting discrimination which go into effect without any need for prior adjudication: a legitimate response to the problem -case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits -the Act intentionally confines these remedies to a small number of States and political subdivisions: this is permissible because substantial voting discrimination occurs presently in certain sections of the country, and there is no way to accurately know where the evil might spread -geographically limited to where action was immediately necessary

Loving v. Virginia Court Decision

-the State argued Pace v. Alabama, saying that marriage was a state enterprise -the State does not contend that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the 14th Amendment but argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree -thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and Negro participants, they do not, despite their reliance on racial classifications, constitute an invidious discrimination based on race -Meyer v. Nebraska was included: the Liberty Amendment in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment covered marriage as well as the right to learn German -because we reject the notion that the mere equal application of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the 14th Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose -the clear and central purpose of the 14th Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States: there can be no question but that VA's miscegenation statutes rest solely on distinctions drawn according to race -there is no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification -the fact that VA prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy -Conclusion: we have denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race: there can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause -the fact that they both suffer the penalty is not equivalent to being free to do it -EPC to eliminate all racial discrimination in the states -Richard dies soon after in a car crash

Griswold v. CT Context

-the Warren Court's expansion of the enumerated liberties in the Bill of Rights led litigants to seek still further expansion of the so-called nonenumerated rights; some of these rights had been recognized within the common law, but often in a form attached to property -the right to privacy could be tied to the old adage 'a man's home is his castle' -CT had an 1879 statute prohibiting the use of any drug or device to prevent contraception and penalizing any person who advised or provided contraceptive materials -this law operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation -Civil libertarians had previously brought the law to the high court, but in Poe v. Ullman, Justice Frankfurther for a plurality had denied justiciability, primarily because the law had never been enforced -soon after, the state prosecuted officials of the Planned Parenthood league, and the Court accepted jurisdiction -Griswold was an advocate for birth control, and distributed it illegally around the state -they were speaking with married couples -Griswold wants to bring a case involving this to the Supreme Court; they know they're not going to win in CT Every CT Politician Supports it 1. Opposition from the large Catholic population of CT: every politician is hesitant to vote down the provision that married couples cannot have contraceptive information 2. Most laws in CT were passed for the protection of women, not for protection of the unborn child: there were so many clandestine abortions

Richmond Newspapers Likely Effect

-the decision did not mean that all cases had to be open to full press coverage: the Court specifically pointed out that judges always retained power to ensure fair trials and had a variety of measures they could apply to that end -but, henceforth the presumption would be in favor of the press having access to the trial

Cruzan v. Director, MI Dept of Health Context

-the development of a constitutionally recognized right to privacy, and the limits, if any, on it, constitute one of the major jurisprudential issues of our time, starting with Griswold -Conservatives generally oppose the notion of privacy, but have recognized that some matters are so important that constitutional protection is necessary -the 'right to die' came into controversy in the case of Karen Ann Quinlan, in which the NJ Supreme Court ruled that individuals could terminate treatment even if that would lead to their deaths, and if persons were incompetent, this decision could be made by an appropriate surrogate -in Quinlan, the Judges relied on a mixture of traditional common law rules against unwanted touching as well as the right of privacy -over the next decade, states questioned how to govern and implement these cessation-of-treatment decisions -Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in an automobile accident which left her in a "persistent vegetative state." She was sustained for several weeks by artificial feedings through an implanted gastronomy tube. When Cruzan's parents attempted to terminate the life-support system, state hospital officials refused to do so without court approval

Lemon v. Kurtzman Context

-the enormous educational aid programs initiated by the LBJ administration led to corresponding increases in funding by the states, as well as to a demand by parochial schools that they be allowed to share in the aid programs, since they carried the burden of educating a large number of students -the Warren Court had developed a two-pronged test of whether legislative aid violated the Establishment Clause: the activity must have a secular legislative purpose and must neither advance nor hinder religion -RI and PA passed statutes providing state aid to church-related elementary and secondary schools. Both statutes are challenged as violative of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment -PA has adopted a statutory program that provides financial support to nonpublic elementary and secondary schools by way of reimbursement for the cost of teachers' salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials in specified secular subjects -RI has adopted a statute under which the State pays directly to teachers in nonpublic elementary schools a supplement of 15% of their annual salary. Under each statute state aid has been given to church-related educational institutions -in order to uplift the level of teaching that goes on in any private religious school, the state is going to step in and subsidize the salaries of these people, because most of them rely on parish donations -however, these funds are coming from the State Treasury -cite Everson v. BoE: the Court upheld a state statute that reimbursed the parents of parochial school children for bus transportation expenses; it does not breach the wall that separates Church and State -however, in Everson, the money is going to the parents (indirect subsidy); in Lemon, the money is going straight to the Church (direct subsidy of religion) -also, a teacher stipend salary is a significantly greater amount of money than a bus fare stipend

