Judicial branch

Justifiable disputes

A requirement that to be heard in a case must be capable of being settled as a matter of law rather than on other grounds as is commonly the case in legislative.

Original intent

A view that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of the framers. Many conservatives support this view

Shenck v US

Facts of the case During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Question Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment? . The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not shield advocacy urging conduct deemed unlawful under the Espionage Act Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Schenck is not protected in this situation. The character of every act depends on the circumstances. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.

Engel v Vitale

Facts of the case The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country." Question Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment? Yes. Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion. This was the first in a series of cases in which the Court used the establishment clause to eliminate religious activities of all sorts, which had traditionally been a part of public ceremonies. Despite the passage of time, the decision is still unpopular with a majority of Americans.

Bill of rights

The Bill of Rights in the United States comprises the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which were adopted on December 15, 1791. They are designed to guarantee of individual rights and set limitations on federal and state governments. The Bill of Rights derives from the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the colonial struggle against the English king and Parliament, as well as a gradually broadening concept of equality among the American people. The guarantees in the Bill of Rights have binding legal force. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, 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. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Courts of appeal

The United States Courts of Appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States Federal Court system. The 12 regional circuits are organized from the 94 U.S. judicial districts. Each of these regional circuits, along with the Federal Circuit, has a United States Court of Appeals. A Court of Appeals hears and decides on appeals from the District Courts located within its Federal Judicial Circuit as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies and other designated federal courts. The decisions of the Court of Appeals are binding on the District Courts located within its Circuit. There are currently thirteen United States Courts of Appeals. There are other tribunals such as the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces which hear appeals in court martial cases that are also designated as Court of Appeals. The First Circuit to the Eleventh circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit are geographically defined. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals is the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has nationwide jurisdiction over certain appeals based on a variety of subject matters, including international trade, government contracts, patents, trademarks, certain money claims against the United States government, federal personnel, and veterans' benefits. Appeals to this Court come from all Federal District Courts, the United States Court of Federal Claims, the United States Court of International Trade, and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Court also takes appeals of certain administrative agencies' decisions, including the United States Merit Systems Protection Board, the Boards of Contract Appeals, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board. Decisions of the United States International Trade Commission, the Office of Compliance of the United States Congress and the Government Accountability Office Personnel Appeals Board are also reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The other Courts of Appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking.

Libel

The law of defamation protects a person's reputation and good name against communications that are false and derogatory. Defamation consists of two torts: libel and slander. Libel consists of any defamation that can be seen, most typically in writing. Slander consists of an oral defamatory communications. The elements of libel and slander are nearly identical to one another. Historically, the law governing slander focused on oral statements that were demeaning to others. By the 1500s, English courts treated slander actions as those for damages. Libel developed differently, however. English printers were required to be licensed by and give a bond to the government because the printed word was believed to be a threat to political stability. Libel included any criticism of the English government, and a person who committed libel committed a crime. This history carried over in part to the United States, where Congress under the presidency of John Adams passed the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to criticize the government. Congress and the courts eventually abandoned this approach to libel, and the law of libel is now focuses on recovery of damages in civil cases. Beginning with the landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the law of defamation has a constitutional dimension. Under this case and subsequent cases, the Court has balanced individual interests in reputation with the interests of free speech among society. This approach has altered the rules governing libel and slander, especially where a communication is about a public official or figure, or where the communication is about a matter of public concern.

Opinions

the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision

Plea bargaining

A plea bargain is a negotiated agreement between a criminal defendant and a prosecutor in which the defendant agrees to plead "guilty" or "no contest" to some crimes, along with possible conditions, such as attending anger management classes, in return for reduction of the severity of the charges, dismissal of some of the charges, or some other benefit to the defendant. A defendant must uphold his or her end of the deal, such as pleading guilty on a particular date, cooperating in the investigation of another offense, or testifying against a co-defendant.or the plea bargain may be revoked. Plea bargaining helps save the time and expense of trials by allowing the prosecutor to obtain guilty pleas in cases that might otherwise go to trial. The judge must approve the plea bargain before accepting the plea. Critics of plea bargaining argue that it may be used to coerce confessions to crimes the defendant didn't commit, and that it results in dangerous offenders being set free too early.

Poll taxes

A poll tax is a uniformed tax levied on every adult in the community. Poll taxes have their roots in ancient tax systems and have been criticized as an unfair burden on the poor. Historically, in the U.S., they were enacted in south as a prerequisite for voting disfranchising many African Americans and poor whites.

Prior restraint

A prior restraint is an official restriction of speech prior to publication. Prior restraint refers to an unconstitutional attempt to prevent publication or broadcast of any statement, which is restraint on free speech and free press prohibited by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The ban on prior restraint allows publication of libel, slander, obvious untruths, anti-government diatribes, racial and religious epithets, and almost any material, except if public security or public safety is endangered and some forms of pornography. The theory, articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Near v. Minnesota (1931) is that free speech and free press protections have priority, and lawsuits for libel and slander and prosecutions for criminal advocacy will curb the effect of defamation and untruths. Blackstone's theory on this subject held that liberty of the press depended on having no prior restraints on publications, and not in freedom from punishment when cri minal matter is published. In 1971, the Nixon Administration went to court to stop publication of "the Pentagon Papers," a series of accounts based on a stolen, classified document entitled, "The History of U. S. Decision-Making on Viet Nam Policy." The Court in New York Times v United States concluded that a prior restraint on publication of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers violated the First Amendment.

