Marbury v. Madison, 1803 By: Brett Preston Background Information: Thomas Jefferson was elected in 1800. Before Jefferson was able to take office, the current president, John Adams, placed members of his party into government positions. The Secretary of State was responsible for filling out the paperwork, signing it, and delivering it to the appointed government officials. However, seventeen of the papers were never delivered. When the new Secretary of State, James Madison, took office, he refused to give the remaining papers to the desired officials. When this occurred, William Marbury sued Madison. Constitutional Issue(s): Judiciary Act of 1789, Judicial Review The main issues in this case were that the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court a right to issue a court order that would demand that Madison deliver his papers. However, the act said nothing about the Supreme Court delivering that order, but that the Constitution could. This brought the issue of dealing with a law that was believed to be unconstitutional. James Madison Supreme Court Decision: 7 to 0 in Marbury’s favor The Supreme Court decided unanimously in the favor of Marbury that he did deserve to have his papers delivered. However, Marbury was never in the position he was entitled to, this brought about a more important decision. The Supreme Court initiated the power of Judicial Review to review decisions and laws made by Congress, or the president, and declare them unconstitutional. Concurring Opinion: The justices all agreed that Marbury deserved his papers, and deserved his position in government. They also agreed that the Supreme Court needed a way to review laws and acts. Dissenting Opinion: The decision was unanimous, and no dissenting opinions were expressed in the case. Sources: Infoplease, “Marbury v. Madison (1803)” Infoplease.com Streetlaw, “Background Information, Marbury v. Madison” Streetlaw.org Wikimedia, “Photo of James Madison” Wikimedia.org Marbury V. Madison, 1803 By: Rose Saunders Background Information: William Marbury had been elected as a judge by Adams in the Judiciary act of 1801, but he was not commissioned by Marshall in time. When Jefferson became president (March, 4, 1801), his secretary of state, James Madison, did not deliver the commission under the new Democratic - Republican Party. This pushed Marbury to turn to the Supreme Court where he petitioned for a writ of mandamus (an order to force Madison to deliver his commission). James Madison Issue(s): Judicial Review, Article 3 The key part of the 3rd Article of the Constitution in question was the Judiciary Act of 1789. The part that was in question was the Supreme Court being able to issue a writ of mandamus. Marbury's argument is that in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over petitions for writs of mandamus. Supreme Court’s Decision: 9 to 0 in There was no winner. John Marshall decided to NOT rule on it since the basis for the lawsuit, (The Judiciary Act of 1801) had an unconstitutional article in it that allowed an individual to take cases regarding writs of mandamus directly to the Supreme Court without going through lower appeals courts. However the Constitution itself clearly states that the Supreme Court can NEVER be the court of original jurisdiction--it is ONLY an appeals court. Therefore Marshall never ruled on the case since there could not be any case. Thus was born judicial review. Concurring Opinion: All of the justices believed that Madison should have delivered the papers to Marbury. Thus there was no concurring opinion. Dissenting Opinion: There was no dissenting opinion because the vote was unanimous. Sources: James Madison. N.d. Photograph. Google.com/images. Web. "Marbury v. Madison Establishes Judicial Review." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2012. McCulloch v Maryland (1819) By: Sarah Harrison Background Information: McCulloch v Maryland deals with state constitution and the dispersal of power between the national and state government. 1810 financial stability had become an issue of national concern. Maryland decided to put a tax on all banks not qualified by the state. When a bank in Baltimore refused to pay such a tax, Maryland brought upon a suit for the collection of the tax. Issue: Tenth amendment: “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." The case is centered on article 4’s national supremacy clause. Court Decision: 7 to 0 in McCulloch's favor. Chief Justice Marshall decided that "the Constitution was the instrument of the people, not the States; therefore, the Court asserted the supremacy of the Federal Constitution over the States". Concurring opinion: Chief Justice Marshall rejected Maryland, claiming that the constitution belonged to the people. Education , Pearson. "McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)."Infoplease — Free Online Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, and more — Infoplease.com. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005. Web. 15 Nov 2012. http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar21.html The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, . "McCulloch v. Maryland — Infoplease.com." Infoplease — Free Online Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, and more — Infoplease.com.Columbia University Press, 2011. Web. 15 Nov 2012. . Inman, Henry. John Marshall as Chief Justice. 1834. http://www.lva.virginia.gov/exhibits/marshall/, Virginia. Web. 15 Nov 2012. . Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 By: Catherine Neblett Background Information: Two men named Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston created a monopoly in which steamboats could be operated in the New York state waterways. A man named Aaron Ogden had a Fulton- Livingston license where he could operate steamboats between New York and New Jersey. Then, a man names Thomas Gibbons came in competition with Ogden by operating a rival steamboat service. Although Gibbons did not have a Fulton- Livingston license, he did have a national coasting license granted by Congress. Ogden was not happy about the competition so he asked the Court of Chancery to make Gibbons stop running his steamboat service. Issue(s): The Constitutional issue was the Interstate Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to control commerce between the states. So, the question was which government, New York or the United States, has the right to regulate commerce between the states. Supreme Court’s Decision: 6 to 0 in Gibbon’s favor. The court said, “Congress, undoubtedly, is traffic, but is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse.” The Court directed that Congress has the capability to regulate commerce and that national law takes lead over state laws. Concurring Opinion: Justice Johnson’s concurring opinion was clear and specific about the exclusive powers granted in the commerce clause. Johnson disagreed with Marshall’s opinion about how he could have knocked down the New York steamboat monopoly law without reference to its conflict with the federal Coasting Act of 1793. Dissenting Opinion: There was no dissenting opinion because the vote was 6-0. Sources: “Gibbons v. Ogden”. Infoplease.com. Pearson Education. Web. 14 November 2012. “Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)”. Ourdocuments.gov. National Archives. Web. 11 November 2012. “Background Summary & Questions”. Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court. Law, Inc. Web 15 November 2012 Street Plessy vs. Ferguson, 1896 By: Aleksandra Puglisi Background information: A black man named Homer Plessy sat in the “white only” section of the East Louisiana Railroad. When he refused to move, he was arrested, and put in jail, for violating the Separate Car Act. The Louisiana Separate Car Act required all state operating railroads provide “equal but separate accommodations” for black and white passengers. Earlier, the Supreme Court had ruled that this couldn’t be applied to interstate traveling. Issue(s): Equal-protection clause, 14th amendment, Louisiana Separate Car Act, Separate but equal protection rights, Plessy used a few laws in his arguments about separate but equal, such as requiring blacks and whites to walk on separate sides of the streets, and making black and whites live in different colored houses. Supreme Court’s Decision: 7 to 1, in Fergusons favor, Justice Brewer didn’t take any part in the case. The Supreme Court decided that the idea of separate but equal was constitutional, under the 14th amendment, only if the facilities were equal. Concurring opinions: Judge Brown said the Separate Car Act did not violate the 14th amendment. He argued that the 14th amendment was intended to protect the legal equality of blacks and whites, not the social equality of them. Dissenting opinion: Justice John Marshall Harlan said, “The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds.” Sources: Duingn, Brian. "Encyclopedia/Britannica." Plessy v. Ferguson. 15 2011. Web. 17 Nov 2012. . Thompson, Charles. "University of Louisville." Harlan's Great Dissent. Kentucky Humanitites Council, Web. 17 Nov 2012. Brown vs. Board of Education, 1954 By: Caroline Ferreiras Background Information: Linda brown was an eight year old girl that had to attend to an elementary school that was across town because the elementary school that was just a few blocks from her home was a white school. When the case was combined with other cases the issue reached the Supreme Court. Issue(s): Segregation, 14th amendment Does segregation in public schools deny minority children from their 14th amendment right “Equal Protection under the Law?” The Supreme Court argued if, “Equal protection under the law,” meant equality in society and in political issues or law and whether or not segregation was unconstitutional. Supreme Court’s Decision: 9 to 0 in Brown’s favor The court’s decision stated that segregation violated African Americans 14th amendment rights. The court decided that “separate but equal” was unconstitutional and school had to be desegregated to provide the same level of education to everyone no matter their race or skin color. Concurring opinion: There was not a concurring opinion because they were all in favor of desegregation in all public schools in the country because “separate but equal” is against the constitution. Dissenting opinion: There was not a dissenting opinion because no body was against desegregation. Sources: Photo of Linda Brown November 16, 2012. Linda Brown http://www.policyalmanac.org/culture/archive/7174761-140.jpg Brown v. Board of Education-Infoplease. 2000-2007 Pearson education, publishing as Infoplease. 19 November, 2012. Furman v. Georgia, 1967 By: Cassie Sealover Background Information: Mr. William H. Furman was robbing somebody’s home. While he was doing that, one of the people who lived there found him. He tried to run away, but he stumbled and tripped and fell down. On his impact, his fire arm was triggered, went off and killed a person living in the house. He was found guilty of murder and given the death penalty for his actions. Issue(s): Death Penalty, 8th and 14th amendment. The 14th amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which Shall deprive any person of life liberty or property, without due process Of law." The 8th amendment says “…nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The question was, did the death penalty violate the 8th and 14th amendment? Did it deprive Furman of life, liberty, and property? Was it a cruel and unusual punishment? Furman believed that it did. He believed that execution deprived him of life, liberty and property. He also felt that the death penalty was a cruel and unusual punishment. Supreme Court’s Decision: 5 to 4, in Furman’s favor It was decided that the death penalty was unconstitutional, was a cruel and William Furman unusual punishment, and went against the 8th and 14th amendment. The Court's final decision made states reconsider their rulings for capital offenses and