the judicial branch-8
undocumented aliens
"Undocumented aliens" are aliens who have entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended. Most of these "undocumented aliens" enter the country by slipping across the Mexican or Canadian borders usually at night. Many are aliens who entered legally, as nonimmigrants, but overstayed their legal welcomes. The presence of many undocumented persons has raised a number of difficult problems that have only grown worse over the years. One example: Until 1987, it was legal to hire undocumented aliens. As a result, many undocumented aliens were hired over citizens because they worked for substandard wages. The increase in population due to undocumented aliens has also added stress on the public schools and welfare services of several states, notably California, Texas, and Florida.
citizen by birth
About 260 million Americans, nearly 90% of us, are American citizens because we were born in the United States. Another several million are also citizens by birth, even though they were born abroad. Citizenship by birth is determined by either jus soli or jus sanguinis. Jus soli is the law of the sol, or where one is born. The 14th Amendment confers citizenship according to the location of a person's birth and Congress has defined the United States to include, for purposes of citizenship, the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American embassies, and American public vessel anywhere in the world. Jus sanguinis is the law of the blood, or to whom on is born. A child born abroad can become an American citizen at birth as long as at least one parent is a citizen who has at some time lived in the United States.
alien and sedition acts of 2798
Congress first acted to curb opposition to government in the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Those acts gave the President the power to deport undesirable aliens and made "any false, scandalous, and malicious" criticism of the government a crime. These laws were meant to stifle the opponents of President John Adams and the Federalists. The Alien and Seditions Acts were undoubtedly unconstitutional, but that point was never tested in court. About 25 people were arrested for violating these acts; of those, ten were convicted. The Alien and Sedition Acts expired before Thomas Jefferson became President in 1801 and he soon pardoned those who has run afoul of them.
expatriation
Expatriation is the legal process by which a loss of citizenship occurs. Every American citizen has the right to renounce his or her citizenship. However, Congress cannot take away a person's citizenship for something he or she has done.
What is the significance of Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968 and Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987?
In Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968, the Court struck down a state law forbidding the teaching of the scientific theory of evolution. The Court held that the Constitution "forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma... 'The state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.'" The Court found a similar law to by unconstitutional in 1987. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Court voided a 1981 Louisiana law that provided that whenever teachers taught the theory of evolution, they also had to offer instruction in "creation science."
Explain the significance of the case Schmerber v. California, 1966.
In Schmerber v. California, 1966, the Court found no objection to a situation in which a police officer had directed a doctor to draw blood from a drunk-driving suspect. The Court emphasized these points: The blood sample was drawn in accord with accepted medical practice. The officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect was drunk. Further, had the officer taken the time to secure a search warrant, the evidence could have disappeared from the subject's system. This case is significant because it is the leading case on the conflict between the use of police power and civil rights protections. Time after time, state and federal courts have come down on the side of the police power. The courts have upheld the right of society to protect itself against drunk drivers and rejected the individual rights argument.
difference between civil liberties and civil rights
In general, civil liberties are protections against government. They are guarantees of the safety of persons, opinions, and property from arbitrary acts of government. Examples of civil liberties include freedom of religion, freedom of speech and press, and the guarantee of a fair trial. The term civil rights is sometimes reserved for those positive acts of government that seek to make constitutional guarantees a reality for all people. Examples of civil rights include the prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religious belief, or national origin, set out in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
how do cases reach the supreme court
Most of the Supreme Court's cases come on appeal from the lower federal courts and the highest state courts. The Court selects those cases that it does hear according to "the rule of four." At least four of its nine justices must agree that a case should be put in the Court's docket. Most cases reach the Supreme Court b writ of certiorari. This writ is an order by the Court directing a lower court to send up the record in a given case for its review. Either party to a case can petition the Court to issue a writ, but it is granted in a limited number of instances. Typically these instances raise some important constitutional question or a serious problem in the interpretation of a statute. A few cases also reach the Court by certificate. This process is used when a lower court is not clear about the procedure or the rule of law that should apply in a case. The lower court asks the Supreme Court to certify the answer to a specific question in that matter.