Search warrants

A search warrant is an order issued by a judge that authorizes police officers to conduct a search of a specific location. A search warrant describes the address to be searched, identifies the persons (if known) and any articles intended to be seized. Such a search warrant can only be issued upon a sworn written statement of a law enforcement officer seeking the warrant to the magistrate and requesting the magistrate to issue the warrant based on the probability of criminal activity. Police may search a dwelling even when the occupant is not present and even without exigent circumstances. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution specifies: "...no warrants shall issue, 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." The 14th Amendment applies the rule to the states. Evidence unconstitutionally seized cannot be used in court, nor can evidence traced through such illegal evidence. A defendant has standing to challenge the legality of a search on Fourth Amendment grounds only if he has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place searched. The Fouth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. In one case involving the search of a student's purse by school officials, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider "whether the . . . action was justified at its inception;" second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted "was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, however, there must be probable cause or a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before a vehicle may be searched. Items in "plain view" may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. Any part of the vehicle can be searched if probable cause exists. However, passengers may not be searched without probable cause or consent from the passenger(s) to search their persons or effects. The return of evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant is governed in federal law by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 (e). State rules vary, so local law should be consulted.

Writ of certiorari

A writ of certiorari is an order a higher court issues in order to review the decision and proceedings in a lower court and determine whether there were any irregularities. When a court issues a writ or certiorari it is referred to as "granting certiorari", or 'cert.' When the U.S. Supreme Court orders a lower court to transmit records for a case for which it will hear on appeal, it is done through a writ of certiorari. Certiorari is the common method for cases to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court since it has specific jurisdiction over a very limited range of disputes. A supreme court has power to review the proceedings of all lower tribunals and to rule upon their authority to hear the case and their decisions on questions of law. However, the lower court's determination on questions of fact will rarely be disturbed, although a state statute may authorize a higher court to do so.

Katz v US

Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz. Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. On appeal, Katz challenged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court granted certiorari. Question Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone? Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart

13th amendment

Amendment XIII - Abolition Of Slavery (1865) The amendment states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution ratified on December 6, 1865, abolished slavery as a legal institution. The primary purpose of the Amendment was to abolish the institution of African slavery as it had existed in the United States at the time of the Civil War, but the Amendment was not limited to that purpose. The phrase "involuntary servitude" was intended to extend "to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which in practical operation would tend to produce like undesirable results." Involuntary servitude occurs when an individual coerces another into his service by improper or wrongful conduct that is intended to cause, and does cause, the other person to believe that he or she has no alternative but to perform the labor. Involuntary servitude includes the concepts of obtaining labor by: Threatening or using actual physical force Threatening or using actual state-imposed legal coercion Physically restraining or threatening to physically restrain another person Destroying, concealing, removing, confiscating or possessing any actual or purported passport or other immigration document, or any other actual or purported government identification document, of another person Blackmail Causing or threatening to cause financial harm to any person The Supreme Court has addressed issues that arise under the Thirteenth Amendment. In United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (U.S. 1988), the Court explored the meaning of the term involuntary servitude. In this case, two mentally challenged men in poor health was kept laboring on a farm. The men worked seven days a week, 17 hours a day, initially for $15 per week and then for no pay at all. Their employers used various forms of physical and psychological threats and force to keep the men on the farm. The Court held that "involuntary servitude" requires more than mere psychological coercion; it also requires physical or legal coercion. The Court observed that the Thirteenth Amendment was designed not only to abolish slavery of African Americans, but also to prevent other forms of compulsory labor similar to slavery.

19th amendment

Amendment XXVI reads: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." The Twenty Sixth Amendment set the voting age for U.S. citizens at eighteen. For many years, a large number of Americans were denied the basic right to vote. Earlier, the qualifications for voting were set by individual states. Before ratification of the Constitution in the year 1788, most of the states limited voting rights only to white, male citizens who were at least 21 years old. Following a long list of amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, discrimination in voting practices in the U. S. was significantly reduced. The term suffrage means the right to vote. Initially, the right to vote was limited to white males who owned property. Poor white men, women and slaves were not entitled to voting rights. Various Amendments made from time to time extended voting rights. The Fifteenth Amendment triggered a tremendous change in this regard. That Amendment forbade the consideration of a citizen's race, color or condition of servitude in granting their right to vote. By virtue of the nineteenth Amendment, voting right was extended to American women. Poll taxes in federal elections were barred by the twenty-fourth amendment. The Vietnam War is considered to be one of the main triggers for altering the voting age of U.S. Citizens to 18 years. The average age of an American soldier in Vietnam War was about 19. The students protested reasoning that if the Americans could fight and die for the country at the age of 18 and 19; they should not be denied the right to vote. The twenty-sixth amendment was proposed on March 23, 1971 and ratified on July 1, 1971.

Supreme Court justices

Amistad Movie Poster The Supreme Court chose to hear the case United States v. the Claimants of the Amistad (1841) because of its implications to the United States's foreign relations. The case was documented in Steven Spielberg's 1997 movie, Amistad. The Court receives about 7,000 petitions every year. It has almost complete control over which cases it will hear. The justices choose about 90 percent of their 100 to 120 cases by writ of certiorari, an order to send up a case record from a lower court. Typically, the justices discuss any cases one of them has recommended from earlier readings. The Rule of Four governs their choices: if four justices vote to hear a case, all nine agree to it. How do they choose their cases? Generally, the Court considers only cases that have far-reaching implications beyond the two parties involved in the dispute. For example, a case in which a student sues an assistant principal for searching a locker may shape the privacy rights of all students in public schools. The court also tends to hear cases in which two lower courts have reached conflicting decisions. And it tends to look closely at lower court decisions that contradict earlier Supreme Court decisions. Hearing and Deciding a Case Thurgood Marshall NAACP lawyers congratulate each other on the decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). Attorney Thurgood Marshall, center, was later named the first African American justice of the Supreme Court. Hearings begin in October every year, and the last cases are usually heard in June. The justices receive briefs, or summaries of arguments, from the lawyers ahead of time. Often they receive amici curiae, or briefs prepared by interest groups or government agencies that support one side or the other. The hearings are open to the public and are strictly timed. Each side has 30 minutes to present its case, and the justices typically ask questions and even debate one another during the allotted time. After the public hearing the justices meet together privately to discuss the case. They share their opinions, debate the issues, and eventually come to a conclusion. Each justice takes a side individually, and because there are nine justices (an uneven number), one side always wins.

