Transcript Slide 1

Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
What are the specific civil
liberties included in each of
the following parts of the
Constitution?
Article I, Section 9;
Article III, Section 2;
Article IV, Section 2;
The Second Amendment;
The Fourth Amendment;
The Sixth Amendment;
Article I, Section 10;
Article III, Section 3;
The First Amendment;
The Third Amendment;
The Fifth Amendment
The Eighth Amendment
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Mister Madison, I believe it would
be appropriate for the students to
make a chart, such as the one
below, on either paper or index
cards, regarding the landmark
decisions we are going to discuss
in this chapter.
Case
Chief
Justice
Year Summary of Findings or
Significance
Barron v. Baltimore
Marshall
1833 Bill of Rights did not apply to
the states
Marbury v. Madison
Marshall
1803 Judicial review
Simoncini v. Benson
Roberts
2013 Obnoxious students declared
unconstitutional
Students, I am the fourth
Chief Justice, John
Marshall. Let’s begin by
looking at a landmark
decision of my court.
Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Here are a couple more from
other Supreme Courts.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
(1886)—the Court implied that corporations
were “persons,” in the eyes of the law and were
subject to the same protections provided by the
Fourteenth Amendment
Lochner v. New York (1905)
States could not limit liberty by regulating
the hours of labor
Let’s now discuss some
cases pertaining to the
nationalization of the bill of
rights.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Selective Incorporation
The process by which provisions of the Bill of
Rights are brought within the scope of the
Fourteenth Amendment and so applied to state
and local governments. Today the Fourteenth
Amendment imposes on the states all the
provisions of the Bill of Rights except those of the
Second and Third Amendments, the Fifth
Amendment provision for indictment by a grand
jury, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in
civil cases and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Selective Incorporation has profoundly altered
the relationship between the national
government and the states. It made the
federal courts, under guidance of the US
Supreme Court, the most important protectors
of our liberties.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
The Constitution’s privileges and immunities
clause
In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the
Second Amendment protects an individual
right to possess a firearm unconnected with
service in a militia, and to use that firearm
for traditionally lawful purposes, such as
self-defense within the home.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the
purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. 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. The Court recognized in
Heller that the right to self-defense was one
such "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right.
The Court reasoned that because of its holding
in Heller, the Second Amendment applied to the states.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Gwanpa, as the world’s cutest little boy, I’m
under a great deal of scrutiny. I know you
are studying the Bill of Rights. Could you
have your students discuss ordinary scrutiny
and strict scrutiny?
United States v. Carolene Products
Company (1938)
Ordinary scrutiny: the assumption that the
actions of elected bodies and officials are
legal under the Constitution
Strict scrutiny: the assumption that actions
by elected bodies or officials violate
constitutional rights
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The Rational Basis Test
Places the burden of proof on people
attacking a law for not complying with the
equal protection requirement. Example: a
state may deny unemployment benefits to
people attending daytime school, but provide
the same benefits to people attending school
at night
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The Strict Scrutiny Test
When a law is subject to strict scrutiny, the
courts must be persuaded that there is both
a “compelling public interest” to justify a
classification and no less restrictive way to
accomplish this compelling purpose.
Courts apply to suspect classification—a class
of people deliberately subjected to such
unequal treatment in the past, or relegated by
society to a position of such political
powerlessness as to require extraordinary
judicial protection.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The Heightened Scrutiny Test
The burden of proof is on the government
to show that its classification serves
“important government objectives.”
Classifications based on gender are subject to
heightened scrutiny. Treating women
differently from men (or vice versa) is forbidden
when supported by no more substantial
justification than “the role-typing society has
long imposed upon women.”
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Freedom of Speech
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Abrams v. United States (1919)
Defendants (Abrams) were self-described
revolutionists. In 2 sets of leaflets, they
denounced sending U. S. troops to Russia and
U. S. efforts to impede the Russian Revolution,
plus U. S. participation in World War I in
general. They were convicted of violating the
Espionage Act of 1917 and sentenced to 20
years in prison.
Question: did the parts of the Espionage Act in
question violate the First Amendment’s
guarantee of freedom of speech?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Abrams v. United States (1919)
In a 7-2 decision, the White Court said “No.”
The Court held that the act was constitutional
because the leaflets had a tendency to
encourage war resistance and curtail war
production.