deportation
Most of the civil rights set out in the Constitution are guaranteed to "persons." That term covers aliens as well as citizens. However, the status of aliens is altogether unlike that of citizens: aliens may be subject to deportation, a legal process in which aliens are legally requires to leave the United States. The Supreme Court had long held that the United States has the same almost-unlimited power to deport aliens as it has to exclude them. In Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 1893, the Court ruled that deportation is an inherent power, arising out of the sovereignty of the United States, and deportation is not criminal punishment so it does not require a criminal trial. An alien may be deported in any one of several grounds. The most common today is illegal entry. Thousands of aliens who enter illegally and are caught each year are deported.
types of naturalization
Naturalization is most often an individual process, conducted by a court. The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security investigates each applicant and then reports to the judge of the court overseeing the petition for naturalization. At various times entire groups have been naturalized en masse. This has most often happened when the United States has acquired new territory and those living in the areas involved were naturalized by a treaty or by a joint resolution passed by Congress.
significance of 13th amendment
The 13th Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1865. The 13th Amendment is significant because it ended over 200 years of slavery in the United States. Section 1 of the amendment declares, "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,... shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Importantly, Section 2 of this amendment gives Congress the expressed power "to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Until 1865, each state could decide for itself whether to allow slavery. With the 13th Amendment, that power was denied to them, and to the National Government, as well.
purpose of 4th amendment
The 4th Amendment grew out of colonial practice. The amendment was designed to prevent the use of writs of assistance, blanket search warrants with which the British customs officials had invaded private homes to search for smuggled goods. The 4th Amendment has proved a highly important guarantee that reads: "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searched and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issues, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
due process by constitution
The Constitution contains the Federal Government cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The 14th Amendment places that same restriction on the states and on their local governments. The Supreme Court has consistently and purposely refused to give the two due process guarantees an exact definition. Instead, the Court has relied on finding the meaning of due process in a case-by-case basis. Fundamentally, however, the Constitution's guarantee of due process means this: In whatever it does, government must act fairly and in accord with established rules. Government may not act unfairly, arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably.
What is taken into consideration when a federal judge is appointed by the president?
The Constitution declares that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court." Senatorial courtesy is taken into consideration when a federal judge is appointed by the President. Senatorial courtesy means that the President almost always nominates someone who has been recommended by the senators from the state involved. A President also applies the same sorts or political considerations to his judicial selections as he does to his other appointments. The chief executive tends to look for judges who agree with his own legal, political, economic, and social views. The concepts of judicial activism and judicial restraint often play a part in the judicial selection process as well.
terms and pay of judges
The Constitution provides the terms regarding the term length for constitutional courts and the pay for federal judges. The judges of constitutional courts are appointed for life-until they resign, retire, or dies in office. They may be removed only through the impeachment process. Only 13 federal judges have ever been impeached. Of them, seven were convicted and removed by the Senate, including three in the recent past. The grant of what amounts to life tenure for most judges ensures the independence of the federal judiciary. The judges who sit in the special courts are not appointed for life. Those who hear cases in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the U.S. Tax Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims serve 15-year terms. In the District of Columbia, Superior Court judges are chosen for four-year terms; those who sit in the District's Court of Appeals are chosen for a period of eight years. Congress sets salaries of all federal judges and has provided a generous retirement arrangement for them. They may retire at age 70, and if they have served for at least 10 years, receive full salary for the rest of their lives. They may also retire at full salary at age 65, after at least 15 years of service. The Chief Justice may call any retired judge back to temporary duty in a lower federal court at any time.