Mapp v. Ohio Court Interpretation

-the exclusionary rule was applied for the first time to the states -However, she was not convicted because of the Exclusionary Rule: evidence turned up from unlawful searches and seizures cannot be used in Court to convict someone -Appeals to the State Court from the Ohio Supreme Court; Supreme Court adopts the Exclusionary Rule, so it now applies to the states as well, not just the federal government -Since the 4th Amendment's right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the 14th, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government: the very essence of a healthy federalism depends upon the avoidance of needless conflict between state and federal courts

RAV v. City of St Paul Court Interpretation

-the justices held the ordinance invalid on its face because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses." The First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. -even if it is constitutional to ban cross burning in a content-neutral manner, the VA cross-burning statute is unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of content and viewpoint -the burning of a cross is symbolic expression: individuals burn crosses as opposed to other means of communication because it carries the message in an effective and dramatic manner -said no to the St. Paul statute; however, some types of content discrimination do not violate the 1st Amendment -the easiest way for a statute to violate the Constitution is arbitrariness: if it is not specifically tailored to something and will end up punishing two dozen other activities, the Court will rule it unconstitutional -the goal was to end hate: St. Paul tried to cast a wide net -the State said it was overbroad and arbitrary: you can't catch all hate

Adamson v CA Court Interpretation

-the majority, speaking through Jusice Reed, agreed that in federal proceedings, the prosecution's comments would have violated the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Moreover, the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause did include the right to a fair trial -But, following Cardozo's reasoning in Palko, Reed found no grounds to apply that provision of the 5th Amendment to the states -Justice Black's dissent in this case, in which he was joined by Douglas, contains the fullest exposition of his belief that the 14th Amendment totally incorporates the guarantees of the entire Bill of Rights -Black appended a lengthy history of the 14th Amendment, which became the focus of an academic debate -Justice Frankfurther, who had become alarmed at what he perceived as growing judicial activism by the Court's liberal wing, entered a concurrence with the majority strongly endorsing Cardozo's view of selective incorporation BLACK'S DISSENT -this Court is endowed by the Constitution with boundless power under 'natural law' periodically to expand and contract constitutional standards to conform to the Court's conception of what at a particular time constitutes 'civilized decency' and 'fundamental liberty and justice' -therefore, the Court concludes that although comment upon testimony in a federal court would violate the 5th Amendment, identical comment in a state court does not violate today's fashion in civilized decency and fundamentals and is therefore not prohibited by the Federal Constitution as amended

US v. Heart of Atlanta Motel Court Interpretation

-the power of Congress to deal with these obstructions depends on the meaning of the Commerce Clause -the fact does not detract from the overwhelming evidence of the disruptive effect that racial discrimination has had on commercial intercourse: it was this burden which empowered Congress to enact appropriate legislation, and given this basis for the exercise of its power, Congress was not restricted by the fact that the particular obstruction to interstate commerce with which it was dealing was also deemed a moral and social wrong -a unanimous Court upheld congressional power to legislate in this area under the Commerce Clause -the motel has super close proximity to two interstate highways: they are a part of interstate commerce -they advertise in magazines outside the state; their revenue comes from all over the nation -Civil Rights Act made commerce the means by which the government could bring suit against discriminatory companies

RAV v. City of St Paul Likely Effect

-the protection of speech is strengthened by the 1st Amendment

Griswold v. CT Court Interpretation

-the right of association, the right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice, the right to study any subject...is not included in the Constitution, but the First Amendment has been construed to include these rights -the State may not, with the spirit of the 1st Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge -the foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help them give life and substance...various guarantees create zones of privacy -Due Process: as a married couple, they have a right to privacy -Justice Douglas wrote the majority opinion here: -there was no privacy in common law, and there was no mention of privacy in the Constitution: that means that -the state can only regulate the commerce (manufacture and sale) of contraceptives, not the usage -3rd Amendment: no forced quartering of soldiers in a home = privacy -5th Amendment: no self-incrimination = creates a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment -4th Amendment: no unreasonable, unlawful searches and seizures = right to privacy -9th Amendment: any rights not specifically given to the Nation in the Constitution are the rights of the people; right to privacy -some Justices were hesitant to use the 9th Amendment because they said it would open a Pandora's Box: what couldn't it cover? -would we allow the police to search the bedrooms of married couples for the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship -we deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights: marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred -the association promotes a way of life, not causes