Fifth amendment

As originally ratified it was unclear whether the Fifth Amendment applied only against action taken by the federal government or if it also protected freedoms from state governmental abuse. The Supreme Court in Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) ruled that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states. This judgment settled the question until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. It guaranteed the citizens of every state the right to equal protection of the laws and the right to due process of law. Following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court began making individual freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states via the doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine, the Court explained through a series of cases that no state may deny any citizen a fundamental liberty without violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. The Court has ruled that these fundamental liberties include every liberty set forth in the Bill of Rights, except the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, the Third Amendment's right against quartering soldiers, the Seventh Amendment's right to trial by jury in civil cases, and the Fifth Amendment's right to indictment by grand jury.

Civil righta

Civil rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their boundaries. A civil right is a right or privilege that can be enforced by an individual. This means that if a person violates another's civil rights, it gives the later a right to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Violations of civil rights occur in instances of discrimination against an individual solely because of his/her membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances, even sexual preference. Civil rights include a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted government action and ensure one's ability to participate in civil and political affairs without discrimination or repression.

Gideon v wainwright

Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony: having broken into and entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court and argued that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief. Question Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? Yes. Justice Hugo L. Black delivered the opinion of the 9-0 majority. The Supreme Court held that the framers of the Constitution placed a high value on the right of the accused to have the means to put up a proper defense, and the state as well as federal courts must respect that right. The Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own

Comparable worth

Comparable worth refers to being paid similarly for jobs with comparable knowledge, skills, and abilities. It is a term for a reform effort to pay different job titles the same wages based on their value to their employer regardless of the gender of those working in such titles. It is also referred to as "pay equity". The gist of comparable worth or pay equity is the assumption that jobs traditionally done by women have been undervalued in the marketplace. Therefore, jobs which are mainly held by women are paid less than comparable jobs with the same levels of skills and responsibilities but commonly held by males. This bias against women's work can be demonstrated and subsequently eliminated by assessing the economic value of different jobs through the use of gender-neutral job evaluation systems. The job evaluation system is a tool used to compare traditionally male and female jobs relative to their skills and responsibilities. Comparable worth laws have been voted on in Congress, but have never passed. Comparable worth policies have been implemented for government jobs in Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Washington, Denver, San Jose, Canada, Australia. For example, Minnesota imposes salary reporting requirements on certain employers. Its state law requires all public jurisdictions such as cities, counties, and school districts to eliminate any sex-based wage inequities in compensation. The Minnesota Compensation Division staff assist local government employers in implementing this law. In 1992, the division began analyzing reports from local governments to ensure that compliance is achieved and maintained. There are also companies who offer salary disparity research services to businesses and other entities.

Concurrent jurisdiction

Concurrent jurisdiction is the ability to exercise judicial review by different courts at the same time, within the same territory, and over the same subject matter. For instance, a domestic violence matter may be heard in either a general civil court or a family court in the same county. Whichever court actually exercises its jurisdiction first will do so exclusively. A state may have concurrent jurisdiction with a federal court, for example, when a crime defined under state law is committed on federal property, and certain offenses involving Indian tribal members. State and federal courts also have concurrent jurisdiction over the Jones Act, which authorizes seaman who suffers personal injury in course of employment to bring action for damages at law.

Cruel and unusual punishment

Cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution as well as some state constitutions. The U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The defendant has the burden of proving that his punishment is greater than that imposed for more serious offenses in the state and that similar offenses in other states do not carry punishments as severe. Critics of the death penalty argue that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The issue of cruel and unusual punishment often arises in claims of prisoner mistreatment by officials.

Double jeopardy

Double jeopardy refers to a person being tried again for the same offense after being acquitted. Double jeopardy is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...". The Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense. However, if charges are brought by independently by state and federal governments, it has been found not to violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Due process clause

Due Process Clause is a clause in the U.S. Constitution that embodies a system of rights based on moral principles. The due process principle states that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Thus the due process clause in the constitution prohibits the state and local government from depriving people of their life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. In the U.S. Constitution, the concept of due process is discussed under the fourteenth and the fifth amendments to the constitution. Following is the excerpt of USCS Const. Amend. 14, § 1 dealing with due process: "***nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law****" Under the Fifth Amendment the due process clause has two aspects: 1. procedural- Procedural due process is concerned with the process by which legal proceedings are conducted; and 2. substantive- Substantive due process is concerned with the content of particular laws that are applied during legal proceedings.

Equal protection of the law

Equal protection of the laws is provided in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. It deals with preventing discrimination in application of the laws, rather than guaranteeing equality among individuals. It is an important civil rights law that forms the basis for many discrimination lawsuits. Generally, the Supreme Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to support a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a classification when it involves a "suspect classification" (race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship). In order for a classification involving a suspect class to be found legal under this test, the state must prove that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel.

US v Nixon

Facts of the case A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Richard Nixon's closest aides in the Watergate affair. The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive privilege," which is the right to withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest. Decided together with Nixon v. United States. Question Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review? No. The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.

Swann v Charlotte Mecklenburg County schools

Facts of the case After the Supreme Court's decision in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, little progress had been made in desegregating public schools. One example was the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, system in which approximately 14,000 black students attended schools that were either totally black or more than 99 percent black. Lower courts had experimented with a number of possible solutions when the case reached the Supreme Court. Question Were federal courts constitutionally authorized to oversee and produce remedies for state-imposed segregation? n a unanimous decision, the Court held that once violations of previous mandates directed at desegregating schools had occurred, the scope of district courts' equitable powers to remedy past wrongs were broad and flexible. The Court ruled that 1) remedial plans were to be judged by their effectiveness, and the use of mathematical ratios or quotas were legitimate "starting points" for solutions; 2) predominantly or exclusively black schools required close scrutiny by courts; 3) non-contiguous attendance zones, as interim corrective measures, were within the courts' remedial powers; and 4) no rigid guidelines could be established concerning busing of students to particular schools

University of California v Bakke

Facts of the case Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race. Question Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school? No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

