Supreme Court Cases 315 Final

Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party First Amendment (Free Speech) Cases

American Nazis wanted to march in Skokie (large Jewish population); village tried to prevent the march arguing that the swastika was symbolic fighting words; march allowed

Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) First Amendment (Free Speech) Cases

At a school assembly of approximately 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As part of its disciplinary code, Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process . . . including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser was suspended from school for two days. Question Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly? Holding Gave public school officials the authority to suspend students for speech considered to be lewd or indecent

Morse v. Frederick (2007) First Amendment (Free Speech) Cases

At a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick held up a banner with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," a slang reference to marijuana smoking. Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days. She justified her actions by citing the school's policy against the display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs. Question 1) Does the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at school-supervised events? 2) Does a school official have qualified immunity from a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 when, in accordance with school policy, she disciplines a student for displaying a banner with a drug reference at a school-supervised event? Holding Yes and not reached. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit by a 5-4 vote, ruling that school officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use. Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion held that although students do have some right to political speech even while in school, this right does not extend to pro-drug messages that may undermine the school's important mission to discourage drug use. The majority held that Frederick's message, though "cryptic," was reasonably interpreted as promoting marijuana use - equivalent to "[Take] bong hits" or "bong hits [are a good thing]." In ruling for Morse, the Court affirmed that the speech rights of public school students are not as extensive as those adults normally enjoy, and that the highly protective standard set by Tinker would not always be applied. In concurring opinions, Justice Thomas expressed his view that the right to free speech does not apply to students and his wish to see Tinker overturned altogether, while Justice Alito stressed that the decision applied only to pro-drug messages and not to broader political speech. The dissent conceded that the principal should have had immunity from the lawsuit, but argued that the majority opinion was "[...] deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high-school students

Davis v. Bandermer (1986) Gerrymandering

Facts A group of Democrats challenged Indiana's 1981 state apportionment scheme on the ground of political gerrymandering. The Democrats argued that the apportionment unconstitutionally diluted their votes in important districts, violating their rights. A three-judge District Court sustained the Democrats' challenge. Question Did Indiana's 1981 state apportionment violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Holding No. The Court held that while the apportionment law may have had a discriminatory effect on the Democrats, that effect was not "sufficiently adverse" to violate the Equal Protection Clause. The mere lack of proportional representation did not unconstitutionally diminish the Democrats' electoral power. The Court also ruled that political gerrymandering claims were properly justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause, noting that judicially manageable standards could be discerned and applied in such cases.

Miller v. Johnson (1995) Gerrymandering

Facts Between 1980 and 1990, only one of Georgia's ten congressional districts was majority-black. According to the 1990 decennial census, Georgia's black population of 27% entitled blacks to an additional eleventh congressional seat, prompting Georgia's General Assembly to re-draw the state's congressional districts. After the Justice Department refused pre-clearance of several of the Assembly's proposed new districts, the Assembly was finally successful in creating an additional majority-black district through the forming of an eleventh district. This district, however, was called a "geographic monstrosity" because it extended 6,784.2 square miles from Atlanta to the Atlantic Ocean. In short, "the social, political, and economic makeup of the Eleventh District tells a tale of disparity, not community." Question Is racial gerrymandering of the congressional redistricting process a violation of the Equal Protection Clause? Holding States cannot draw congressional districts in which race is the primary consideration.

Reynolds v Simms & Westbury v Sanders Reapportionment 1964

Facts CITATION 377 US 533 (1964) ARGUED Nov 13, 1963 DECIDED Jun 15, 1964 Facts of the case In 1961, M.O. Sims, David J. Vann (of Vann v. Baggett), John McConnell (McConnell v. Baggett), and other voters from Jefferson County, Alabama, challenged the apportionment of the state legislature. Lines dividing electoral districts had resulted in dramatic population discrepancies among the districts. The state constitution required at least one representative per county and senatorial district. However, the district in Jefferson County, which is near Birmingham, contained 41 times as many eligible voters as those in another district of the state. Sims and the other voters argued that this lack of proportionality prevented them from effectively participating in a republican form of government. Question Did Alabama's apportionment scheme violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by mandating at least one representative per county and creating as many senatorial districts as there were senators, regardless of population variances? Holding Equal protection requires that state legislative districts should be comprised of roughly equal populations if possible. In an 8-to-1 decision authored by Justice Earl Warren, the Court upheld the challenge to the Alabama system, holding that Equal Protection Clause demanded "no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens...." Noting that the right to direct representation was "a bedrock of our political system," the Court held that both houses of bicameral state legislatures had to be apportioned on a population basis. States were required to "honest and good faith" efforts to construct districts as nearly of equal population as practicable. Justice Stewart concurred, agreeing with Warren that the Court could intervene to address egregious situations of misapportionment, Stewart sought to limit the application of this decision to clear violations of equal protection. He felt wary of imposing specific guidelines on states for how to redraw the district lines or setting a certain range of ratios that would be acceptable. Justice Harlan dissented, applying an originalist interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which in his opinion had not been meant by the drafters to protect voting rights. He suggested that the Court was intruding on federalism principles protecting the states in their control of local matters. Justice Clark concurred in a separate opinion.