Roe v. Wade Context

-the ruling in Griswold had found a majority of the justices affirming a right to privacy but disagreeing on its source and reach. The abortion cases presented these issues squarely -TX had a law making it a crime to procure an abortion except by medical advice for the purposes of saving the life of the mother -Norma McCorvey: a young woman, 21 years of age with two children and pregnant with her third -a Texan who had returned home to seek an abortion; in order to enhance the possibility that she could receive an abortion, she lied and said that her pregnancy was a result of rape -she was working for a traveling circus; she said there were a lot of rough men in a rough and tumble lifestyle -in reality, she felt like she could not support a 3rd child; TX law allowed for abortion in the case of rape -because there was no police record of a rape, she was denied -she then contacted someone who would provide an illegal abortion (not a physician); a dangerous option -the TX law provided for the protection of women: it was to prevent women from going to an illegal abortionist, because it was dangerous; folks were uninformed of how to perform abortions -people who were out for quick money but had no idea what they were doing dominated the field -Norma did not have the money for an illegal abortion, so she was introduced to two young female lawyers: Weddington and Coffey -because they were feminist, they thought that this was an area in which they could successfully practice law and do good -they offered to take McCorvey's case for free, and expanded it to a class-action case: they challenged the TX statute in the name of Norma and other women, which allowed the case to continue even after McCorvey gave birth to the fetus she was carrying -protect all persons living in the State: the State would protect the unborn -Weddington's response: the State's Police Power to protect the health, welfare, and morals of its citizens, did not extend to the unborn -The right to privacy gave Roe and all other women the right to abortion • -TX state court said if privacy was a constitutional response to a woman's pregnancy, that right should be carried over to abortions: no injunction though- they wanted it taken to the Court -at the Supreme Court, Justices Harlan and Black retired and were replaced by Rehnquist and Powell. Since the new Justices were conservative, the outcome of the appeal was less likely to be successful -John Floyd represented TX before the Court- makes the argument that their right to protect all the people includes the unborn, and it is a right that they have because they are sovereign and the unborn need protection from illegal abortion: no longer about protecting women -Weddington says the right to privacy extends to the woman who is pregnant and may want to terminate it

Branzberg v. Hayes Court Interpretation

-the six-man majority held that the Press Clause did not provide such protection -three justices dissented: there is an institutional role of a free press in democratic societies and was willing to extend constitutional protections in order to facilitate the work of the press -news gathering qualifies for 1st Amendment protection: without some protection, freedom of the press could be eviscerated -but, this case involves no intrusions upon speech or assembly; no penalty related to the content of the published material, is at issue here. The sole issue is the obligation of reporters to respond to grand jury subpoenas as other citizens do and to answer questions relevant to an investigation into the commission of the crime -it is generally held that the 1st Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally. Despite the fact that news gathering may be hampered, the press is regularly excluded from grand jury proceedings, Court conferences, and other official and private meetings -newsmen have no constitutional right of access to crime or disaster -newsmen are not exempt from the normal duty of appearing before a grand jury and answering questions relevant to a criminal investigation -only where news sources themselves are implicated in crimes or possess information relevant to the grand jury's task need they or the reporter be concerned about grand jury subpoenas. Nothing before us indicates that a large number or percentage of all confidential news sources fall into either category and would be deterred by our holding -from the beginning of our country the press has operated without constitutional protection, and the press has flourished -even if there is now mutual distrust between the press and officialdom, it is a treacherous ground for a far-reaching interpretation of the 1st Amendment -if we did this, sooner or later, it would be necessary to define those categories of newsmen who qualified for the privilege, a questionable procedure ; in the end, by considering whether enforcement of a particular law served a 'compelling' governmental interest, the courts would be inextricably involved in distinguishing between the value of enforcing different criminal laws -we do not expect courts will forget that grand juries must operate within the limits of the 1st and 5th Amendments -if one is asked to testify before a grand jury, one does not have a choice because they will hold you for contempt of court (jail) -every citizen must give what he/she knows when the government asks for it; if you're subpoenaed before a grand jury

Miranda v. Arizona Likely Outcome

-triggered a firestorm of criticism against the Court for coddling criminals and handcuffing the police. Yet, as most responsible police officers noted at that time, although they were unheard in the noise, good police departments had already adopted similar rules, and these rules had not proved a deterrent; if anything, they fostered better police work -Enormously controversial decision: people said criminals will take advantage of the situation and do whatever they wished to do -a get out of jail card; thought to collapse the criminal justice system -police did not want to tell the suspects that they had rights -however, it was not the disaster it was portrayed to be -this controversy was a significant part of the dissent as well

Lemon v. Kurtzman Likely Effect

-ultimately, the Lemon Test could not compete with the myriad of possibilities that are out there about breaching the law -the Lemon Test has been the standard criterion by which state aid programs have been judged ever since, but in recent years, the exact meaning of the test has become somewhat clouded: in a number of cases, both the majority and the minority have invoked Lemon to justify their support for or opposition to specific aid programs -in a community where a large number of pupils are served by church-related schools, it can be assumed that state assistance will entail considerable political activity -partisans of parochial schools, concerned with rising costs of their schools, will champion this cause and promote political action to achieve their goals -those who oppose state aid will inevitably respond and employ political tactics to succeed; candidates will be forced to declare and voters to choose

