Precedent Court Cases
Marbury v Madison
Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States Date of Decision: 1803 Facts/History: William Marbury was one of the last minute appointees to federal offices in the last hours of John Adam's presidency but his nomination did not complete the process before James Madison took the office of Secretary of State and did not complete the nomination of William Marbury. Marbury and the others sued for their jobs going directly to the Supreme Court. Issue: Do the last minute appointees have rights to the positions they were appointed to and is the lawsuit in the Supreme Court the right way to get it? Decision: The Court voted unanimously that Marbury was entitled to his commission but that the court did not have the power to grant it because the part of the Judicial Act of 1789, which gave the Court the power to give a writ of mandamus and also let it have original jurisdiction in a case like Marbury's, was unconstitutional. Significance: This case is significant because this decision established the power of judicial review which let the supreme court declare legislative acts and executive orders unconstitutional.
Wisconsin V. Yoder (1972)
Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States Date of Decision: May 15, 1972 Facts/History: Respondents Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller members of the Old Order Amish Religion, and Adin Yutzy a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were convicted of violating Wisconsin's Law on public school attendance. All students were to attend public school until the age of 16. The three parents refused to send their children to public school after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs and way of life. Issue: Did Wisconsin's requirement that all students should attend public school until the age of 16 years old violate the first amendment on the free exercise of religion? Decision: In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that citizens rights located in the first amendment outweighed the state's interest in compelling students school attendance beyond the eighth grade. In the majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court found that the values and programs of secondary school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion," an additional one or two years of high school wouldn't produce the benefits of public education. Significance: The decision prohibited state governments from intruding on the way families raise their children and gave parents the legal right based of religion to decide how to educate their children.
Texas V. Johnson
Court name: Supreme Court of the United States Date of Decision: 1989 Facts/History: In 1984, outside a Republican National Convention, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American Flag to protest President Ronald Reagan's policies. He was arrested for violating a Texas statute. He was then tried and convicted by a Texas court, arguing that his action were "symbolic speech" which was protected by the first amendment. It then went on to the Supreme Court. Issue: Does Johnson's action of flag burning constitute as symbolic speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. Decision: The decision of the court was divided 7-3. The majority of the court sided with Johnson saying that flag burning did constitute as symbolic speech. It may cause many to be offended, but that is not enough to suppress free speech. The minority stated that the flag was a symbol of national unity, and government could prohibit flag burning. Significance: This Court established that actions, such as flag burning, can be constituted as symbolic speech, which is protected by the First Amendment.
Roe v. Wade
District Court for the Northern District of Texas Date of Decision: 1973 Facts/History: Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law didn't allow abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. Roe sued Texas on the basis of right to privacy. The Court heard arguments twice. Issue: Does the Constitution (14th amendment right to privacy) embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? Decision: 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. Significance: The decision ruled that women have the decision over abortion over the first trimester of their pregnancy 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.
Schenck v. United States
Federal District Court Date of Decision: 1919 Facts/History: 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. Issue: If Schenck's actions were protected under the 1st Amendment. Decision: In unanimous decision, the court found Schenck's actions to not be protected by the 1st Amendment due to 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. Significance: This court case established that your 1st Amendment Right is influenced by situations and that during wartime it is unlawful to disrupt recruitment.
Near v Minnesota
SCOTUS 1931 Facts/History: Near was prevented from publishing a scandal sheet that connected local Minnesota officials with gangs. Issue: Does the MN "gag law" violate the free press provision of the 1st amendment? Decision: 5-4 for Near, the government can't prohibit in advance. It was published by Charles E. Hughes. Significance: This verified protection against censorship, even if it could be punished after publication. Prior restraint case.
Korematsu v. United States
Stone Court 1944 Facts/History: In the second world war, an Executive Presidential order and congressional statutes gave an authority to the military that allowed them to remove and prohibit the entrance of people with Japanese ancestry from any areas that affected the stability of the national defense. Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu stayed in San Diego, California which was a violation of the Japanese exclusion of the U.S. army. Issue: By limiting the rights of the Japanese-Americans, were the war powers of Congress and the President extended farther than their allowing horizons? Decision: With the court siding with the government, the decision resulted in a 6-3 vote for United States. The voted for the protection of the espionage which resulted in the Korematsu's loss of the case. A justice in the case, Justice Black, declared that the temporary of exclusion of a certain group is condoned in "circumstances of emergency and peril." Significance: This court case established the justification of excluding a certain, specific group in times of "emergency and peril."