background on marbury v. madison, exercise of judicial review
The Court first asserted its power of judicial review in the classic case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The case arose in the aftermath of the stormy elections if 1800. Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans had won the presidency and control of both houses of Congress. The outgoing Federakusts, stung by their defeat, then tried to pack up the judiciary with loyal party members. Congress created several new federal judgeships in the early weeks of 1801; President John Adams quickly filled those posts with Federalists. On the night of March 3, 1801, President Adams signed the commissions of office for William Marbury and other new judges. The next day Jefferson became the President and discovered that Marbury's commission and several others had not yet been delivered. Angered by the Federalists' attempted court-packing, Jefferson told James Madison, the new secretary of state, not to deliver those commissions. Marbury then went to the Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to force delivery. Marbury based his suit on a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789, in which Congress had created the federal court system. That law gave the Supreme Court the right to hear such suits in its original jurisdiction.
significance of equal access act if 1984
The Equal Access Act if 1984 is significant because it declares that any public high school that receives federal funds must allow student religious groups to meet in the school on the same terms that it sets for other student organizations. The Supreme Court found that the law does not violate the Establishment Clause.
establishment clause
The Establishment Clause appears in the 1st Amendment. The Establishment Clause sets out a guarantee of religious freedom, separating government and religion. The Establishment Clause keeps Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion.
reynolds v. united states, free exercise clause
The Supreme Court laid down the basic shape of the Free Exercise Clause in the first case it heard on the issue, Reynolds v. United States, 1879. Reynolds, a Mormon, had two wives. That practice, polygamy, was allowed by the teachings of his church, but it was prohibited by a federal law banning polygamy in any territory of the United States. Reynolds was convicted under the law. On appeal, he argued that the law violated his right to the free exercise of his religion. The Supreme Court disagreed, impacting the regulations of human conduct in the face of free exercise challenges. The Court held that the 1st Amendment does not forbid Congress the power to punish those actions that are "violations of social duties or subversive of good order."
immigration acts of 1965 and 1990
The country-based quota system in the Immigration Act of 1965 was eliminated by Congress. That law allowed as many as 270,000 immigrants to enter the United States each year, without regard to race, nationality, or country of origin. The 1965 law gave special preferences to immediate relatives of American citizens or of aliens legally residing in this country. Today, the Immigration Act of 1990 governs the admission of aliens to the United States. The act became effective on October 1, 1991 and it was adopted after years of intense debate. The 1990 law provided for a substantial increase in the number of immigrants who may enter the United States each year. The annual ceiling is now set at 675,000. The 1990 law also continues the family-preference policy first put in place in 1965; at least one third of those persons admitted under its terms must be close relatives of American citizens or resident aliens. Immigrants who have occupational talents in short supply in the United States such as skilled researchers, engineers, and scientists also receive special preference. Only those aliens who can qualify for citizenship can be admitted as immigrants.
Describe the functions of the officers who perform the administrative operations of the federal courts.
The judges of each of the 94 district courts appoint one or more United States magistrates and there are now over 400 of these magistrates. The magistrates are appointed to eight-year terms and handle a number of legal matters once dealt with by judges. They issue warrants of arrest, set bail in federal crimes cases, and hear evidence to decide whether or not a person who has been arrested on a federal charge should be held in action by a grand jury. Magistrates also have the power to try those who are charged with certain minor offenses. Each federal district also has at least one bankruptcy judge who handles bankruptcy cases under the direction of the district court to which they are assigned. They are appointed to 14-year terns by the judges of each federal court of appeals. The President and the Senate appoint a United States attorney for each federal judicial district. The U.S. attorneys are the government's prosecutors who bring to trial those persons charged with federal crimes. They also represent the United States in all civil actions brought by or against the government in their districts. The President and Senate select a United States marshal to serve each of the district courts. These marshals make arrests in federal criminal cases, hold accused persons in custody, secure jurors, serve legal papers, keep order in courtrooms, and execute court orders and decisions. They also respond to riots, mob violence, terrorist incidents, and other civil disturbances. United States attorneys and marshals are appointed to four-year terms.