Justices Holmes and Brandeis dissented saying
that the First Amendment assures people the
freedom to express their opinions even if they
are unpopular or inflammatory
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The bad tendency test: judges presumed it was
reasonable to forbid speech that has a tendency
to corrupt society or cause people to engage in
illegal action.
The test was abandoned because it swept too
broadly and ran contrary to the fundamental
premises underlying the First Amendment as
the guardian of our democracy.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for
distributing copies of a "left-wing
manifesto" that called for the
establishment of socialism through strikes and class
action of any form. Gitlow was convicted under a state
criminal anarchy law, which punished advocating the
overthrow of the government by force.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Question : Was the New York law punishing advocacy
to overthrow the government by force an unconstitutional violation of the free speech clause of the First
Amendment?
Threshold issue: Does the First Amendment apply to
the states?
Yes, by virtue of the liberty protected by due process
that no state shall deny (14th Amendment).
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
The Court announced that it
assumed that freedom of speech
and the press—which are protected
by the First Amendment from abridgment by
Congress—are among the fundamental personal
rights and liberties protected by the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from
impairment by the states
For the first time, the US Constitution protected
freedom of speech from abridgment by state and
local governments. . .BUT
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
On the merits, a state may forbid both speech and
publication if they have a tendency to result in
action dangerous to public security, even though
such utterances create no clear and present
danger. The rationale of the majority has
sometimes been called the "dangerous tendency"
test. The legislature may decide that an entire
class of speech is so dangerous that it should be
prohibited. Those legislative decisions will be
upheld if not unreasonable, and the defendant will
be punished even if her speech created no danger
at all. Justice Holmes dissented.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
To bad people, we
represent a clear and
present danger. What is
the clear and present
danger test?
Formulated by Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr
in Schenck v. United
States (1919)
During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to
draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was
a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system.
The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but
advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to
repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged
with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by
attempting to cause insubordination in the military
and to obstruct recruitment.
Question
Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected
by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The question in every case is whether the words are
used in circumstances and are of such a nature as to
create a clear and present danger that they will bring
about substantive evils that Congress has a right to
prevent. A government should not be allowed to
interfere with speech unless it can prove that the
particular speech in question presents an immediate
danger—example, a speech leading to a riot, the
destruction of property, or the corruption of an election.
Speech is not an absolute right (Shouting “Fire” in a
crowded theater is the most famous example of
unprotected speech)
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a
speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under
an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made
illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or
unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of
accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well
as assembling "with any society, group, or
assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate
the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Question: Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law,
prohibiting public speech that advocates
various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's
right to free speech as protected by the First
and Fourteenth Amendments?
The Warren Court held that the Ohio law
violated Brandenburg's right to free speech.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate
speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is
"directed at inciting or producing imminent
lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or
produce such action." The criminal syndicalism
act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of
doctrines while ignoring whether or not that
advocacy and teaching would actually incite
imminent lawless action. The failure to make
this distinction rendered the law overly broad
and in violation of the Constitution.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
First Amendment basis
Individuals and interest groups can spend
whatever amount they want on the issue
and candidate advertising so long as
such efforts are not coordinated with the
candidates’ official campaign organizations
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
How did the U. S. Supreme
Court’s decision in Citizens
United v. Presidential Election
Commission (2010) affect hard
money?
The Court ruled that corporations and unions
may not be limited on what they spend on
advertising in support of or opposition to a
candidate.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Based on the arrest of Gregory Lee Johnson
for burning a flag outside the Republican
National Convention in protest of the
President’s foreign policy,
the Rehnquist Court, in a 5-4
decision, ruled that this
action was a form of
symbolic speech protected
by the First Amendment.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District (1969)
Established that students’ rights are “not shed
at the schoolhouse gates” and defined the
students’ wearing a black armband in silent
protest of the Vietnam War as “a legitimate
form of symbolic speech.”
Those rights were later restricted in the
student press case Hazelwood v. Huhlmeier
(1988) when the Court gave school
administrators the right to censor a school
newspaper
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The preferred position doctrine is an interpretation
of the First Amendment that holds that freedom of
expression is so essential to the operation of a
democracy that judges should give it special
protection and should almost never allow
governments to punish persons for what they say,
only for what they do.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Non-protected speech
Libel, obscenity (next section), fighting words,
and commercial speech, which are not entitled
in all circumstances to constitutional protection—
Lack social redeeming value and are not
essential to democratic deliberations and
self-governance.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Other important cases
Chalpinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
Defined “fighting words” as spoken words that
“by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to
inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate
breach of peace that governments may
constitutionally punish.”