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Supreme Court of The United States 1992 Facts: Pennsylvania's new abortion provision required a minor who wanted an abortion required an informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period before the procedure. A minor needed the consent of one parent. A married women had to give consent that she notified her husband of her intentions to get an abortion. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. The federal appeals court held all of the provisions except for the husband notification requirement. Issue: Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade? Decision: The court decided 5 to 4 to uphold the decision in Roe v. Wade, and upheld most of the Pennsylvania requirements. Significance: It imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether the state abortion rules has the effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." The husband requirement was seen as an undue-burden.
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Supreme Court of United States Date of decision: March 3, 1971 Facts/history: The case began because the state of Pennsylvania passed a law that allowed the local government to use money to fund educational programs that taught religious-based lessons, activities and studies. The case of Lemon v. Kurtzman was filed by Alton Lemon, a Pennsylvania instructor who claimed that the state had violated the United States Constitution by passing the law mentioned above. Lemon believed that Pennsylvania violated the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution because the Constitution does not allow the establishment of any state laws or legislation that combine the interests of religious people with the interests of the state's population. Issue: Is it constitutional for the state to provide financial assistance to religious schools for the cost of teaching secular subjects? Decision: The Court ruled 8-0 against the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island parochiaid programs. The Court found that the government was too involved with religion in this case, a violation of the Constitution. Significance: established the "Lemon Test," a three-pronged test for determining whether a statute passes scrutiny under the First Amendment's prohibition of laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
Brown v. Board of Education & Brown II
Supreme Court of the United States 1954 Facts/History: Brown v. Board of Education was a court ruling in which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, which allowed separation of races, as long as they were "separate but equal". This had applied to schools, as well. Brown v. Board of Education rule de jure racial segregation as a violation of the 14th amendment, and therefore resulted in integration of public school systems. Brown II had ordered schools to desegregate "with all deliberate speed." Issue: Is "separate but equal" actually equal? Does that idea violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment? Decision: The court ruled that it was in violation of the 14th amendment to allow racial segregation, because if races are forced to be separate, they are therefore, also made unequal. It was a unanimous court decision. Significance: This case is extremely significant, because it desegregated public schools, which was a major step towards racial equality. With all public facilities segregated at the time, this made a huge difference on the advancement towards equality. The new reasoning being introduced was that "separate but equal" was not a valid argument. Separate automatically results in equality.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld/ Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Supreme Court of the United States 2004/2006 Facts/History: Salim Ahmed Hamdan was Osama Bin Laden's chauffeur before he was captured by Afghani forces and imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. While incarcerated, he filed for a writ of habeas corpus at the district court, but before they could rule on it, a military tribunal ruled that he was an enemy combatant. However, months later, the district court granted his petition and it carried to the appeals court, who then ruled the writ granted unvalidated. Issue: Do those imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay or those considered enemies of the state have rights given by the constitution, and are they entitled to the right of due process? Are rights and privileges different at times of war? Decision: By a 5-3 vote, it was ruled that during times of war, a military court can review those determined enemies of the state, and they are not entitled to due process during this time. Significance: This set the precedent for how we view prisoners and enemies, and how we treat them both in peacetime and wartime.
Mcdonald v Chicago
Supreme Court of the United States 2010 Facts/History: Several suits were filed against Chicago challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. There, the Court reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, thus, the Second Amendment was applicable. Here, plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states. The district court dismissed the suits. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Issue: Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and made applicable to the states? Decision: It was a 5-4 decision for Otis Mcdonald. With Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Significance: The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states.
Gitlow v. New York
Supreme Court of the United States Date of Decision: 1925 Facts/History: Benjamin gitlow was arrested for handing out copies of a "left wing manifesto" that called for socialism through strikes and civil disobedience. He convicted under a state law that punished for the advocation of overthrowing the government by force. Gitlow argued that because there was no resulted action from the publication, the statute punished without concrete action. The New York court decided that anyone who advocated the doctrine violated the law Issue: Is the NY law that punishes advocacy to overthrow government by force a violation of the first amendment and the free speech clause? Decision: The Supreme Court decided 7-2 that the New York statute does not violate the free speech clause. They ruled that the first amendment does apply to the states, but states have the power to restrict both speech and publication if they can result in an action dangerous to public safety. Significance: The court established that the first amendment also applies to the states but they have the right to limit speech if it is dangerous to public safety
Mapp v. Ohio
Supreme Court of the United States Date of Decision: 1961 Facts/History: Dollree Mapp's house was searched by the police. They had a search warrant to search her house for a bombing fugitive. Although they didn't find the fugitive, they did find some obscene material and Mapp was tried in a court of law for having these. Mapp appealed claiming freedom of expression. Issue: The evidence against Dollree Mapp was found in violation of the Fourth Amendment; can the illegally acquired evidence be used and presented against the defendant in a court of law? Decision: The court sided with Dollree Mapp decided that all evidence acquired by an illegal search and seizure was a violation of the Fourth Amendment and such evidence is not admissible in a court of law. The search and seizure warrant was to find a fugitive, not to search for obscene material. The box containing the obscene material wasn't big enough to hide a fugitive and therefore shouldn't have been searched which means the obscene material was found by illegal search and seizure. Significance: This case established the requirement of excluding illegally acquired evidence from every level of court in the government.