importance of 9th amendment
The little-noted 9th Amendment declares that there are rights beyond those set out in so many words in the Constitution: the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or disparage other retained by the people. Over the years, the Supreme Court has found that there are, in fact, a number of other rights "retained by the people." They include the guarantee that an accused person will not be tried on the basis of evidence unlawfully gained and the right of a woman to have an abortion with undue interference by government.
significance of free exercise clause
The second part of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom is set out in the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause, which is significant because it guarantees to each person the right to believe whatever he or she chooses to believe in matters of religion. No law and no other action by any government can violate that absolute constitutional right that is protected by both the 1st and 14th Amendments.
dual court system
There are two separate court systems in the United States. On one hand, the national judiciary spans the country with its more than 120 courts. On the other hand, each of the 50 states has its own system of courts. Their numbers run well into the thousands. These state courts hear most of the cases in the country. On both the federal and state sides, the United States Supreme Court is at the top and is the final court of appeal.
exclusionary rule
To meet the problem of whether "tainted evidence" found in an unlawful search or seizure can be used in court, Congress adopted, and is still redefining, the exclusionary rule. Essentially, the rule is this: evidence gained as a result of an illegal act by police cannot be used at the trial of the person from whom it was seized. The High Court has narrowed the scope of the rule over the years-most notably in four cases. In Nix v. Williams, 1984, the Court found an "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule. The Court ruled that tainted evidence can be used in court if that evidence would have turned up no matter what-"ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means." In United States v. Leon, 1984, the Court upheld the actions of Los Angeles federal agents, stating that "when an officer acting with objective good faith has been obtained a search warrant... and acted within its scope... there is nothing to deter." In Arizona v. Evans, 1995, the Court held that the good faith exception applied in a case where evidence of a crime was seized by police who acted on the basis of a computer printout that later proved to be erroneous because the error was due to court clerks, not the police-who, the Court said, acted in good faith. In Maryland v. Garrison, 1987, the Court gave police room for "honest mistakes" by allowing the use of evidence seized in the mistaken search of an apartment in Baltimore.
types of inferior courts
a. District courts: The United States district courts are the federal trial courts. Their 665 judges handle more than 300,000 cases a year, about 80% of the federal caseload. The district courts were created by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789. There are now 94 district courts. Cases tried in the district courts are most often heard by a single judge. However, certain cases may be heard by a three-judge panel. b. Jurisdiction: The district courts have original jurisdiction over most cases that are heard in the federal courts, except those few cases that fall within the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and those cases that are heard by the U.S. Court of International Trade or by one of the special courts. Thus, these district courts are the principal trial courts in the federal court system. The district courts hear a wide range of both criminal and civil cases. District courts try cases ranging from mail fraud to tax evasion. District courts are the only federal courts that regularly use grand juries. c. Courts of appeals: The courts of appeals were created by Congress in 1891. They were established as "gatekeepers" to relieve the Supreme Court of much of the burden of hearing appeals from the district courts. Those appeals had become so numerous that the Supreme Court was then three years behind its docket, its list of cases to be heard. There are now 12 courts of appeals in the judicial system. d. Court of International Trade: The Trade Court was created originally in 1890 as the Board of United States General Appraisers. That body became the Court of Customs in 1926 and Congress restructured and renamed that court in 1980. The Court of International Trade now has nine judges, one of whom is its chief judge. The Court hears civil cases arising out of tariff and other trade-related laws. e. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Congress created the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982. Congress established the new court to centralize and speed up the handling of appeals in certain kinds of civil cases. This appellate court, unlike the 12 other federal courts of appeals, hers cases from all across the country. Thus, this Court has a nationwide jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hears appeals in patent, trademark, copyright, and administrative rulings cases, among many others.