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Fighting words: words that by their very nature inflict
injury upon those to whom they are addressed or
cause acts of violence by them
In recent years, the Court has overturned convictions
for uttering fighting words and struck down laws that
criminalized “hate speech”—insulting racial, ethnic,
and gender slurs
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Commercial speech is considered unprotected
speech.
Advertisements and commercials for products
and services receive less First Amendment
protection, primarily false and misleading ads.
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
The Court struck down a law forbidding the
advertising of the price of alcoholic drinks—now
apparently states may only forbid and punish
false and misleading advertising
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Prior restraint
•Restraint or censorship by government imposed
before a speech is made or a newspaper published
•Most such laws are unconstitutional
•Only ones approved by the Court relate to military
and security matters and also to high school
authorities’ control over the style and content of
student newspapers (Hazelwood v. Huhlmeier
(1988) )
•College newspapers have same protections as other
newspapers
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
Jay Near published a scandal sheet in
Minneapolis, in which he attacked local officials,
charging that they were implicated with gangsters.
Minnesota officials obtained an injunction to
prevent Near from publishing his newspaper under
a state law that allowed such action against
periodicals whose writings created “a nuisance,”
stating that publishers could be enjoined (stopped)
from further committing or maintaining the
nuisance.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Thus the Court established as a
constitutional principle the doctrine that, with
some narrow exceptions, the government
could not censor or otherwise prohibit a
publication in advance, even though the
communication might be punishable after
publication in a criminal or other proceeding.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
New York Times v. United States (1971)
In what became known as the "Pentagon
Papers Case," the Nixon Administration
attempted to prevent the New York Times
and Washington Post from publishing
materials belonging to a classified Defense
Department study regarding the history of
United States activities in Vietnam. The
President argued that prior restraint was
necessary to protect national security. This
case was decided together with United
States v. Washington Post Co.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Question: did the Nixon administration's efforts
to prevent the publication of what it termed
"classified information" violate the First
Amendment?
Yes. The Burger Court held that the government
did not overcome the "heavy presumption
against“ prior restraint of the press in this case.
Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication
would not cause an inevitable, direct, and
immediate event imperiling the safety of
American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
We are the Warren Court of 1964. Why do
scholars consider our decision in the case
The New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), to
be a landmark decision?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
This case concerned a full-page ad in the New York
Times that alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin
Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a
campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public
facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan,
the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel
action against the newspaper and four black
ministers who were listed as endorsers of the
ad, claiming that the allegations against the
Montgomery police defamed him personally. Sullivan
won a $500,000 judgment.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Question: Did Alabama's libel law, by not
Requiring Sullivan to prove that an
Advertisement personally harmed him and
dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual
errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First
Amendment's freedom of speech and
freedom of press protections?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
The Court gave all political speech First Amendment
protection
Seditious libel was declared unconstitutional
Neither Congress nor any government may outlaw
mere advocacy of the abstract doctrine of violent
overthrow of government. Moreover, advocacy of the
use of force may not be forbidden “except where such
advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent
lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such
action.”
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Neither public officials nor public figures can
collect damages for comments made about
them unless they can prove with “convincing
clarity” the comments were made with actual
malice.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
I am the Reverend Jerry
Falwell. The Court’s ruling in
my suit against Hustler
magazine affected what
material publications can print
about public figures.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
A lead story in the November 1983 issue of
Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an
advertisement, modeled after an actual ad campaign,
claiming that Falwell, a Fundamentalist minister and
political leader, had a drunken, incestuous relationship
with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued to
recover damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. Falwell
won a jury verdict on the emotional distress claim
and was awarded a total of $150,000 in damages.
Hustler Magazine appealed.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Question
Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech
protection extend to the making of patently offensive
statements about public figures, resulting perhaps
in their suffering emotional distress?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)
Parodies and cartoons cannot reasonably be
understood as describing actual facts or actual
events. Nor does the mere fact that a public
figure is quoted as saying something that he
or she did not say amount to libel, unless the
alteration in what the person said was made
deliberately, with knowledge of its falsity, and
results in material change.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
I’m yelling here but it’s clean.