Lemon v Kurtzman

Facts of the case Both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island adopted statutes that provided for the state to pay for aspects of non-secular, non-public education. The Pennsylvania statute was passed in 1968 and provided funding for non-public elementary and secondary school teachers' salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects. Rhode Island's statute was passed in 1969 and provided state financial support for non-public elementary schools in the form of supplementing 15% of teachers' annual salaries. The appellants in the Pennsylvania case represented citizens and taxpayers in Pennsylvania who believed that the statute violated the separation of church and state described in the First Amendment. Appellant Lemon also had a child in Pennsylvania public school. The district court granted the state officials' motion to dismiss the case. In the Rhode Island case, the appellees were citizens and tax payers of Rhode Island who sued to have the statute in question declared unconstitutional by arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The district court found in favor of the appellees and held that the statute violated the First Amendment. Question Do statutes that provide state funding for non-public, non-secular schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? The Pennsylvania statute is unconstitutional under the religion clause of First Amendment for excessive entanglement of state and church. The Rhode Island statute is unconstitutional under the religion clause of First Amendment for excessive entanglement of state and church. Yes. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the opinion for the 8-0 majority. The Court held that a statute must pass a three-pronged test in order to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion, and it must not foster "excessive government entanglement with religion." The Court held that both the state statutes in question had secular legislative purposes because they reflected the desire of the states to ensure minimum secular education requirements were being met in the non-public schools. The Court did not reach a holding regarding the second prong of the test, but it did find that the statutes constituted an excessive government entanglement with religion

New York Times v Sullivan

Facts of the case Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment. Question Did Alabama's libel law, by not requiring Sullivan to prove that an advertisement personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections? The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan's case collapsed

Gitlow v New York

Facts of the case Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for distributing copies of a "left-wing manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. Gitlow was convicted under a state criminal anarchy law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force. At his trial, Gitlow argued that since there was no resulting action flowing from the manifesto's publication, the statute penalized utterences without propensity to incitement of concrete action. The New York courts had decided that anyone who advocated the doctrine of violent revolution violated the law. Question Is the New York law punishing advocacy to overthrow the government by force an unconstitutional violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment? Threshold issue: Does the First Amendment apply to the states? Yes, by virtue of the liberty protected by due process that no state shall deny (14th Amendment). On the merits, a state may forbid both speech and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though such utterances create no clear and present danger. The rationale of the majority has sometimes been called the "dangerous tendency" test. The legislature may decide that an entire class of speech is so dangerous that it should be prohibited. Those legislative decisions will be upheld if not unreasonable, and the defendant will be punished even if her speech created no danger at all.

Griswold v Connecticut

Facts of the case Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception. Question Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.

Near v Minnesota

Facts of the case Jay Near published a scandal sheet in Minneapolis, in which he attacked local officials, charging that they were implicated with gangsters. Minnesota officials obtained an injunction to prevent Near from publishing his newspaper under a state law that allowed such action against periodicals. The law provided that any person "engaged in the business" of regularly publishing or circulating an "obscene, lewd, and lascivious" or a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" newspaper or periodical was guilty of a nuisance, and could be enjoined (stopped) from further committing or maintaining the nuisance. Question Does the Minnesota "gag law" violate the free press provision of the First Amendment? The Supreme Court held that the statute authorizing the injunction was unconstitutional as applied. History had shown that the protection against previous restraints was at the heart of the First Amendment. The Court held that the statutory scheme constituted a prior restraint and hence was invalid under the First Amendment. Thus the Court established as a constitutional principle the doctrine that, with some narrow exceptions, the government could not censor or otherwise prohibit a publication in advance, even though the communication might be punishable after publication in a criminal or other proceeding.

Barron v Baltimore

Facts of the case John Barron was co-owner of a profitable wharf in the harbor of Baltimore. As the city developed and expanded, large amounts of sand accumulated in the harbor, depriving Barron of the deep waters which had been the key to his successful business. He sued the city to recover a portion of his financial losses. Question Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property's owner? No. The Court announced its decision in this case without even hearing the arguments of the City of Baltimore. Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Marshall found that the limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. Citing the intent of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights as an exclusive check on the government in Washington D.C., Marshall argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states

DeJonge v Oregon

Facts of the case On July 27, 1934, at a meeting held by the Communist Party, Dirk De Jonge addressed the audience regarding jail conditions in the county and a maritime strike in progress in Portland. While the meeting was in progress, police raided it. De Jonge was arrested and charged with violating the State's criminal syndicalism statute. The law defines criminal syndicalism as "the doctrine which advocates crime, physical violence, sabotage or any unlawful acts or methods as a means of accomplishing or effecting industrial or political change or revolution." After being convicted, De Jonge moved for an acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to warrant his conviction. Disagreeing, the State Supreme Court distinguished that the indictment did not charge De Jonge with criminal syndicalism, but rather that he presided at, conducted and assisted in conducting an assemblage of persons, organization, society and group called by the Communist Party, which was unlawfully teaching and advocating in Multnomah county the doctrine of criminal syndicalism and sabotage. Question Does Oregon's criminal syndicalism statute violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion Yes. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes, the Court held that the Oregon statute, as applied, violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. After reviewing the record, the Court determined that De Jonge's sole offense was assisting in a public meeting held under the auspices of the Communist Party. The Court reasoned that to preserve the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly - principles embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment - not the auspices under which a meeting is held, but the purpose of the meeting and whether the speakers' remarks transcend the bounds of freedom of speech must be examined, which had not occurred in De Jonge's case. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Roe v Wade

Facts of the case Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall. Question Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling

Districts courts

Federal District Courts are the general trial courts of the United States Federal Court System. These district trial courts were established by Congress. The federal court system includes 94 district courts in the 50 states, Washington, D. C., Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern Marinara Islands. A Federal District Court is a court of law, equity, and admiralty where civil and criminal cases are heard. Each federal district also has a bankruptcy unit, as district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases. There are 89 such federal judicial districts in the United States. Most states have only one federal judicial district. Larger states can have between two and four districts. For the purpose of a proper federal judicial administration, a number of federal judicial districts are further divided into federal judicial divisions. Each federal judicial district has at least one federal judicial court. In some federal districts and divisions, there are more than one federal district trial courts. However, it is not constitutionally mandatory that there must be a district court at every federal judicial district. Federal district courts generally have jurisdiction to hear cases involving federal law and those involving citizens of different states. If a party in a state case can prove that a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear a case, the party may remove the case to the federal court. However, the federal court may abstain from hearing a case that involves questions of both federal law and state law. A situation may also arise where a federal district court may no longer have jurisdiction to hear a case because of changes in the parties to the suit. If a case has been removed to federal district court and the federal district court lacks jurisdiction, the court on motion of one of the parties will remand the case to the appropriate state court.