Lemon Test

1. Statute must have a secular purpose -in this case, promoting education 2. The principal/primary effect of the statute must neither promote nor inhibit a religion 3. There couldn't be excessive entanglement between the government and a religious institute: the third prong

Constitutional Limitations on Newspapers

1. clear and present danger 2. obscenity 3. libel

Adamson v. CA Context

Adamson claimed that his conviction for murder violated the 14th Amendment because, under state law, the prosecution had been allowed to comment on his failure to take the stand at his trial- this was unfair -the majority, speaking through Justice Reed, agreed that in federal proceedings, the prosecution's comments would have violated the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Moreover, the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause did include the right to a fair trial -But, following Cardozo's reasoning in Palko, Reed found no grounds to apply that provision of the 5th Amendment to the states -Justice Cardozo: Hoover appointee; short term appointee who died young -he argued convincingly for a limited Due Process, as that would have fulfilled what he called 'Ordered Liberty': he argued that this was the goal of Due Process -Ordered Liberty: an attorney, jury, self-incrimination...is not necessary for Due Process; stripped away most of the Bill of Rights while still having a fair trial -this allowed states to continue to use the Due Process that they had in place without worry that the Supreme Court would intervene -Adamson did not want to go on the stand because he had committed other crimes; if he took the stand in his own defense, the prosecutor would question him about all his previous convictions: this was unfair too -ordered liberty protected this IMPORTANT A divided Court found that the the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause did not extend to defendants a Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves in state courts. Justice Reed argued that the Fourteenth Amendment did not extend carte blanche all of the immunities and privileges of the first ten amendments to individuals at the state level. In a lengthy dissent which included a deep investigation of the Fourteenth Amendment's history, Justice Black argued for the absolute and complete application of the Bill of Rights to the states.

NYT v. Sullivan Likely Effect

Curtis Publications v. Butts (1967) -Butts was a football coach at UGA: someone overheard him making a phone call to a team that he was planning on playing next week- they were talking about fixing the game -someone overheard this information and brought it to the Saturday Evening Post (Curtis Publications) -Butts brought suit against Curtis Publications for libel -the Court says that the Coach is not a politician, but he is a public figure, so the Sullivan Rule is extended to public figures: they too are vulnerable to criticism, and they can't block that because of their status Gertz v. Welch (1974) -the Court pulls back and says that the Sullivan Rule does not apply to private individuals (not a politician, not famous); the old rule holds for private individuals

Miller v. CA Context

Miller owned a restaurant, and his mother was standing next to him as he was opening his morning mail. There was a brochure advertising obscene videos and literature in the mail; he was deeply embarrassed by this fact. He insisted that the literature came to him unsolicited. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the work, taken as a whole (can't just open up a book and find the dirty words), appeals to a prurient (sexual) interest -this replaces the Hicklin standard -an effort to promote our morality over communist morality (communists have no morals) -obscenity contributes nothing to any discussion; not covered by the 1st Amendment -Justice Roth attempted to redefine the definition of obscene: lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value -with the exception of obstrusive advertising and distribution to minors, the 1st Amendment would prevent governmental suppression of allegedly obscene materials; the states, however, would retain power over modes of distribution -otherwise, the court would be bogged down in endless cases of definition Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings

Civil Rights Act of 1964

• Several months before his death, JFK came to the conclusion that in order to combat racial discrimination, the federal government needed greater statuatory authority -he asked Congress for legislation to provide the kind of equality of treatment which we would want ourselves • The bill proposed would ban discrimination in public accommodations, on the grounds that such businesses were affected with a public interest -Kennedy also sought power for the Justice Department to initiate suits when it had reason to believe that private parties were unable or afraid to sue on their own • Southerners blocked the bill for the rest of 1963, but after Kennedy's assassination in November, LBJ called on Congress to enact the bill as a memorial to Kennedy Content • all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accomodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin • however, the provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection • no person shall withhold, deny, attempt to or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right of privilege secured by this act, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce with the intent of interfering with any right or privilege secured by the act, or punish for exercising any right of privilege secured by the act • Comes 100 years after the 1864 Civil Rights Act: not a whole lot happened from 1864 to 1964 to further the cause of Civil Rights for everyone • Came in the wake of Kennedy's assassination -Kennedy did not do too much about Civil Rights: he was worried about re-election • Public accommodations cannot discriminate on the basis of race • The Civil Rights Act of 1864 did not apply to private individuals -the 14th Amendment applied to states, not individuals • This act's passage would align all three branches of the government in advocating equal rights for all Americans