Sometimes people use
obscenity, however. How did
the Supreme Court define that
term in Miller v. California
(1973)?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Miller, after conducting a mass mailing
campaign to advertise the sale of "adult"
material, was convicted of violating a California
statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene
material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's
brochures complained to the police, initiating
the legal proceedings.
Question
Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials
by mail protected under the First Amendment's
freedom of speech guarantee?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Miller v. California (1973)
In a 5-4 decision, the Burger Court held that obscene
materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.
A work may be considered legally obscene provided:
1)The average person, applying contemporary
standards of the particular community, would find the
work, taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient
(lascivious or lustful) interest in sex
2) The work depicts or describes in a patently
offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined
by the applicable law or authoritatively construed
3) The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
New York v. Ferber (1982)
A New York child pornography law prohibited
persons from knowingly promoting sexual
performances by children under the age of sixteen by
distributing material which depicts such performances.
Question: did the law violate the First and
Fourteenth Amendments?
The Burger Court held NO. In the Court's first
examination of a statute specifically targeted against
child pornography, it found that the state's interest in
preventing sexual exploitation of minors was a
compelling "government objective of surpassing
importance."
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
I’m Howard Stern. As I learned,
some sorts of press censorship
ARE allowed under the First
Amendment.
Household censorship is not
unconstitutional.
Congress may also forbid the use of mailboxes for any
materials except those sent through the U. S. mails
Laws calling for submission of films to a government
review board are constitutional only if there is a prompt
judicial hearing
The FCC may impose sanctions on stations that
broadcast filthy words
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
I’m Hugh Hefner, founder and
Publisher of Playboy Magazine.
Another important censorship
case was U.S. v. Playboy
Entertainment Group (2000).
The Court underscored greater
protection for cable than for broadcast television.
Whereas broadcast television may be required to
provide programming for children and not air violence
at certain times, the Court held that such rules do not
apply to cable television because unwanted
programming can be blocked at the household.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
I’m former Attorney General Janet
Reno. What was the significance of
Reno v. American Civil Liberties
Union (1997)?
The first ruling by the Supreme
Court on First Amendment
protection for the Internet. . .
The Court struck down provisions of the
Communications Decency Act of 1996 that
had made it a crime to send obscene or
indecent messages to anyone under the age of 18
The Court emphasized the unique character of the
Internet, holding that it is less intrusive than radio and
broadcast television.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Freedom of Religion and Free Exercise of
Religion
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
Lillian and William Gobitis were expelled from
the public schools of Minersville, Pennsylvania,
for refusing to salute the flag as part of a daily
school exercise. The Gobitis children were
Jehovah's Witnesses; they believed that such
a gesture of respect for the flag was forbidden
by Biblical commands.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Question: did the mandatory flag salute infringe
upon liberties protected by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments?
NO. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court declined
to make itself "the school board for the country"
and upheld the mandatory flag salute.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court overruled its
decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis
and held that compelling public schoolchildren
to salute the flag was unconstitutional.
The Court found that such a salute was a
form of utterance and was a means of
communicating ideas.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The First Amendment states that Congress
shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise
of religion.
Mantle of protection—the burden was on the
government to justify interfering with religious
practices in the least restrictive way
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Employment Division v. Smith: Rehnquist Court
significantly altered the interpretation of the
free exercise clause by discarding the
compelling governmental interest test for
overriding the interests of religious minorities.
As long as a law is generally applicable and
does not single out and ban religious practices,
the law may be applied to conduct even if it
burdens a particular religious practice
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
Enacted by Congress in response to the
Employment Division ruling
Aim: to restore the earlier test prohibiting the
government at any level from limiting a person’s
exercise of religion unless the government
demonstrates a compelling interest that is
advanced by the least restrictive means
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
The Rehnquist Court later, in the City of
Boerne v. Flores (1997), declared the RFRA to
be unconstitutional because Congress was
attempting to define, rather than enforce or
remedy, constitutional rights and thereby was
assuming the role of the courts, which
contradicted “vital principles necessary to
maintain separation of powers and the
federal balance.”
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
The establishment clause
creates a wall of
separation between
church and state and
prohibits any law or
governmental action
designed to specifically benefit any religion,
even if all religions are treated the same
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and the Lemon Test
Three cases involved controversies over laws in
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, a
statute provided financial support for teacher
salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for
secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode
Island statute provided direct supplemental salary
payments to teachers in non-public elementary
schools. Each statute made aid available to "churchrelated educational institutions."