Marbury v Madison

In the last days of President John Adams' presidency, he nominated a number of people to serve as justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. The Senate confirmed the nominations, and the commissions were prepared. President Adams' Secretary of State, John Marshall, did not deliver all of the commissions before President Thomas Jefferson took office. President Jefferson then ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commissions. The plaintiffs, men whose commissions were not delivered, sued Madison in the Supreme Court and argued that, in refusing to deliver the commissions, the Secretary of State was neglecting his Constitutional duty. Question (1) Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions? (2) Can they sue for their commissions in court? (3) Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions? Yes, yes, no. Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the unanimous opinion. (1) The Supreme Court held that the Constitution grants the president the power to appoint and commission officers of the United States. Because the only evidence of the appointment is the commission, the two actions are tied together. Without the commission, the appointment is not complete, and so the president's signature on the commission is the final step in the appointment process. (2) The Court also held that, upon appointment, the officers have acquired rights to their positions under the law. If those rights are denied, then they may seek redress in the courts. (3) Marbury and others sought an original action for their commissions in the Supreme Court. But the congressional act conferring that authority conflicts with Article III Section 2 of the Constitution. The judicial power in the United States extends to all cases under the Constitution and the Supreme Court is bound to decide cases according to the Constitution rather than the law when the two conflict. So if a law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, then the law is invalid. In this case, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act ran counter to the Constitution and is therefore void. Thus, lacking authority, the Supreme Court canceled Marbury's claim

Judicial activism

Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own visions regarding the needs of contemporary society. Judicial activism believes that judges assume a role as independent policy makers or independent "trustees" on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws. The concept of judicial activism is the polar opposite of judicial restraint. Critics of judicial activism assert that it subverts the separation of powers principle founded by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Judges frequently must interpret what the law actually says, but they are often accused of "judicial activism" if their interpretation seems be a rewriting of the law, especially if their rulings strike down or substantially revise laws passed by actual lawmakers.

Law clerk

Judicial clerkship is a one to three-year post-graduate position with a judge in federal or state court. The candidate who undertakes the judicial clerkship is called a law clerk or a judicial clerk and provides assistance to a judge. A law clerk assists the judge in researching issues before the court and in writing opinions. Judicial clerkship is different from internship and externship. Similarly law clerks are different from court clerks. The most prestigious judicial clerkships in the United States are those with the United States Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals and some of the U.S. district courts and state Supreme Courts. After a judicial/federal clerkship for a term of one to two years, the law clerks usually get absorbed by elite law firms. Candidates apply for judicial clerkships roughly a year before the clerkship begins. The application process is largely streamlined by the National Federal Judges Law Clerk Hiring Plan, and the OSCAR system.

Judicial reatraint

Judicial restraint refers to the doctrine that judges' own philosophies or policy preferences should not be injected into the law and should whenever reasonably possible construe the law so as to avoid second guessing the policy decisions made by other governmental institutions such as Congress, the President and state legislatures. This view is based on the concept that judges have no popular mandate to act as policy makers and should defer to the decisions of the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and of the states in matters of policy making so long as these policymakers stay within the limits of their powers as defined by the US Constitution and the constitutions of the several states. The deference to lawmakers exhibited by exercising judicial restraint is opposed to the concept of judicial activism. The activist seeks to determine what is "just," not necessarily what is intended by law. In the area of constitutional law, the judicial activist views the U.S. Constitution as a living, dynamic document which must necessarily be interpreted to meet the needs of modern times.

Judicial review

Judicial review is defined as the process by which courts examine the actions of the three wings of the government i.e., legislative, executive, and administrative wings. It also determines whether such actions are consistent with the constitution of the country. The function of judicial review of agency action is to determine: The authority of the agency; Compliance by the agency with appropriate procedural requirements; Whether an agency action is arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.[i] Thus, judicial review ensures that an essentially fair process is employed by an agency, invalidating only those actions in which governmental regularity has lapsed into mere will.[ii] The Administrative Procedure Act provides for comprehensive judicial review of agency actions. Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action is entitled to judicial review as long as the action is a final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.[iii] In Yeboah v. INS, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17360 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 26, 2001), it was observed that there are three criteria by which courts consider while deciding whether action of an agency is reviewable: Firstly, the agency must have broad discretionary powers. Secondly, courts have to consider whether the action implicates any political, military, economic, or other choices not essentially legal in nature and, thus, whether the action is not readily susceptible to judicial review. Thirdly, even actions committed to agency discretion by law are reviewable on grounds that the agency lacked jurisdiction, decision of the agency resulted from impermissible influences or such decision violates any constitutional, statutory, or regulatory command.