Baker v. Carr (1962) Reapportionment

Facts Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state. Question Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? Holding "One man, one vote." Ordered state legislative districts to be as near equal as possible in population; Warren Court's judicial activism.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 6th Admendment

Facts Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering. 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, arguing 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? Holding Extends to the defendant the right of counsel in all state and federal criminal trials regardless of their ability to pay.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013) Gerrymandering

Facts Following the 1990 census, Texas planned the creation of three additional congressional districts. Following the redistricting, registered voters challenged the plans as racial gerrymandering. A three-judge federal district court found the plans unconstitutional. The case moved to the Supreme Court on appeal. Question Do the Texas redistricting plans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Holding Struck down provision of Voting Rights Act of 1965 requiring states engaged in past discrimination to get federal preclearance before instituting changes in voting laws or practices; allowed restrictive state voter ID laws to go forward (Roberts Court)

Shaw v. Hunt (1996) Shaw 2 Gerrymandering

Facts Residents of North Carolina challenged a plan to create two congressional districts on the ground that the proposed districts were racially gerrymandered. On initial review, a three-judge District Court panel dismissed the action only to have its decision reversed and remanded to it by the Supreme Court. However, the Court's standard for review left very little room for racial engineering of congressional voting districts. On remand, the District Court found the redistricting plans to be racially tailored and, therefore, unconstitutional. Again, the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court. Holding affirms the 1993 case; no racial gerrymandering, not even to benefit a minority; can't create minority districts

Street v. New York (1969) First Amendment (Free Speech) Cases

Facts Sidney Street was a black veteran of World War II and a recipient of the Bronze Star. He held a position with the New York City Transit Authority and had no prior criminal record. On June 6, 1966, Street was in his Brooklyn apartment listening to the radio when he heard a news announcement that civil rights activist James Meredith had been shot by a sniper during his march through Mississippi. Street went to a bureau drawer and removed an old 48-star American flag. He carried the flag to the intersection of Lafayette Avenue and St. James Place, one block from his residence. He laid a piece of paper on the sidewalk. Then, keeping the flag properly folded, he set it on fire with a match. We Dont need a damn flag Question In a trial for flag burning, was there sufficient evidence in the record to show that Street was not convicted for constitutionally protected speech when the allegation contained his statement, "If they did that to Meredith, we don't need an American flag"? Holding No. In a 5-4 decision written by Justice John Harlan, the Court held that the record lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the trial court constitutionally convicted Street of flag burning. Justice Harlan first held that Street properly raised the issue of the constitutionality of the allegation's reference to Street's words. He applied the rule in Stromberg v. California, where the Court held that a conviction must be set aside if it could have been based on constitutionally protected speech; here, Justice Harlan could not determine from the record that Street's words were not an independent cause of his conviction. Justice Harlan rejected the Court of Appeals' characterization of the flag burning as an act of incitement, holding instead that Street's conviction furthered no government interest. He declined to rule on the broader issue of the constitutionality of New York's flag burning statute. The Court reversed and remanded Street's case.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Facts This case represents the consolidation of four cases, in each of which the defendant confessed guilt after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel. Question Does the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect? The court ruled that those subjected to in-custody interrogation be advised of their constitutional right to an attorney and their right to remain silent.

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections 1966 Black Disenfranchisement

Facts Virginia resident Annie Harper could not pay the state-imposed poll tax of $1.50. She filed suit, alleging the poll tax deprived indigent Virginia residents of their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The federal district court dismissed her claim, based in part on a 1937 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that had ruled poll taxes to be within the powers of the states. QUESTION Did the Virginia poll tax violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Holding Supreme Court held the use of poll taxes in state elections violates the 14th amendments equal protection clause

2. Grovey v. Townsend 1939 Black Disenfranchisement

Facts R. R. Grovey, an African-American, attempted to vote in the Democratic primary election held on July 28, 1934 and was denied a ballot by the county clerk specifically because of his race. The whites-only restriction of the Texas Democratic Party had been passed by a convention in May 1932. Grovey sued, arguing the restriction violated his rights under the Fifteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A Justice Court in Texas denied his claim. Question Did the Democratic Party's refusal to allow Grovey a ballot in the primary election violate his rights under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments? Facts No. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Owen Roberts, the Court concluded that the party's restriction had not been authorized or endorsed by the state and therefore was free from the limitations of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The Court had previously ruled in Nixon v. Herndon (1927) and Nixon v. Condon (1932) that the state could not impose such race-based limitations in primaries. However, Justice Roberts noted that the party's rule in Grovey's case could not be limited by the amendments. Justice Roberts wrote that "the Democratic party in that state is a voluntary political association and, by its representatives assembled in convention, has the power to determine who shall be eligible for membership and, as such, eligible to participate in the party's primaries."