prayer and bible in supreme court
a. Engel v. Vitale, 1962: The Supreme Court outlawed the use, even on voluntary basis, of a prayer written by the New York State Board of Regents. The prayer read: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country." b. Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963: The Supreme Court struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring that each school day begin with readings from the Bible and a recitation of the Lord's Prayer. The Court held that it is no 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 government. c. Muray v. Curlett, 1963: The Court erased a similar rule in the city of Baltimore. The Court found violations of "the command of the 1st Amendment that the government maintain strict neutrality, neither aiding nor opposing religion." d. Stone v. Graham, 1980: The Supreme Court has found this case unconstitutional as well. The case dealt with a Kentucky law that ordered the posting of the Ten Commandments in all public school classrooms. e. Lee v. Weismann, 1992: The Supreme Court has also found this case unconstitutional. This Rhode Island case dealt with the offering of prayer as part of a public school graduation ceremony.
scope of 14th amednment's due process clause in court cases
a. Mapp v. Ohio, 1961: The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause expanded further to include the provision of unreasonable searches and seizures which appears in the 4th and 14th Amendments. Admitting evidence gained by illegal searches was permitted by some states before Mapp. Cleveland police raided Dollree Mapp's home without a warrant and found obscene materials. However, she appealed her conviction on the basis that the 4th and 14th Amendments protected her against improper police behavior. The Court agreed, extending "exclusionary rule" protections to citizens in state courts, saying that the prohibition against unreasonable searches would be "meaningless" unless evidence gained in such searches was "excluded." Mapp developed the concept of "incorporation" begun in Gitlow v. New York, 1925. b. Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963: The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause expanded further to include the provision of right to counsel which appears in the 6th Amendment. In 1961, a Florida court found Clarence Earl Gideon guilty of breaking and entering and sentenced him to five years in prison. Gideon appealed his case to the Supreme Court on the basis that he had been unconstitutionally denied counsel during his trial due to Florida's policy on only providing appointed counsel in capital cases. The Court granted him a new trial and he was found not guilty. The "Gideon Rule" upheld the 6th's Amendment's guarantee of counsel of all poor persons facing a felony charge, a further incorporation of Bill of Rights guarantees into state constitutions.
terms and freedom of expression
a. Obscenity: Congress passed the first of a series of laws to prevent the mailing of obscene matter in 1872. The current law, upheld by the Court in Roth v. United States, 1957, excludes "every obscene, lewd, lascivious, of filthy" piece of material from the mails. Today, the lading case is Miller v. California, 1973, because there, the Court laid down a three-part test to determine what material is obscene and what is not. Any material is legally obscene if "the average person applying contemporary community standards" finds that the work appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. b. Prior restraint: Government cannot place prior restraint on spoken or written words, except in the most extreme situations. Near v. Minnesota, 1931, is a leading case in point. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the publication of any "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" periodical. The Court held that the guarantee of free press does not allow a prior restraint on publication, except in such extreme cases as wartime or when a publication is obscene or incites violence. c. Confidentiality: Many news reporters and news organizations insist that they must have the right to refuse to testify, the right to protect their sources. In recent years several reporters have refused to obey court orders directing them to give information, and they have gone to jail, thus testifying to the importance of these issues. In the leading case, Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972, the Supreme Court held that reporters, "like other citizens, must respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial." About 30 states have passed shield laws, however, which give reporters some protection against having to disclose their sources. d. Motion pictures: The Supreme Court took its first look at motion pictures early in the history of the movie industry. In 1915, in Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio, the Court upheld a state law that barred the showing of any film that was not of a "moral, educational, or harmless and amusing character." However, in 1952, the Court reversed itself in Burstyn v. Wilson, a New York censorship case. The Court found that "liberty of expression by means of motion pictures is guaranteed by the 1st and 14th Amendments." e. Radio and television: Both radio and television broadcasting are subject to extensive federal regulation based on the often-amended Federal Communications Act of 1934. In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969, the Supreme Court acknowledged, "of all forms of communication, it is broadcasting that has received the most limited 1st Amendment protection." Radio and television us the public's property, the public airways to distribute their materials. Thus, Congress held that radio and television distributors have no right to do so without the public's permission in the form of a proper license in National Broadcasting CO. v. United States, 1943. f. Symbolic speech (picketing): The expression and communication of ideas by conduct is known as symbolic speech. However, some conduct expresses opinions, such as picketing in a labor dispute which involves the patrolling of a business site by workers who are on strike. If peaceful, it is protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments. The leading case on the point is Thornhill v. Alabama, 1940, in which the Court struck down a state law that made it a crime to loiter about or to picket a place of business in order to influence others not to trade or work there. g. Commercial speech: Commercial speech is speech for business purposes; the term refers most often to advertising. Until the mid-1970s, it was thought that the 1st and 14th Amendments did not protect such speech. In Bigelow v. Virginia, 1975, however, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a state law that prohibited the newspaper advertising of abortion services. The following year, in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, the Court struck down another Virginia law forbidding the advertisement of prescription drug prices.