Legislative courts

Legislative courts refer to courts created by legislature, other than courts created by constitution. Legislative courts are set up for some specialized purpose. For example, Court of Claims, and the U.S. Tax Court. USCS Const. Art. I, § 8, Cl 9 and USCS Const. Art. IV, § 3, Cl 2 empower congress to establish legislative courts and prescribe the jurisdiction of such courts. In American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1828), the High Court ruled that the U.S. Congress had the power to establish a federal court in the U.S. territory of Florida. The legislative courts are created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty, which exists in the government. Legislative courts also may be created as special tribunals to examine and determine various matters, arising between the government and others. [Benson v. Crowell]

Miranda v Arizona

Miranda rights are specific rights that any person who is taken into police custody is entitled to. Law enforcement officers are required to inform a suspect in custody of their Miranda rights. Miranda warnings are often given verbally upon arrest and on paper before a written confession is taken. Failure to adequately provide a Miranda warning can make any statements made by that suspect inadmissible in court. In the landmark decision MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, the U.S. Supreme Court set standards for law enforcement officers to follow when attempting to interrogate suspects whom they hold in custody. Suspects who are subject to custodial interrogation must be notified that they have the following Miranda rights: 1) they have the right to remain silent; 2) any statements that they make may be used as evidence against them; 3) they have the right to an attorney; and 4)if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them prior to any questioning, if they so desire. Under Miranda, unless those warnings are given, no evidence obtained during the interrogation may be used against the accused. Confessions and other information that a suspect provides to the law enforcement will not be admissible or usable in court unless the suspect has been made aware of his/her "Miranda rights". Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona in order to protect a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination during police interrogation.

Per curiam opinion

Per curiam refers to a decision handed down by the court as a whole, without identifying any particular judge as the author. It is the opinion of the court as a single body. Most decisions on the merits by the Supreme Court and other appellate courts in the U.S. are signed by individual justices. Even when such signed opinions are unanimous, they are not termed "per curiam." Per curiam decisions usually deal with issues the court views as relatively non-controversial. For example, "per curiam affirmed" (PCA) refers to a decison of a court, without identifying any judges by name, finding that the decision of a lower court was correct. Such a decision is often made without rendering an opinion. This may be due to the heavy caseload of a court and need to conserve scarce judicial resources, which prevents a written opinion in every case. A criticism of PCA's is that such a decision and the lack of a record for its basis recludes further review.

Precedent

Precedent means deferring to a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which forms the basis in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. The requirement that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis. Precedent means that the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases. A recent decision in the same jurisdiction as the instant case will be given great weight. Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court will adopt the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court. In contract law, the term "condition precedent," means a situation which must exist before a party to a contract has to perform.

Probable cause

Probable cause is a standard used in justifying certain police actions. For example, police need to have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime exists in requesting a search warrant to be issued. It is more than mere suspicion but less than the amount of evidence required for conviction. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has two clauses. The first states that people have a right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the second states that no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause. Probable cause is the level of evidence held by a rational and objective observer necessary to justify logically accusing a specific suspect of a particular crime based upon reliable objective facts. For example, a police officer may claim there is probable cause for attempted theft when someone is found trespassing on private property late at night wearing a stocking mask, in order to justify stopping and searching the person for possession of criminal tools.

De facto segregation

Racial segregation, especially in public schools, that happens "by fact" rather than by legal requirement. For example, often the concentration of African-Americans in certain neighborhoods produces neighborhood schools that are predominantly black, or segregated in fact ( de facto ), although not by law ( de jure

Jim Crow laws

Segregation laws- "separate but equal"

Selective incorporation

Selective incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Selective incorporation is not a law, but has been established over time through court cases and rulings by the United States Supreme Court. At its heart, selective incorporation is about the ability of the federal government to limit the states' lawmaking powers

Self incrimination

Self-incrimination refers to making statements or producing evidence which tends to prove that one is guilty of a crime. The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is applied to state cases under the 14th Amendment, guarantees that one cannot "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." Therefore, when a person "takes the Fifth", they are refusing to testify in court on the basis that the testimony may be self-incriminating. A person may choose, with certain restrictions, to "take the Fifth," refusing to testify in court or before a legislative or executive committee. Prohibiting self-incrimination not only helps guarantee due process of law, but also maintains one of the basic principles of American law by putting the burden of proof on the prosecution. The privilege against self-incrimination is a personal one. It applies to individual persons only. A corporation cannot "plead the Fifth" in order to keep quiet. Also, it only applies in criminal cases. A witness cannot keep silent or withhold information in civil proceedings.

Separate but equal doctrine

Separate but equal doctrine refers to a now-defunct principle that allowed African-Americans to be segregated if they were provided with equal opportunities and facilities in education, public transportation, and jobs. The rule was expounded in the case Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (U.S. 1896) where the court held that if one race is inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane. The object of the Fourteenth Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. This rule was overruled by the court in Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1954) where the court held that "Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of African-American children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system. In the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, segregation is a deprivation of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."

Stare decisis

Stare decisis is a Latin term meaning "to stand by things decided". It is a legal doctrine in which courts generally follow the application of the law as decided in similar prior cases, which is referred to as following precedent. The requirement that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis. Precedent means that the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases. A recent decision in the same jurisdiction as the instant case will be given great weight. Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court will adopt the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court.

Suspect classifications

Suspect classification refers to a characteristic used in applying a law, which a court will review subject to a strict scrutiny standard. A classification is called suspect because it is likely to be based on illegal discrimination. The clearest example of a suspect classification is race. History shows that most laws that use race as a way to classify people are based on racial discrimination and have no legitimate purpose. Racial classifications are automatically suspect, so courts apply the highest level of scrutiny and almost always strike down racial classifications. There is no definitive list of suspect classifications, but the Supreme Court typically treats as suspect any classification of people who: Have an inherent trait. Have a trait that is highly visible As a class, have been disadvantaged historically. Are part of a group that has historically lacked effective representation in the political process. Racial and ethnic classifications are the two suspect classifications most often given strict scrutiny.

Symbolic speech

Symbolic speech is a term used in the context of free speech rights unser the First Amendment, to refer to conduct that expresses an idea, as opposed to verbal speech. Examples of symbolic speech, among others, include sit-ins, flag waving, demonstrations, and wearing protest buttons. In restricting symbolic speech, the government must be regulating conduct, not expression.

24th amendment

The 24th Amendment to the U.S. constitution ratified in 1964 that made it illegal for a state to use payment to all taxes as a requirement to vote in the national elections. Few blacks could vote because they had a little money. The poll tax to vote was $1.50. A woman decided to take the poll tax issue to court. In Oct.1965, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Evelyn T. Butts' appeal. In 1966 the Supreme Court of the United States declared Poll Taxes unconstitutional.