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Question: did the Rhode Island and
Pennsylvania statutes violate the First
Amendment's Establishment Clause by
making state financial aid available to "churchrelated educational institutions"?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and the Lemon Test
•Yes
•A law must have a secular legislative purpose
•It must neither advance nor inhibit religion
•It must avoid excessive government
entanglement with religion
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995):
A state-supported institution must provide the
same financial subsidy to a student religious
publication that it provides to other publications
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002): the Court
approved Cleveland’s program of school
vouchers that provides public money to parents
who want to send their children to private
schools—the money does not go to the schools,
per se, but rather to parents
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The Endorsement Test
Sandra Day O’Connor said the
establishment clause forbids governmental
practices that a reasonable observer would
view as endorsing religion, even if there is
no coercion
Example: A city cannot display the nativity scene on
the steps of a city hall
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
McCreary County, Kentucky, et al. v.
ACLU (2005)
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
sued three Kentucky counties in federal district
court for displaying framed copies of the Ten
Commandments in courthouses and public
schools. The ACLU argued the displays
violated the First Amendment's establishment
clause, which prohibits the government from
passing laws "respecting an establishment of
religion."
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
McCreary County, Kentucky, et al. v.
ACLU (2005)
Questions: Do Ten Commandments displays in
public schools and in courthouses violate the
First Amendment's establishment clause,
which prohibits government from passing laws
"respecting an establishment of religion?“
2. Was a determination that the displays'
purpose had been to advance religion sufficient
for the displays' invalidation?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Yes and yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by
Justice David Souter, the majority held that the
displays violated the establishment clause
because their purpose had been to advance
religion. In the case of each of the displays,
the Court held, an observer would have
concluded that the government was endorsing
religion.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Engle v. Vitale (1962)
Does the reading of a nondenominational
prayer at the start of a school day violate the
establishment clause of the First Amendment?
The Supreme Court held: YES
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Lee v. Weisman (1992)
Directed school officials not to invite clergy
to recite prayers at graduation ceremonies
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe
(2000)
Prior to 1995, a student elected as Santa Fe
High School's student council chaplain
delivered a prayer, described as overtly
Christian, over the public address system
before each home varsity football game. One
Mormon and one Catholic family filed suit
challenging this practice and others under the
Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe
(2000)
Question: does the Santa Fe Independent
School District's policy permitting student-led,
student-initiated prayer at football games
violate the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Yes. In a 6-3 opinion the Court held that the District's
policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer
at football games violates the Establishment Clause.
The Court concluded that the football game prayers
were public speech authorized by a government policy
and taking place on government property at
government-sponsored school-related events and that
the District's policy involved both perceived and actual
government endorsement of the delivery of prayer at
important school events.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Public support of parochial schools
College:
Tax funds may be used to
construct buildings and
operate educational programs
at church-related schools, as
long as the money is not spent University of San Francisco
directly on buildings used for
religious purposes or in teaching religious
subjects
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Elementary and secondary
levels, states have provided
tax credits or deductions for
those who send their children
to school—parochial or
public—(state tax) and the
Court has upheld that as constitutional, even if
most of the benefit goes to those who send their
children to private religious schools
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court has also approved using tax
funds to provide students who attend primary
and secondary church-operated schools with
textbooks, standardized tests, lunches,
transportation to and from school, and
diagnostic services (exception: schools who
deny admission because of race or religion)
Tax funds may NOT be used in religious
schools to pay teachers’ salaries, purchase
equipment, produce teacher-prepared tests,
repair facilities, or transport students on field
trips.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
What forms of assembly has the Supreme Court over
the years deemed to not be protected by the First
Amendment?
No one has the right to block traffic or hold
parades or make speeches in public streets or
on public sidewalks whenever he or she wishes
Not protected assembly
Governments may not censor what can be
said, but they can make reasonable time,
place and manner regulations for protests
or parades
Civil disobedience is not a protected right
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Simoncini, as a future
judge I need to know the
difference between
procedural due process
and substantive due
process.
Procedural due process: refers to the way in
which a law is applied.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Procedural due process
Students, I am Daniel Webster.