opinion written in marbury v. madison
a. Opinion: In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court refused Marbury's request. The Court did so because it found the section of the judiciary act on which Marbury had based his case to be in conflict with the Constitution, and, therefore, void. Specifically, the Court found the statute in conflict with the section of the Constitution that reads: "in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction. b. Propositions: 1. First, the Constitution is, by its own terms, the supreme law of the land. 2. Second, all legislative acts and other actions of government are subordinate to the supreme law and cannot be allowed to conflict with it. 3. Third, judges are sworn to enforce the provisions of the Constitution and therefore must refuse to enforce any government action they find to be in conflict with it.
processes in supreme court
a. Oral arguments: As a rule, the justices consider cases in two-week cycles form October to early May. They hear oral arguments in several cases for weeks; then the justices recess for two weeks to consider those cases and handle other Court business. While the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments, it convenes at 10:00 A.M. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and sometimes Thursdays. b. Briefs: Briefs are written documents filed with the Court before oral arguments begin. These detailed statements support one side of a case, presenting arguments built largely on relevant facts and the citation of previous cases. The Court may also receive amicus curiae, briefs filed by persons or groups who are not actual parties to a case but who nonetheless have a substantial interest in its outcome. c. Solicitor general: The solicitor general, a principal officer in the Department of Justice, is often called the Federal Government's chief lawyer. He or she represents the United States in all cases to which it is party in the Supreme Court and may appear for the government for any federal state court. He or she also decides which cases the government should ask the Supreme Court to review and what position the United States should take in those cases it brings before the High Court. d. Conference: On most Wednesdays and Fridays through a term, justices meet in conference. There, in closest secrecy, they consider the cases in which they have heard oral arguments. The Chief Justice speaks first, indicating how he intends to vote, and then each associate justice, in order of seniority, summarizes his or her views. e. Opinions (majority, concurring, dissenting): If the Chief Justice is in the majority in a case, he assigns the writing of the Court's opinion, but if the Chief Justice is in the minority, the assignment is handled by the senior associate justice on the majority side. Often, one or more of the justices who agree with the Court's decision may right a concurring opinion to add or emphasize a point that was not made in the majority opinion, the Court's decision and reasoning in a case. One or more dissenting opinions are often written by those justices who do not agree with the Court's majority decision.
right to privacy and abortion cases
a. Roe v. Wade, 1973: The case of Roe v. Wade, 1973, is the leading case on the topic of abortion. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that made abortion a crime except when necessary to save the life of a mother. The Court held that the 14th Amendment's right of privacy "encompasses a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." The case is significant because it brought about regulations on abortion. The Court ruled that in the first trimester of pregnancy, a state must recognize a woman's right to an abortion and cannot interfere with medical judgements in that matter. In the second trimester a state, acting in interest of women who undergo abortions, can make reasonable regulations about how, when, and where abortions can be performed, but cannot prohibit the procedure. In the final trimester a state, acting to protect the unborn child, can choose to prohibit all abortions except those necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. b. Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 1990: This case is significant because the issue of minors and abortion was addressed. In Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 1990, the Court said that a state may require a minor to inform at least one parent before she can obtain an abortion. In a different case that occurred in 1990, the Court said that a state may require a minor to tell both parents of her plans, except in cases where a judge gives permission for an abortion with parental knowledge. c. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992: The Court's most important decision on the issue since Roe v. Wade came in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992. There the Court announced this rule: a state may place reasonable limits on a woman's right to have an abortion, but these restrictions cannot impose an "undue burden" on her choice of that procedure. The Court applied that new standard to Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act. The act upheld sections of the law that say: a woman who seeks an abortion must be given professional counseling intended to persuade her to change her mind, a woman must delay an abortion for at least 24 hours after her counseling, an unmarried female under 18 must have the consent of a parent or the permission of a judge before an abortion, and doctors and clinics must keep detailed records of all abortions they perform. The Court said those four requirements do not impose an "undue burden" on a woman.