American disability act

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a revolutionary piece of legislation designed to protect the civil rights of people who have physical and mental disabilities, in a manner similar to that in which previous civil rights laws have protected people of various races, religions, and ethnic backgrounds. The ADA mandates changes in the way that both private businesses and the government conduct business to ensure that all Americans have full access to and can fully participate in every aspect of society. The ADA requires the removal of barriers that deny individuals with disabilities equal opportunity and access to jobs, public accommodations, government services, public transportation, and telecommunications. The law applies to small companies as well as to large ones, so small business owners must be aware of its provisions and how they affect their companies' employment practices, facilities, and products. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency charged with enforcing the various aspects of the ADA. It is estimated that 50 million Americans, or one out of every five, have a disability. As defined in the ADA, the term "disability" applies to three categories of individuals: 1) people who have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; 2) people who have a record of an impairment which substantially limits major life activities; and 3) people who may be regarded by others as having such an impairment. For an employee or job applicant to be protected by the ADA, an individual must be "disabled" in one or more of the above manners, be "otherwise qualified" for the position, and be able to perform the essential functions of the job, "with or without accommodation."

ERA

The Equal Rights Amendment affirms that both women and men hold equally all of the rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. The most important effect of the ERA would be to clarify the status of sex discrimination for the courts, whose decisions still show confusion about how to deal with such claims. For the first time, "sex" would be a suspect classification like race. It would require the same high level of "strict scrutiny" and have to meet the same high level of justification - a "necessary" relation to a "compelling" state interest - as the classification of race. The Equal Rights Amendment was first proposed in 1923, but has never been made part of the U.S. Constitution. The ERA has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, the ERA might become the 28th Amendment. The ERA was first introduced into Congress in 1923. Congress finally passed it and submitted it to the states for ratification on March 22, 1972. An original deadline of seven years was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982.When this deadline expired, only 35 states (of the necessary three-fourths, or 38) had ratified. It has been reintroduced into every session of Congress since that time.

Establishment clause

The Establishment Clause is a provision in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, extended to apply to the states through the Fouteenth Amendment, which prohibits laws dealing with the establishment of religion. Neither the state or federal government may enact laws which aid one or all religions, or give a preference to one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. There is often tension between application of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, which protects the exercise of religious freedom. Common issues involving the Establishment Clause involve the inclusion of religious symbols in public holiday displays and school prayer, among others. The Engel v. Vitale decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1962 prohibited state-mandated prayer in public schools classrooms. However, students may express religious preferences in various ways, such as carrying Bibles or other religious texts with them on the school bus, and praying alone or in groups on school grounds, or in classrooms outside of regular teaching hours. Students may also form a Bible study club or any other religious club, if another student-led group is already allowed in the school, and may hand out religious materials.

14th amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment contains a number of important concepts, most famously state action, privileges & immunities, citizenship, due process, and equal protection—all of which are contained in Section One. However, the Fourteenth Amendment contains four other sections. Section two deals with the apportionment of representatives to Congress. Section Three forbids anyone who participates in "insurrection or rebellion" against the United States from holding federal office. Section Four addresses federal debt and repudiates debts accrued by the Confederacy. Section Five expressly authorizes Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment "by appropriate legislation

Unreasonable search and seizure

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment provides that no warrant can be issued if there is no probable cause to conduct search or seizure. Administrative inspections are also protected by the Fourth Amendment. However, administrative agency searches do not strictly adhere to the Fourth Amendment and the requirement of probable cause. Simply put, if a governmental interest is at stake, then that is a sufficient finding of

Solicitor general

The Solicitor General is appointed by the President of the United States to assist the Attorney General and supervises and conducts government litigation in the United States Supreme Court. Virtually all such litigation is channeled through the Office of the Solicitor General and is actively conducted by the Office. The United States is involved in about two-thirds of all the cases the U.S. Supreme Court decides on the merits each year. The Solicitor General determines the cases in which Supreme Court review will be sought by the government and the positions the government will take before the Court. The Office's staff attorneys participate in preparing the petitions, briefs, and other papers filed by the government in its Supreme Court litigation. The Solicitor General personally assigns the oral argument of government cases in the Supreme Court. Those cases not argued by the Solicitor General personally are assigned either to an attorney in the Office or to another government attorney. The Solicitor General also reviews lower court cases for possibility of appeal or participation as an amicus curiae.

Incorporation doctrine

The doctrine of incorporation is the process by which most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution are applied to the states. The Bill of Rights guarantees basic liberties, such as the right of free speech, religion, and press, the right to bear arms, and others contained in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court began interpreting the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, with the reasoning that certain rights are so fundamental that they are necessary to due process guaranteed to citizens and made applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Today, selective incorporation exists, applying the First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, Sixth Amendment criminal due process rights, and the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and required compensation for government takings to states. However, the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Third Amendment ban against quartering troops, the Fifth Amendment right to indictment by a grand jury, and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury in civil cases have not been extended to states.

Exclusionary rule

The exclusionary rule is a rule of evidence which prevents introducing information at trial that directly or indirectly stems from illegal police investigation. The U.S. Supreme Court developed the rule to deter police from violating the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Right to privacy

The right to privacy is the right to be let alone, in the absence of some "reasonable" public interest in a person's activities, like those of celebrities or participants in newsworthy events. Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity violating the right. The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has interpreted several of the amendments as creating this right. One of the amendments is the Fourth Amendment, which stops the police and other government agents from searching us or our property without "probable cause" to believe that we have committed a crime. Other amendments protect our freedom to make certain decisions about our bodies and our private lives without interference from the government. The due process clause of the 14th amendment generally only protects privacy of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.