Tinker v. Des Moines School District
Supreme Court of the United States Date of Decision: 1969 Facts/History: In December 1965, a group of students lead by Christopher Eckhardt, planned a public showing of their protest against the Vietnam conflict. The students decided to wear black armbands with a peace symbols throughout the holiday season. The Des Moines school administration heard about the plan and created a policy that banned wearing armbands on December 14. On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The following day, John Tinker wore the armband and was also sent home. The students with the help of their parents, sued the school district for violating the student's right of expression and sought an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students. The U.S. District Court dismissed the case and held that the school district's actions were reasonable. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed the decision. The case was then moved up to the Supreme Court. Issue: Does a prohibition against wearing armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the student's freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment? Decision: In an opinion of 7-2, the Supreme Court sided with the students and held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. The Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school and is not justified in this case. Significance: This case is significant because it established that students do not lose their First Amendment rights when they enter the school. Students are allowed the freedom of speech as long as it does not cause an interference or disturbance.
McCulloch v. Maryland
Supreme Court of the United States Date of Decision: April 10, 1819 Facts/History: "Maryland enacted a statute imposing a tax on all banks operating in Maryland not chartered by the state. The statute provided that all such banks were prohibited from issuing bank notes except upon stamped paper issued by the state. The statute set forth the fees to be paid for the paper and established penalties for violations. "The Second Bank of the United States was established pursuant to an 1816 act of Congress. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States, issued banknotes without complying with the Maryland law. Maryland sued McCulloch for failing to Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, 'the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme...they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them.'" "McCulloch v. Maryland." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Dec 18, 2015. Significance: "[This] is one of the first and most important Supreme Court cases on federal power. In this case, the Supreme Court held that Congress has implied powers derived from those listed in Article 1, Section 8. The "Necessary and Proper" Clause gave Congress the power to establish a national bank." "McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Bill of Rights Institute." Bill of Rights Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2015.
Buckley V. Valeo
Supreme Court of the United States Date of Decision: Jan 30, 1976 Facts: In the wake of the Watergate affair, Congress attempted to ferret out corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates. Among other things, the law set limits on the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required reporting of contributions above a certain threshold amount. The Federal Election Commission was created to enforce the statute. Issue: Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and association clauses? Decision: First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association. Significance: Campaign contribution limits do not violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech. The Federal Election Commision was created to enforce this.
Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services
Supreme Court of the United States Date of Decision: July 3, 1989 Facts/History: Missouri passed a law prohibiting the use of public employees, funding, and facilities for abortions that were unnecessary to save the mother's life. They argued that "life begins at contraception." Encouragement and counseling to have an abortion was banned. Lower courts struck down the restrictions, but it was so controversial that it went to the Supreme Court. Issue: The question was, did these restrictions infringe on the rights that women have to privacy? Decision: The court was in favor of the restrictions that Missouri had proposed. They ruled that it was not required for states to provide funding for abortions; it is up to their discretion. They made the decision that the bill was only proposing restrictions, not a complete ban on abortions. Chief Justice Renquist announced the judgment and opinion of the court. Significance: The court showed that this was a topic that should be left up to the states, as it is not explicitly written in the Constitution.
Miranda v. Arizona
Supreme Court of the United States Date of Decision: June 13th 1966 Facts/History It's implied in the Fifth Amendment of "the right not to make any self-incriminating statements" that you have to right to stay silent while being a criminal suspect. At the time, this was not known to many suspected criminals at the time. They were occasionally forced to speak, even when they wish not to. They were not given a warning to their rights in the interrogation process, therefore, were not aware. This case was several different cases brought together since they all had a similar issue. None of them were aware of their rights so they were not given those constitutional rights. Issue Should criminal suspects be told of their rights? Do convicted criminals being interrogated have rights? What do the implications of the fifth amendment apply to? Decision It was ruled that criminal suspects, prior to their interrogation, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. Significance Established the Miranda Rights. The Miranda Rights must be spoken every time a police officer handcuffs someone.