United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg v. Carey (1977) Gerrymandering

Facts Congress provided in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that reapportionment plans of several states were to be submitted to the U.S. attorney general or the District Court of the District of Columbia for approval. Several districts in New York were restructured to create districts with a minimum nonwhite majority of 65 percent. A Hasidic Jewish community was split in two by the reapportionment. The community claimed that the plan violated their constitutional rights because the districts had been assigned solely on a racial basis. Question Did the reapportionment plan violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights of the Hasidic community Holding The Court found that the reapportionment plan was valid under the Constitution. Neither the Fourteenth nor the Fifteenth Amendment prohibit per se use of racial factors in districting and apportionment. Also, a reapportionment plan does not violate the same Amendments by using numerical quotas to establish a certain number of black majority districts. Although New York deliberately increased nonwhite majorities in several districts, there was no "fencing out" of the white population in the county from electoral participation. The reapportionment did not underrepresent the whites relative to their share of the population. The Court found that New York could use apportionment plans to attempt to prevent racial minorities from being repeatedly outvoted at the expense of the white populations.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

Facts Danny Escobedo was arrested and taken to a police station for questioning. Over several hours, the police refused his repeated requests to see his lawyer. Escobedo subsequently confessed to murder. Escobedo appealed the affirmation of his conviction of murder by the Supreme Court of Illinois, which held that petitioner's confession had been admissible even though it was obtained after he had requested and been denied the assistance of counsel. Question Was Escobedo denied the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment? Holding Ruled that a defendant must be allowed access to a lawyer before questioning by police.

Schenck v. U.S.(1919) First Amendment (Free Speech) Cases

Facts During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment. Question Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech? Holding Allows limits to speech based on the "clear and present danger" principle

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) Reapportionment

Facts James P. Wesberry resided in a Georgia congressional district with a population two to three times greater than that of other congressional districts in the state. He asserted that because there was only one congressman for each district, his vote was debased as a result of the state apportionment statute and the state's failure to realign the congressional districts. Wesberry sought to invalidate the apportionment statute and enjoin defendants, the Governor and Secretary of State, from conducting elections under it. The district court dismissed the complaint for non-justiciability and want of equity. Wesberry appealed. Question Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment or deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote? Holding Established the principle of "one person, one vote" in drawing congressional districts. Triggered widespread redistricting that gave cities and suburbs greater representation in Congress.

Colegrove v. Green (1946) Reapportionment

Facts Kenneth W. Colegrove, a citizen of Illinois and a Northwestern University political scientist, brought suit against Illinois officials to enjoin them from holding an upcoming election. Colegrove argued that the congressional districts "lacked compactness of territory and approximate equality of population." Question Did the Illinois congressional districts unconstitutionally violate principles of fair apportionment? Holding federal courts had no power to become involved in state legislative apportionment (politcal question)—later overruled by Baker v. Carr

Beer v. U.S. (1974) Gerrymandering

Facts The 1954 New Orleans City Charter provides for a seven-member city council, with one member being elected from each of five councilmanic districts, and two being elected by the voters of the city at large. In 1961 the council, as it was required to do after each decennial census, redistricted the city based on the 1960 census so that, in one councilmanic district, Negroes constituted a majority of the population, but only about half of the registered voters, and, in the other four districts, white voters outnumbered Negroes. No Negro was elected to the council from 1960 to 1970. After the 1970 census, the council devised a reapportionment plan, under which there would be Negro population majorities in two councilmanic districts and a Negro voter majority in one. Holding Since § 5's language clearly provides that it applies only to proposed changes in voting procedures, and since the at-large seats existed without change since 1954, those seats were not subject to review under § 5. The District Court consequently erred in holding that the plan could be rejected under § 5 solely because it did not eliminate the two at-large seats.