to promise that the death penalty wouldn’t be ordered in a unthinking or prejudiced way. Concurring Opinion: Five people voted to keep Mr. Furman alive, but Bennan and Marshal voted because that felt it was unconstitutional in all cases. The remaining three felt it was wrong, due to how quickly it was ruled, the racism towards Mr. Furman, and how the death penalty was just as cruel and unusual as getting struck down by lightning. Dissenting Opinion: Four people voted to put Furman to death. They believed the death penalty was constitutional. They fought that “capital punishment was referred as appropriate by the Anglo-American legal for severe offenses.” Sources: FURMAN v. GEORGIA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 11 November 2012. Carte, Lief “oxford company to the U.S. supremecourt- “Furman v. Georgia” answers.com 11 November 2012 Photo of William Furman, Banco,Joan. William Henry FURMAN. N.d. murderpedia.org, Savannah, Georgia. Web. 15 Nov. 2012 Furman v Georgia, 1967 By: Xuechun Wang Background Information: William Henry Furman broke in and robbed a house. The owner woke up, and saw him. Furman tried to escape. He dropped his gun, the gun hit the ground and killed the home owner accidently. The Georgia stated if Furman was found guilty by court, he should be charged. Furman thought this ruling was ridiculous, appealed the execution. Issue(s): Death Penalty, 8th Amendment and 14th Amendment The key part of 8th Amendment in question is banned cruel and unusual punishment which states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The death penalty is unusual if it discriminates defendant by reason of Furman’s race, because Furman is a black. In the same time, the case also violates the 14th Amendment which state all citizens should get “equal protection of the laws” William Henry Furman Supreme Court’s Decision: 5 to 4 in Furman’s favor The court decided the imposition of the death penalty in the case related to cruel and unusual punishment and violated the equal protection under the 8th and 14th Amendment. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that several death penalty laws were unconstitutional. Concurring Opinion: Justices Brennan and Marshall believed that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all cases. Douglas, Stewart and White thought death sentences have been imposed, often indicate a racial bias against black defendants. Sources: Furman v. Georgia. 408 U.S. 238 (1972). November 15, 2012. FURMAN v. GEORGIA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. November 15, 2012. The Photo of William Henry Furman. November 15, 2012. Gregg v. Georgia 1976 By: Luke Hedrick Background Information: Gregg v. Georgia, Gregg was found guilty of murder, and armed robbery. The jury had sentenced Gregg to death. Gregg decided to challenge his sentence. In his challenge Gregg claimed that his sentence to the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment, and that it went against the 8th and 14th amendment. Issue(s): An issue in this case is whether or not the death penalty was constitutional and if the sentence went against the 8th amendment. Gregg argued that the death penalty should have had to of met certain criteria to make the penalty more humane. Court Decision: The Supreme Court ruled a 7-2 vote in favor of Georgia. The court resolved the conflict that the death penalty did not go against the 8th and 14th amendment. The sentence was constitutional under the circumstances of Gregg. Gregg v. Georgia overruled Furman v. Georgia saying the death penalty was constitutional. The case changed how the death penalty was given by the states and that it was constitutional by saying there would be the same death sentence in every state. Concurring Opinion: There was no concurring opinion in this case. A concurring opinion is an opinion that agreed with the majority vote but for a different reason. Dissenting Opinion: The dissenting opinion in the case is that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment and that it should not be constitutional under the law according to the 8th and 14th amendment. Conflict Resolved: The Capital Sentence was “Cruel and Unusual” that went against the 8th and 14th amendment according to Gregg. Sources: GREGG v. GEORGIA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 18 November 2012. . NJ v. TLO, 1985 By: Samantha Brooks Background Information: Two teenage students attending a public high school were found in a bathroom which was filled with smoke. The assistant vice-principal found these two girls and sent them to the office. One of the girls admitted that she had been smoking in the bathroom but the other denied that she had been smoking. The assistant vice principal searched the purse of TLO, one of the girls that had been in the bathroom. Believing that her right had been violated, TLO brought her case to the state supreme court where they ruled that her 4th amendment had in fact been violated. The national Supreme Court was then asked to hear the appeal. Issue(s): Search and Seizures, 4th amendment Questions arose over whether reasonable cause was enough to search and seize a student’s property of if probable cause must be present. Also, judges questioned the 4th amendment right of students was equivalent to that of adults. Supreme Court’s Decision: Justice Byron White 6 to 3 in New Jersey’s favor The court decided that overruled the lower court decision stating that the New Jersey school had violated the 4th amendment right of a student. It was agreed that adolescents’ 4th amendment right was limited while in school. A school official only requires reasonable suspicion to search and seize the property of a student. Concurring Opinion: Justice Byron White stated that “the rights of adolescents are not the same as adults” and that “school officials have responsibility to maintain the discipline necessary for education.” Dissenting Opinion: Justice William Brennan opposed the majority vote saying that he was “concerned with the unclear distinction between “probable” and “reasonable” cause” stating that it “would discourage teachers from carrying our permissible searches. Sources: Photo of Justice Byron White, November 15, 2012 “New Jersey v. TLO”, Information Please, Pearson Education, Inc. 2005. Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969 By: Luke Downs Background Information John Tinker, his sister, and a friend of theirs from Morgan Hill, California were all sent home early from school one day because of wearing armbands that their parents gave them. The arm bands were black in protest of the war in Vietnam. Issues John Tinker said that the school didn’t allow them to exercise their first amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom of assembly by making them leave school early because of wearing the black armbands. They also argued that the school didn’t give them equal protection under the law which is stated in the 14th Amendment. Supreme Court Decision The court decided in the favor of John Tinker by a vote of 7 to 2 to give the students their freedom of speech by letting them wear the armbands in opposition to the Vietnam War. They decided that because the school suppressed the student’s first amendment rights by sending them home from school that day. Dissenting Opinion The Justice named Hugo Blackman had the dissenting opinion stating, “The case involved a small number of students who refused to obey the instructions of school officials, and argued that allowing this behavior would have a negative effect on schools and on the country as a whole”. (Tinker v. Des Moines School District 1969) Justice Abe Fortas Sources Abe Fortas. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 03 November 2012. "Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)." Infoplease. Pearson Education, Inc., n.d. Web. 15 Nov 2012. TINKER v. DES MOINES IND. COMM. SCHOOL DIST..The Oyez Project at IIT ChicagoKent College of Law. 02 November 2012. Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) Bethel School District vs. Fraser, 1986 By: Jacob Garlow Background Information: On April 26, 1953, a high school senior named Mathew Frasier, gave a speech to over fivehundred students and staff nomination his friend for Student Body President. The speech by Fraser was filled with sexual innuendos. Fraser was suspended from school for two days because of the speech. Fraser then decided to sue the school because they did not give him his rights of free speech. Issue(s): Free speech, 1st Amendment Fraser decided to sue the school because he says his rights of free speech were taken from him. Supreme Court decisions: The court’s decision was 7 to 2 in Bethel School Districts favor. The court felt that the school should be able to limit a student’s speech to prohibit any rude or offensive language. Concurring Opinion: Justice William Brennan stated the speech was “obscene”, “vulgar”, and “lewd”. He said that he agreed with how the school punished the student for his speech. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Thurgood Marshall said that Bethel School District failed to tell Fraser that his speech was disruptive. JusticeWilliamBrennan Sources: BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.403 v. FRASER.The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 09 November 2012 Henry, Will. "Poor William Almanack& Journal."Poor William Almanack& Journal.N.p., 17 Feb. 2006. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. Bethel School District vs. Frasier, 1986 By: Blake Weavil Background Information: A young man (Frasier) was giving a speech at school nominating his friend for student body. In that speech he used vulgar language about him. Frasier was immediately suspended from school. Issue(s): Freedom of speech, 1st amendment After he was suspended from school, Frasier claimed that he had the right to say those things because of freedom of speech in the 1st amendment. He felt that the schools couldn’t take his 1st amendment rights away from him. The schools felt that just because he had the right to free speech doesn’t mean he can abuse them. Supreme Court’s Decision: 7 to 2 in Bethels favor A long trial saw in favor of Bethel School District. The court said that although the 1st amendment says everyone has the right to free speech, it doesn’t say that schools can’t punish students for vulgar language on campus. They then set the precedent that schools can limit student’s 1st amendment rights. Warren E. Burger Prize Concurring Opinion: Burger believed that offensive language would be acceptable if it were said by an adult in a political situation, but not by a kid in school. Dissenting Opinion: Marshall and Justice Stevens dissented. Stevens believed that free expression should be allowed whenever an issue like this is arguable. Sources: Picture of Warren E. Burger Prize, November 26, 2012 BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.403 v. FRASER.The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 26 November 2012. Hazelwood v. Kulmeier, 1988 By: Yishui Yun Background Information: A student form Hazelwood East High School wrote articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on the kids. When the school principal, Robert E. Reynolds reviewed the articles, he believed the article was inappropriate and the student might be identified from the text. So he withheld the articles from publication. A few years later the student Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former students brought this case to the Supreme Court. Issue(s): Freedom of Speech, 1st Amendment First Amendment included Freedom of speech, religion, peaceful assembly, and expression; however Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former students claimed that the principal of Hazelwood High school violated their rights under the First Amendment. The argument became whether or not the principal violated the rights of the students; however Cathy Kuhmeier claimed that under the first amendment she had the rights to express herself. Supreme Court’s Decision: 5-to-3 decision In favor of Hazelwood high school. The court’s decision was the principal of Hazelwood High School did not violate the rights of the student, and the schools have the editorial power over the school publication. The First Amendment did not require school to restrict student speech, but the school must set high standards for students and retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was “inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order” Justice Byron White Concurring Opinion: Justice Byron White concluded that the First amendment does not prevent school officials from editing over the content of school publications. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Harry Brennan stated that students that enjoy outside of school do not have the equal rights inside public school and the public educators must contain some student expression even its offensive. Sources: HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT v. KUHLMEIER.The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 02 November 2012 Photo of Judge Harry Blackmun, “Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier”, Street law, INC. Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court. 16 November, 2012 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE, 1969 By: Matthew Debald Background information: In February 1965, the son of Darius Swann sued the school district for not letting his son attend an all white school in their neighborhood. There were 14,000 black students that attended school in the Charlotte Mecklenburg school system, and those schools were either completely black or 99 percent black. Issue: 14thamendment After the Brown v. Board of Education court cases decision to desegregate schools little had been done to help the cause. Swann’s son was being forced to go to a school on the other side of town, just because he was black, instead of going to a neighborhood white school. This made Swann feel like he and his son were not being treated equally. Supreme Court’s Decision: 9 to 0 in favor of Charlotte-Mecklenburg The court ruled that students of all races had the freedom to choose what school they wanted to go to. If the freedom of choice was not working to desegregate schools, then other options such as bussing would be used. Bussing is when a kid is forced to be transported across town, to go to a different school of a different race, and this will help to desegregate the schools. Sources: Brinkman, Zack. "Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education.” N.p. Web. 19 Nov 2012. . "If You Were a Supreme Court Justice..." Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court. N.p. Web. 19 Nov 2012. . "Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BD. of ED." OYEZ. N.p. Web. 19 Nov 2012. . Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 By: Chris Marrero Background Information: In June of 1961 a burglary occurred in Panama City, Florida in the Bay Harbor Pool Room. A man named Clarence Earl Gideon was allegedly seen leaving the poolroom with a pint of wine and change bulging out of his pocket Issue(s): Equal Protection under the law, 14th and 6th amendments During the trial Gideon was too poor to hire an attorney to represent him. Gideon asked the judge to provide him with an attorney. The judge stated that he could only provide an attorney for a capital offense. Gideon had to conduct his own trial and was sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon began reading on his rights as a U.S. citizen. Gideon found out that he had not been granted his 14th amendment rights of due process, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Gideon wrote a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court stating that being denied his rights was not reasonable because he did not have a lawyer to represent him during his trial. The Supreme Court over-turned his conviction and provided him a retrial and a lawyer, Abe Fortas. Gideon did not have Fortas represent him he selected local attorney, W. Fred Turner and was proven innocent. Clarence Earl Gideon Supreme Court's Decision: 9 to 0 unanimous in Gideon's favor The Supreme Court overruled the precedent of the court case Betts v. Brady. The court came to a decision that the due process clause of the 14th and 6th amendment should be changed to include the right to an attorney. Sources: Photo of Defendant Clarence Earl Gideon, December 2006 Law Brain. "Gideon v. Wainwright." Law Brain. FindLaw Resources. 3 September. 2012 Web. 10 November. 2012 Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 By. Richard Portillo Background Information: A woman was kidnapped and sexually assaulted in Phoenix, Arizona during March 1963. Twenty-three year old Ernesto Miranda was taken to the police department on March 13, when a victim said that he was the one that assaulted and he was taken straight to the interrogation room. While in the interrogation room, he was forced to sign a confession and a letter stating that he has "full knowledge of his rights". Miranda was denied to a council twice. As a result he was convicted to a twenty-year sentence. Issue(s): Rights being to tell to everyone, 5th and 6th amendment The key part of the amendments was the fact that they guaranteed everyone rights. Also, was the confession a creditable document at the Federal Court or National court. The cops weren’t allowed to make Miranda sign a confession without telling him his rights. Yet they gave him a paper to sign saying he was told all his rights when he never was. Supreme Court’s Decision: 5 to 4 in favor of Miranda The court decided to go with Miranda because he was never told his rights and was forced to sign a confession, which intervened with the right to remain silent and no self-incrimination. Chief Justice Warren said that the burden is up to the state to show that "procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination or the right to remain silent". Concurring Opinion: Chief Justice Warren said that felons or criminals have to be told their rights that the Fifth Amendment guaranteed. Also any evidence found from the criminal prior to the hearing of their rights is obtained illegally. Dissenting Opinion: Justices Harlan, Stewart and White decided that there was a very poor representation of constitutional law and entails a harmful effect on the country at a huge circumstance. Sources: Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2012. "Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court." Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinion. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2012. "Miranda vs. Arizona." Miranda vs. Arizona. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2012. Mapp V. Ohio, 1957 By: Jonathon Prisk Background Information: On May 23, 1957 the police department in Cleveland, Ohio was tipped off that a suspected female perpetrator was involved in a bombing. In addition, illegal betting equipment was found in her suburban residence. Several police officers went to the house and asked Dollree Mapp, who opened the door, if they may enter. When she refused, the officers left and a few hours later came back with a piece paper claiming that it was a “search warrant”. She then grabbed the piece of paper and put it in her dress. The police fought with Mapp and retrieved the piece of paper. They then arrested her for being “hostile”. Issue(s): Search and Seizures, 4th amendment The issue at hand was if the police had the right to use evidence that was not received legally in court. In the case of Mapp V. Ohio the officers went in the house of Mapp without a search warrant and arrested Dollree on the evidence they found inside of the house. Supreme Court’s Decision: 6 to 3 in Mapp’s favor In 1961 the courts ruled that evidence obtained illegally could not be used in court. The Supreme Court trashed the Ohio Supreme Courts decisions and freed Dollree Mapp. Dollree Map Concurring Opinion: Justice Black stated that the 4th amendment’s ban on unreasonable search and seizure, put together with the 5th amendments forbiddance against self-incrimination could defend the principle of exclusionary rule. Dissenting Opinion: Justice John Harlan believed that the Supreme Court should use any evidence that is brought in, and the true problem was not even brought up. Sources: Chang, Lillian. "Mapp v. Ohio." AP Government/Economics. N.p., 25 2011. Web. 26 Nov 2012. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE, 1969 By: Josh Thompson Background Information: The Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg court case deals with forced busing to integrate public schools. In February 1970, according to Swann, the school district was violating the Desegregation Plans. The trial was ruled in Charlottes favor because forced busing was the only way to achieve the constitution requirements. Issue(s): 14th amendments The 14thamendment was a big factor in the Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg case because Swann felt that they weren’t getting equal protection under the law and he was being forced to go to another school without choice. Swann was bussed to a school on the other side of town when the school he was going to was a lot closer to his home. Supreme Court Decision: 9 to 0 in Charlotte-Mecklenburg favor Charlotte-Mecklenburg won the Supreme Court case nine to zero. The ruling was that racial balance wasn’t required under the Constitution and the schools had to follow the plans to desegregate schools. The Board Plan rearranged school boundaries to increase a mixture of races attending one school while maintaining good grade structures. Another plan, The Finger Plan, had 300 black students go to a predominate white school and believed in rezoning and pairing. Concurring and Dissenting opinion: In the case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg there was neither a concurring nor dissenting opinion because it was a unanimous nine to zero vote. A concurring opinion is a written opinion by one or more judges, which is based upon the majority opinion of the court. One or more judges making a statement that disagrees with the majority write a dissenting opinion. Sources: Htike, Jonathan. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. 23 September 2011. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 9. November 2012. Microsoft Office Clipart. Computer Software. Microsoft, 2010Mallory Bascom Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, 1978 By Angelo Davis Background info: Allen Bakke, a white male, had applied for the second time to the University of California medical school at Davis, and was rejected again. He was rejected because the last of the slots were reserved for "qualified" minorities; even though he had a higher GPA and test scores than the minorities that did make it into the university. The school had reserved those slots for the minorities due to the affirmative action policy to remove segregation from schools. The Main Issue: The issue was based on the 14th amendment that states that you cannot be denied admission to a university based solely on race. Others said that the Bakke was against the affirmative action policy because he was a racist. They also said that the affirmative action policy protected minorities from discrimination in the school system. The Case Decision: 5 out of 4 sided with Bakke on the case that race cannot be a main factor in admission into universities. The lower court decided that the affirmative action policy was in violation of the state and federal constitution. The Concurring Decision: Allen Bakke 5 of the 4 justices voted on Bakke’s side that the university was in violation of the Civil Rights act of 1964. The Dissent Decision: 4 of the 5 justices voted that the use of race as a reason for gaining admission as long as it wasn’t the main reason of being picked. Sources: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 November 2012. "Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke." n.pag. streetlaw. Web. 14 Nov "Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke." n.pag. infoplease. Web. 14 Nov 2012. Bakke, Allan Paul. N.d. s9Web. 14 Nov 2012. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978 By: Alex Whitt Background Information: Allan Bakke applied to the University of California twice. He applied once in 1973, and again in 1974. Each time he was turned down even though “special applicants” were accepted that had lower GPA’s than Bakke. Bakke contended in Lower California courts, and then he moved to the Supreme Court. Issue(s): Equal Protection Clause, 14th Amendment The issue in this case is whether it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment, by affirmative action, by rejecting Bakke from being admitted to the University. It was argued by Bakke that his rejection was based only on race, and that he should have been admitted because of his higher scores. Supreme Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court voted 5 to 4, in Bakke’s favor. It was argued that having racial quotas was unfair due to the Equal Protection Clause; the other 4 justices voted that the use of racial quotas were constitutional. These decisions were meant to bring more racial equality. Allan Bakke Concurring Opinion: Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. believed that it was unconstitutional to use racial quotas to admit applicants over more qualified applicants. Dissenting Opinion: The dissenting opinion was that it was constitutional to use race as a quota for applications to colleges. This opinion was later revised to be that it was only constitutional to use a race along with more factors to determine whether to choose applicants. Sources: Bakke, Allan Paul. N.d. s9Web. 14 Nov 2012. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 November 2012. Texas v. Johnson, 1989 By: Sarah Hayes Background Information: In 1984 Gregory Johnson burned and American flag outside of Dallas city hall to protest Reagan administration policies. He was tried and convicted by the Fifth District Court of Appeals under a Texas state law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and a twothousand dollar fine. Issue: The constitutional issue raising question in this case was freedom of expression under the First Amendment. Supreme Court's Decision: The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in Johnson’s favor. They found that just because an idea may be offensive the expression of it could not be prohibited. Previous Decision: The Fifth District Court of Appeals’ conviction of Johnson was overruled by Texas Court of Criminal Appeals because it argued that the free speech clause forbids any symbol from being a special condition. Concurring Opinion: This said that the American flag should be an exception because it expresses what all Americans should believe, but the writers understood that members of the court did not have the right to determine that. Dissenting Opinion: The people who wrote this believed Johnson was rightfully punished originally because they saw the flag as more than just a symbol and said he was punished not for his opinion, but how he expressed it. Precedent: Flag burning is a freedom of expression. Sources: “Texas v. Johnson/Concurrence Kennedy”. Wikisource. 29 June 2011. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. “Texas v. Johnson”. Oyez. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 4 Nov. 2012.Web. 8 Nov. 2012. “Texas v. Johnson”. The free dictionary. 2008. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Korematsu v. US, 1944 By: Courtlyn McCarthy Background Information: A man named Fred Korematsu refused to leave his home under orders given by the United States. After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entered World War II, the U.S. sent out orders to (forcibly) move anyone of Japanese descent into "internment camps" in order to protect the nation against conspiracies. Korematsu argued that this was unjust, and in violation of the Constitution. Issue(s): Nondiscrimination, 14th Amendment The 14th Amendment does not permit infringing of a citizens unalienable rights ("Life, Liberty, The Pursuit of Happiness"), which apply to all members of the nation. These rights cannot be denied under basis of religion, ethnicity, age, and/or gender. Right to Representation, 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment entitles all citizens of the U.S. to the right to consult a legal advisor, and to have them defend them in court. Through imploring this Amendment, Korematsu was able to fight for his rights in court, and receive as fair a trial as possible. Supreme Court's Decision: Justice Black 6 to 3 in the U.S.'s favor The court stated that the order would stand, and did not violate the Constitution given the precarious situation that the U.S. was placed in. Justice Black, who wrote the Concurring Opinion, stated that these violations could be overlooked in times of "emergency and peril". Korematsu would have to abide by the order, just as the rest of his race had. Concurring Opinion: The majority believed that the order was justified and should not be overturned. Dissenting Opinion: A minority of the court believed that without evidence or an inquiry of loyalties, and in taking into account that other nationalities associated with other nations in the Axis Powers (i.e. Italy and Germany) not being forced into internment camps, that the order was unjust. Sources: KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-kent College of Law. 11 Nov. 12 "Korematsu V. United States (1944)" Infoplease. (c) 2005-2012 Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease. "Korematsu V United States" CasesLaws. n.p., n.d., Web 15 Nov. 2012 Engel v. Vitale, 1962 By: Missy Yelton Background Information: The parents of ten students from Union Free School District number 9 in New York, were representing Engel while the school district was