Free exercise clause

The term "Free Exercise Clause" means "that portion of the first amendment to the Constitution that proscribes laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

Selection of federal judges

Who appoints federal judges? Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution. The names of potential nominees are often recommended by senators or sometimes by members of the House who are of the President's political party. The Senate Judiciary Committee typically conducts confirmation hearings for each nominee. Article III of the Constitution states that these judicial officers are appointed for a life term. The federal Judiciary, the Judicial Conference of the United States, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts play no role in the nomination and confirmation process. How are new judgeships created? Court of appeals and district court judgeships are created by legislation that must be enacted by Congress. The Judicial Conference (through its Judicial Resources Committee) surveys the judgeship needs of the courts every other year. A threshold for the number of weighted filings per judgeship is the key factor in determining when an additional judgeship will be requested. Other factors may include geography, number of senior judges, and mix of cases. The Judicial Conference presents its judgeship recommendations to Congress.

New Jersey v TLO

With the advent of increased availability of drugs and weapons for juveniles during the last twenty years, search and seizure laws have been challenged by many students who felt their constitutional rights were violated by unreasonable searches at school. Prior to 1968, the constitutional rights of students took a back seat to the doctrine of loco parentis, which meant that the school and its officials took the place of the parent. Under this philosophy, students had few constitutional rights. The first serious challenge to this philosophy came in 1969 when the Supreme Court decided in Tinker v. De Moines Independent School District that students should be allowed to wear black arms bands as a symbol of protest against the United States involvement in the Vietnam war. The court held that this was an expression of free speech and therefore was a First Amendment right. Fourth Amendment protection against search and seizure was argued in the courts for years and was finally resolved in New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985). In this case, a teacher had searched a student's possessions after the student was found smoking a cigarette. Subsequently, the teacher found marijuana and drug paraphernalia. There were two major questions raised by this case. First was whether students who are searched on school property have Fourth Amendment privileges and, second, what determines probable cause for a search. In other instances, a warrant is required before a search can be conducted. The courts held that Fourth Amendment Privileges do extent to students, but school authorities can search without a warrant provided the search is reasonable in inception and reasonable in scope. However, in order for law enforcement personnel to conduct a search, a warrant must be procured. This point becomes important in light of the number of schools which have their own police officers. Thus, in order for a search to take place, there must be the following conditions: reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. Such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonable and related to the objectives of the search and are not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction. (New Jersey v. T.L.O. 1985, p. 733)

Voting rights act of 65

a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.[7][8] It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the Civil Rights Movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.[7] Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act secured voting rights for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country.[9]

Affirmative action

affirmative action is the process of a business or governmental agency in which it gives special rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that minority. Affirmative action has been the subject of debate, with opponents claiming that it produces reverse discrimination against Caucasians. Affirmative action programs are governed by a number of overlapping laws. A common principle is that whether for admissions or employment, affirmative action programs such as targeted recruitment and goals are encouraged to remedy past effects of discrimination; quotas are disfavored. Affirmative action in American employment law has evolved through a series of governmental proclamations, court decrees, and voluntary programs instigated by employers in the private sector. Private employers who receive no public funding are not required to adopt affirmative action policies. Affirmative action policies are enforced by the entities adopting them if they are voluntary, while affirmative action policies required by government mandates can be enforced through the legal system

Civil liberties

are personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge, either by law or by judicial interpretation, without due process

Federalist papers 78

discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress

Civil rights of 64

enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and US labor law in the United States[5] that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Federal court jurisdiction

federal court, on the other hand, has more extensive jurisdiction than a state court. While the jurisdiction of state courts are limited by their boundaries, the federal court system covers the entire nation. For example, the Supreme Court can hear cases from any state. Federal Courts of Appeal can hear cases from any of the states in their region (except for the D.C. Circuit, which only hears cases from the District of Columbia). The federal courts also have jurisdiction on some cases where one party is outside of the United States of America.

Judicial implementation

how and whether court decisions are translated into actual policy, thereby affecting the behavior of others; the courts rely on other units of government to enforce their decisions

Standing to sue

in law, the requirement that a person who brings a suit be a proper party to request adjudication of the particular issue involved. The test traditionally applied was whether the party had a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy presented and whether the dispute touched upon the legal relations of the parties having adverse legal interests.

Standards for classification

is an international classification system for technical standards. It is designed to cover every economic sector and virtually every activity of the humankind where technical standards may be used

Class actions suita

is one in which a group of people with the same or similar injuries caused by the same product or action sue the defendant as a group

Senatorial courtesy

is referred to a custom in the U.S. Senate by which the president consults a senior U.S. senator of his political party of a given state before nominating any person to a federal vacancy within that senator's state. President may refer the names of possible appointees to senators from the states from which the appointees reside. The president may withdraw the names of those appointees that the senators find disagreeable

Litigants

is someone involved in a lawsuit. The person who sues and the person who gets sued are both litigants

Amicus curiae brief

is someone who is not a party to a case and is not solicited by a party, but who assists a court by offering information that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court.

Litigation

is the act of bringing a case to court to settle a dispute. The term describes the actual legal process where parties argue their case against each other in our court system. Parties in a case involved are called litigants. Each party assembles its argument supported by findings and facts. Litigants, usually called plaintiff and defendant, utilize the discovery process and other court procedures to build their case before trying it in front of a judge or jury

Appellate jurisdiction

is the power of a higher court to review decisions and change outcomes of decisions of lower courts. Most appellate jurisdiction is legislatively created, and may consist of appeals by leave of the appellate court or by right. Depending on the type of case and the decision below, appellate review primarily consists of: an entirely new hearing (a non trial de novo); a hearing where the appellate court gives deference to factual findings of the lower court; or review of particular legal rulings made by the lower court

Statutory construction

is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation both to legislation enacted by the legislature and to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.

Original jurisdiction

of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a higher court has the power to review a lower court's decision

Constitutional courts

refers to courts that are named, described, or expressly protected by a Constitution. The Constitutional Courts are usually considered as the appellate courts of the country. The establishment of Constitutional Court is pursuant to USCS Const. Art. III, § 1. Thus these courts are also known as Article III courts

15th amendment

to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.