Thornburg v. Gingles Gerrymandering

Facts The North Carolina General Assembly passed a redistricting plan for the state's Senate and House of Representatives. Black citizens of North Carolina alleged that the plan created seven new districts where blacks would not be able to elect representatives of their choosing. They filed suit in a District Court claiming that this violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Before the District Court could hear the case, Congress amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in order to clarify that voting violations needed only to have a "discriminatory effect" and required no "discriminatory purpose." Considering the "totality of circumstances" of the redistricting plan, the District Court ruled that six of the new districts violated the newly amended Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of the black vote. The North Carolina Attorney General appealed the decision directly to the Supreme Court. Question Did the District Court err by holding that a North Carolina redistricting plan unlawfully discriminated against blacks in six voting districts? Holding Gingles Test 1986; district lines may not dilute minority representation and race cannot be the predominant consideration

Shaw v. Reno (1993) Gerrymandering

Facts The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Question Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Holding NO racial gerrymandering; race cannot be the sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative boundaries; majority-minority districts.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach 1966 Black Disenfranchisement

Facts The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevented states from using a "test or device" (such as literacy tests) to deny citizens the right to vote. Under the Attorney General's jurisdiction, federal examiners were empowered to intervene to investigate election irregularities. Question Did the Act violate the states' rights to implement and control elections? Holding Upheld Voting Rights Act of 1965 which required some states with histories of discrimination to get pre-clearance for voting laws for all types of elections

Bush v. Vera (1996) Gerrymandering

Following the 1990 census, Texas planned the creation of three additional congressional districts. Following the redistricting, registered voters challenged the plans as racial gerrymandering. A three-judge federal district court found the plans unconstitutional. The case moved to the Supreme Court on appeal. Question Do the Texas redistricting plans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? holding Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the Texas redistricting plans were unconstitutional. Supporting its "strict scrutiny" approach, the Court noted that the proposed districts were highly irregular in shape, that their computerized design was significantly more sensitive to racial data, and that they lacked any semblance to pre-existing race-neutral districts. The Court also held that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the proposed districts would deprive minority groups of equal participation in the electoral political processes. Thus, the proposed districts violated the Voting Rights Act's "results" test prohibiting activity that "results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color." Finally, with respect to proposed district 18, the Court held that Texas deliberately designed it to hamper the local African-American minority's ability to elect representatives of their choice. This violated the Voting Rights Act's "nonretrogression" principle, prohibiting state action from obstructing a minority's ability to elect representatives of their choice.

Powell v. Alabama (1932) - The Scottsboro Boys Case 5th Amendment Cases

Nine black youths -- described as, "young, ignorant, and illiterate" -- were accused of raping two white women. Alabama officials sprinted through the legal proceedings: a total of three trials took one day and all nine were sentenced to death. Alabama law required the appointment of counsel in capital cases, but the attorneys did not consult with their clients and had done little more than appear to represent them at the trial. This case was decided together with Patterson v. Alabama and Weems v. Alabama. Question Did the trials violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Holding Yes. The Court held that the trials denied due process because the defendants were not given reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel in their defense. Though Justice George Sutherland did not rest the Court holding on the right-to-counsel guarantee of the Sixth Amendment, he repeatedly implicated that guarantee. This case was an early example of national constitutional protection in the field of criminal justice.

Smith v. Allwright (1944) Black Disenfranchisement

Outlawed White primaries held by the Democratic Party, in violation of the 15th Amendment. Facts In 1923, the Texas Democratic Party required all voters in its primary to be white based on a state law authorizing the party to establish its own internal rules. Lonnie E. Smith, a black dentist a voter in Harris County, Texas, sued county election official S. S. Allwright for the right to vote in the primary. Question Did denying blacks the right to vote in primary elections violate the Constitution? In an opinion written by Justice Stanley F. Reed, the Court struck down the law. The Court reasoned that the rule restricting primary voters to whites denied Smith equal protection under the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. By delegating its authority to the Democratic Party to regulate its primaries, the state was allowing discrimination to be practiced, which was unconstitutional. Justice Feliex Franfurter concurred. Justice Owen J. Roberts dissented.

Gregory v. City of Chicago (1969) First Amendment (Free Speech) Cases

Petitioners, peaceful civil rights demonstrators, were arrested and convicted for disorderly conduct when they failed to disperse on orders of the Chicago police, who anticipated civil disorder because of the bystanders' unruly conduct. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Held: 1. Petitioners were denied due process, since there was no evidentiary support for their convictions. Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U. S. 199. P. 394 U. S. 112. 2. The convictions were for demonstrating, not for refusing to obey police orders. P. 394 U. S. 112. 3. The trial judge's charge allowed the jury to convict for acts protected by the First Amendment. Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359. P. 394 U. S. 113.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) First Amendment (Free Speech) Cases

To libel a public figure, there must be "actual malice"

Guinn v. U.S. 1915 Black Disenfranchisement

U.S. Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court supported its position that the grandfather clause in an Oklahoma law was unconstitutional.

1. Guinn v. U.S. (1915) Black Disenfranchisement

black disenfranchisement Holding Guinn v. United States (1915) held the "grandfather clause" enacted by the Oklahoma State Legislature invalid because it violated the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fifteenth Amendment, the last of three post-Civil War Amendments ratified to end slavery, endowed the rights of citizenship and the right to vote on freed African American slaves. The amendment specifically declared that the rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude, and that Congress shall have power to enforce this Article by appropriate legislation