government regulations
a. Time-place-manner regulations: Governments can make and enforce reasonable rules covering the time, lace, and manner of assemblies. However, Government rules must be content neutral, meaning it cannot regulate assemblies on the basis of what might be said there. The Supreme Court has upheld laws prohibiting the making or diversions near a school if the action disrupts school activities and forbidding parades near a courthouse when they are intended to influence court proceedings. The power to control traffic or keep a protest rally form becoming a riot can be used as an excuse to prevent speech, making the line between crowd control and thought control very thin. b. Demonstrations on public property: Most of the Court's freedom of assembly cases have involved organized demonstrations, or assemblies, over the past several years. Most demonstrations take place in public places, on streets and sidewalks, in parks or public buildings, and so on. Demonstrations almost always involve some degree of conflict and protest that can also lead to a conflict with the normal use of streets or other public facilities. Given all this, the Supreme Court has often upheld laws that require advance notice and permits for demonstrations in public places. c. Right of assembly and private property: The rights of assembly and petition do not give people a right to trespass on private property, even if they wish to express political views. Since privately owned shopping centers are not "places of public assembly," no one has a constitutional right to do such things as hand out political leaflets or ask people to sign petitions in those places. However since the case of Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner, 1972, the Court has held this: a state supreme court may interpret the provisions of the state's constitution in such a way as to require the owners of shopping centers to allow the reasonable exercise of the right of petition on their private property. In that event, there is no such violation of the property owners' rights under any provision in the federal Constitution. d. Freedom of association: The guarantees of freedom of assembly and petition include a right of association. That is, those guarantees include the right to associate with others to promote political, economic, and other social causes. The Court's most recent case bearing on freedom of association involved the Boy Scouts of America. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 2000, the Court held that the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude gays from their organization because opposition to homosexuality is a part of the Boy Scout organization's "expressive conduct," or what they stand for.
special courts
a. United States Federal Claims Court: The Court of Federal Claims is composed of 16 judges appointed by the President and approved by the Senate for 15-year terms. They hold trials throughout the country, hearing claims for damages against the Federal Government. Those claims they uphold cannot in fact be paid until Congress appropriates the money, which it does almost as a matter of standard procedure. b. The Courts of the District of Columbia: Congress has set up a judicial system for the nation's capital. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia hear many local cases as well as those they try as constitutional courts. Congress has also established two local courts, much like the courts in the states: a superior court, which is the general trial court, and a court of appeals. c. Court of Military Appeals: In 1950, Congress created the Court of Military Appeals, now titled the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The Court reviews the more serious court-martial convictions of military personnel. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is a civilian tribunal, a court operating as part of the judicial branch, entirely separate from the military establishment. d. Court of Veterans Appeals: Congress created the Court of Veterans Appeals in 1988 and changed its name in 1999 to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This newest court in the federal judiciary is composed of a chief judge and up to six associate judges with a 15-year term. The court has the power to hear appeals from the decisions of an administrative agency and hear cases in which individuals claim that the VA has denied or otherwise mishandled valid claims for veterans' benefits. e. United States Tax Court: Congress established the United States Tax Court in 1969. The Tax Court has 19 judges that have 15-year terms. The Tax Court hears civil but not criminal cases involving disputes over the application of the tax laws.