Gibbons v. Ogden
Supreme Court of the United States Date of Decision: March 2, 1824 Facts/ History: New York state law gave individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. Laws like this were duplicated elsewhere, leading to friction as some states would require out of state boats to pay fees for navigation privileges. In this case, Thomas Gibbons, a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey under a federal coastal licences, challenged the monopoly license granted by New York to Aaron Ogden. New York courts consistently upheld the state monopoly. Issue: Did the State of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to congress, namely, the regulation of interstate commerce? Decision: The Court decision was unanimous for Gibbons. Under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, the New York monopoly was void because it went against federal law. The unanimous court found that New York's licensing requirement was inconsistent with congressional act regulating the coastal trade. The New York law was invalid because of the Supremacy Clause. In his opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall developed a clear definition of the word commerce, which included navigation on interstate waterways. He also gave the meaning to the phrase "among the several states" in the Commerce Clause. Marshall's was one of the earliest and most influential opinions concerning this important clause. He concluded that regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by the congress. Significance: The court established that the national government had exclusive power over interstate commerce, negating state laws interfering with the exercise of that power.
Plessy v Ferguson
Supreme Court of the United States Date of decision: May 18, 1896 Facts/ History: Louisiana had a law that blacks and whites must have "separate but equal" train cars to ride in. Homer Plessy, who was 7/8 Caucasian and 1/8 black, sat in a car for whites only. After refusing to switch cars, Plessy was arrested. Plessy then said that the information given about his arrest was "null and void" because of the unconstitutionality of the subject. He was then sent back to jail; however the case was sent to the Supreme Court where he later was on trial again. Issue: Is the law for racial segregation on train cars in Louisiana unconstitutional as it pertains to the fourteenth amendment?Decision: The state law was found to be within the constitution. Authored by Henry Billings Brown, this decision was based on the idea that segregation is allowed so long as the separation is equal ("separate but equal"). It was understood by the court that segregation does not directly cause unlawful discrimination, and that, constitutionally speaking, separate train cars for the races was aloud. Significance: Plessy v Ferguson gave the idea of "separate but equal" an actual standing legally.
Griswold v. Connecticut
Supreme Court of the United States June 7 1965 Facts/History: At the time, there was a law in Connecticut that criminalized the encouragement and use of birth control. The law at the time said that "any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined... or imprisoned..." the law also said that "any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principle offender." Estelle Griswold was the executive director of the Planned Parenthood league in Connecticut and was "arrested and found guilty as accessories to providing illegal contraception." She and her partner said that this law violated the constitutional right to privacy and the case was taken to the Supreme Court. Issue: Is it going against the fourth amendment, constitutional right to privacy to say that the government has any regulation over nactivities within the privacy of home? Decision: 7-2 Decision for Griswold. "The Court struck down a law that prohibited married couples from using birth control. In so doing, the Court affirmed that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to privacy, even though it does not explicitly say so." Significance: This is a significant case because it affirmed that the constitution protects your right to privacy (fourth amendment).
Engel v Vitale
Supreme Court of the United States June, 1962 Facts/History: The Board of Regents for the state of New York had allowed a short prayer at start of the school day, in each school. Along with the required Pledge of Allegiance, the students would start with this nondenominational prayer: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country." This prayer would be said as a class, and students not wishing to participate could excuse themselves. 10 parents jointly sued on behalf of their children, stating that this act violated their First Amendment Right. It was argued in court that it was constitutional because of voluntary participation in the prayer. This was upheld by the New York courts. Engel appealed with the American Ethical Union and American Jewish Committee, to the supreme court. Issue: Was a school-sponsored nondenominational prayer in public school in violation of the "establishment of religion" clause in the First Amendment? Decision: The court ruled 6-1 in favor of Engel and supporters, finding that it was unconstitutional to hold any type of prayer in a public school. 2 justices, White and Frankfurter, did not participate in this ruling. The justices decided that this violated the interaction of government with religion, and that the government could not endorse any one religion. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court, and Justice Douglas delivered the concurrence. The only dissenting opinion came from Justice Stewart. He stated that 'denying the wish of these children to participate in prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation'. Significance: This case established that prayer cannot take place in a public, governmental institution,contrary to many americans opinions. This case was the 1st to set this precedent, since many schools throughout the country had done prayer in school up until this case ruling. The precedent of the case was used for the ruling in 4 other cases. #15 Case Name: Gideon v. Wainwright Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States Date of Decision: 1963 Source: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155 Facts/History: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony; he broke into a poolroom with the intention of committing a misdemeanor offense. Gideon requested the court appoint an attorney for him, however, Florida state law stated that an attorney can only be appointed to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon never got his attorney for that trial so he represented himself. Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendment constitutional requirement that indigent defendants be appointed an attorney is so essential to a fair trial that it is an obligation to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution? Decision: The court ruled 9-0 in favor of Gideon, deciding that the framers of the Constitution found it of high value for the accused to have a proper defense, and that state and federal courts must uphold that right. The court also decided it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to provide attorneys for defendants who cannot afford one on their own. Significance: The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves
Miller vs California
Supreme Court of the United States Date of Decision: 1973 Facts: Marvin Miller mass mailed out advertisements for 'adult' material. Some of the recipients complained and Miller was convicted of violating a California state law. This law forbids the distribution of obscene or adult materials. Miller fought against his conviction claiming that the First Amendment, specifically freedom of speech, allowed him to mail whatever he wanted. Issue: Is mass distribution of obscene material in the mail protected under the right to freedom of speech named in the First Amendment? Decision: In a 5-4 decision, the court sided with the state of California. In the majority opinion, written by Warren E. Burger, it was written that the sale or advertisement of obscene materials through the mail is not protected by the First Amendment. The decision made in the lower courts was upheld. Significance: The court established three rules for materials protected under the First Amendment, 1. The material must be judged by the community ideals as non lustful, suggestive, or obscene, 2. The material must not describe sexual conduct as defined by state law, 3. The work must have serious political, literary, artistic, or scientific value.
Gratz v. Bollinger
U.S. Supreme Court Date of Decision: June 23, 2003 Facts/History: Jennifer Gratz sent in an application to the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science and the Arts with a cumulative GPA of 3.8 and an ACT score of 25 was denied an acceptation to this selected College. Another student, Patrick Hamacher with a cumulative GPA of 3.0 and an ACT score of 28 was also denied acceptation to the stated College. The College admits to the use of race when picking the applicants who will be accepted to the University of Michigan. The University of Michigan has a policy in accepting all qualifying members of the three minority groups - African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans - the three main minority groups who are underrepresented. The writ of certiorari was granted under the U.S Supreme Court. Issue: The University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because this act ended segregation in all places, and the University of Michigan is therefore breaking this act by submitting only minorities. This also has a relation to civil rights which is the protection from people to people, which protects a/any persons of the publics from racial discrimination, speech discrimination, i.e. This is a violation of equal protection clause, which provides protection to the public by the federal and state governments. Decision: In a 6-3 ruling, the court's decision fell towards Gratz. The Court held that the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "because the University's use of race in its current freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve respondents' asserted compelling interest in diversity, the admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause." Significance: The court's stated that there shall not be any discrimination against minority or majority races when being accepted to colleges. They also brought the Civil Rights Act of 1964 back into the light to remind the public that there is no allowance for any source of segregation under any circumstances.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
U.S. Supreme Court January 13, 1988 Facts/History: The school newspaper of Hazelwood East High School was run by the students. In one of the editions, the principal thought that couple of the articles were inappropriate and ordered the students to remove them from the newspaper. Upset by the request, Cathy Kuhlmeier and a few other students refused and brought the case to the courts. Issue: Is it a violation of the students' first amendment rights to prohibit the publishing of some articles? Does the principal have the right to remove the articles since the newspaper is school sponsored? Decision: The courts sided with the principal of the school. In a 5-3 decision, they held that Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the publications in the newspaper. As long as they have legitimate reasons for not allowing the publications, it is okay for them to prohibit the printing. Significance: This case helped in defining students' rights of expression in the schools. The case sets the precedent that school administrators can censor, interfere, or change the publishings of school newspapers when they feel the content does not meet school standards.
New York Times v. United States (Pentagon Papers Case)
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date of Decision: Jun 30, 1971 Facts/History: The Nixon administration was trying to prevent the New York Times Company from publishing materials about the United States activity in vietnam. This was classified information belonging to the Defense Department. They argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. Issue: Is preventing this information being published a violation of the first amendment through freedom of speech and freedom of press? Decision: In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the New York Times Company did have the right to publish the information. Preventing it was a violation of the first amendment. The court argued that they can not say it is a security issue just to prevent the publishing. The New York Times had the right to publish all of the information. Significance: The court established that newspapers have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of press. They can publish almost anything they want. The government can not call something a security threat to keep it hidden from the citizens.