represented by Vitale. The argument was about how the school district made students say a short prayer every day. The students stated that the prayer was against their beliefs and their religion. The parents and students, represented by Engel stated that the prayer went against the first amendment. Issue(s): Freedom of Religion, 1st Amendment The part of the First amendment that this case revolved around was the freedom of religion and the establishment clause. The freedom of religion stated that people could praise or worship any person or religion they wanted to. The establishment clause stated that there be a “wall of separation" or the separation of church and state. The only thing in question was whether or not government established public schools had the right to force students to say a prayer. The parents thought that the prayer went against the establishment clauses separation of church and state in the first amendment. Supreme Court's Decision: 6 to 1 in Engel's favor The Supreme Court decided that the prayer was unconstitutional to the establishment clause by stating in the prayer, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country". Basically, they stated that any forcing of any religion by the government was unconstitutional. Concurring Opinion: Justice Hugo Black stated that the schools public schools use and encouragement of the short prayer was, "a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment clause." Justice Hugo Black Dissenting Opinion: Justice Potter Stewart stated that the rest of the Supreme Court Justices misunderstood the establishment clause in the first amendment. He said that the establishment clause only stated that the government couldn't establish churches. Sources: Photo of Justice Hugo Black, Wikipedia Web. 14 Nov 2012. Engel vs Vitale. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 November 2012. "Engel v Vitale." The Oxford Companion of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford Answers.com. 15 November 2012 University Press. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, 1964 By: Sheldon Laney Background Information: The Heart of Atlanta Motel was refusing service to African Americans to stay at the motel because of race. Issue(s): United States Commerce clause The issue was if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was under the constitutional power of congress within the Commerce clause and that if African Americans travels were impaired due to the discriminating hotels. The United States Commerce clause, congress has the power to enforce this. However due to the fact that the motel owner was only allowing a certain race to stay at the motel would have an effect on Georgia’s economy and interstate commerce since the motel was not getting money from African Americans living in the state and African Americans that know that they would not be accepted in the motel living outside the state. Supreme Court’s Decision: 9 to 0 in US Favor The court decided that congress did the power to enforce interstate commerce and regulate local buildings. The court also found that the civil rights act of 1964 was in constitutional. In title II of the civil rights act of 1964 limited businesses to having a direct affiliation to the flow of people Justice Tom C Clark and goods of interstate commerce. In conclusion the courts stated that public accommodations didn’t have the power to select people as they saw fit. Justice Tom C Clark wrote the majority opinion that was agreed on by all the justices. Concurring Opinion: There are three concurring opinions in this case. But Justice Hugo Black was most interesting. Justice Hugo Black agreed on the majority opinion but stated “the Court that the Necessary and Proper Clause gave congress the authority to regulate businesses located within a single state if their activities introduced a burden to interstate commerce.” Dissenting Opinion: There is not a dissenting opinion due to the fact that there was a unanimous decision. Sources: HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL v. U.S... The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. . . N.p., 27 2008. Web. 15 Nov 2012. . Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States By: Cindy Vasquez Background Information: The Heart of Atlanta Motel is located in Atlanta, Georgia. The owner of the Heart of Atlanta motel Mr. Rolleston refused to accept African Americans and was charged for discrimination. The case was first argued on October 5, 1964 and was decided on December 14, 1964. Issue(s): Discrimination, 14th amendment th The 14 amendment does not allow discrimination by states; therefore, you cannot deny service because of race. Another Issue deals with the 5th amendment since Mr. Rolleston believed that he had the option to choose who his guests were since it was his property and business. Congress prohibited discrimination under the Interstate commerce act which said that the motel has no right to select its guests. The Heart of Atlanta Motel Supreme Court’s Decision: 9 to 0 in United States favor The court decided on behalf of Tom Clark who was the Judge that the commerce clause allowed congress to regulate interstate commerce. Also the civil rights Act of 1964 and Title II stated carefully limiting the direct and substantial flow of goods and people. Therefore the court came to conclusions that places of accommodation could not select the people they felt could stay. Concurring Opinion: Congress favored the United States since it was logic that the guy was being racist and unfair. Dissenting Opinion: There was no dissenting opinion on the count of the vote being unanimous. Sources: "Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States | Casebriefs." Casebriefs. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2012. "HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL v. U.S." Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2012. "Mrspencer.info." Mrspencerinfo RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.