The due process of law
requires a procedure that
hears before it condemns,
proceeds upon inquiry, and
renders judgment only after a
trial or some kind of hearing.
It now applies to most kinds of
governmental proceedings.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
OK, that’s cool. But
what about substantive
due process?
Substantive due process places limits on what
a government may do.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Procedural due process mainly limits the
executive and judicial branches because they
apply the law and review its application;
substantive due process mainly limits the
legislative branch because it enacts laws.
Substantive due process has become a
protector of civil liberties, most especially the
right to privacy.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
I was Chief Justice Earl
Warren. While we are
on the topic of
substantive due
process, let’s discuss a
case my Supreme Court
decided: Griswold v.
Connecticut (1965).
A Connecticut law criminalized counseling
married couples about or giving married
couples medical treatment for the purposes
of preventing conception of a child.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Issue: Does the Constitution protect the right of
marital privacy against state restrictions on a
couple’s ability to be counseled in the use of
contraceptives?
The Court held: together the First, Third,
Fourth and Ninth Amendments create the
right to privacy among married people.
The Connecticut law was therefore
unconstitutional and rendered null and
void.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Three aspects of that right:
1. The right to be free from government
surveillance and intrusion, especially in
marital matters;
2. The right not to have private affairs made
public by the government; and
3. The right to be free in thought and belief
from government regulations.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Yet another case that the Warren
Court, decided, similar in many
respects to Griswold v.
Connecticut (1965) was Loving v.
Virginia (1967.)
In 1958 a Virginia law was in
effect that banned interracial
marriages. Two residents of
Virginia, Mildred Jeter, an
African-American woman, and
Richard Loving, a white male,
were married in Washington, D. C., and
shortly after returned to Virginia. They were
charged with violating the Virginia law, found
guilty and sentenced each to a year in jail.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Issue: Did Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law
violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment?
In a unanimous decision, the Court held: that
distinctions drawn according to race were
generally “odious to a free people” and were
subject to “the most rigid scrutiny” under the
Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law had
no legitimate purpose “independent of
invidious racial discrimination.” The Court
further rejected Virginia’s argument that the
statute was legitimate because it applied
equally to blacks and whites.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
I was Chief Justice Warren
Burger. We will now discuss
one of my Court’s landmark
decisions in a case regarding
the Fourteenth Amendment:
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Norma McCorvey (Roe), a Texas resident,
sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion,
because the pregnancy was the result of rape.
Texas law prohibited abortions except to save a
pregnant woman’s life. Roe sued claiming
that the Texas law violated the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Issue: Does the Constitution embrace a
woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy
by abortion?
The Burger Court held: a woman’s right
to an abortion fell within the right to
privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut--1965)
protected by the Fourteenth and Ninth
Amendments. The decision gave a woman
total autonomy over her pregnancy during the
first trimester.
This decision affirmed by the Rehnquist Court
in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
In a bitter, 5-to-4 decision, the Court again reaffirmed
Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions.
For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard
to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions.
The new standard asks whether a state abortion
regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an
"undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial
obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion
before the fetus attains viability.” Under this standard,
the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the
husband notification requirement.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
What is the significance of the
Supreme Court’s decisions in
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986),
Bowers: the Supreme Court refused to extend
constitutional protection for marital privacy to
relations between homosexuals. Specifically,
there was no constitutional protection for acts
of sodomy, and that states could outlaw those
practices.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)
In 1994 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity
Act, the first state law authorizing physicians to
prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances
to terminally ill patients. Attorney General John
Ashcroft declared in 2001 that physicianassisted suicide violated the Controlled
Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). Ashcroft
threatened to revoke the medical licenses of
physicians who took part in the practice.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)
Question: did the Controlled Substances Act
authorize the attorney general to ban the use of
controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide
in Oregon?
No. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court held that Congress
intended the CSA to prevent doctors only from
engaging in illicit drug dealing, not to define general
standards of state medical practice. Moreover, the
CSA did not authorize Attorney General John
Ashcroft to declare a medical practice authorized
under state law to be illegitimate.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Now let’s discussMapp v.
Ohio (1961).
While searching her home for a
fugitive, Ohio police discovered
obscene materials in Dolree Mapp’s
possession. The police admitted
that the search of the home for
the fugitive violated the Fourth
Amendment. Still, Mapp was
convicted of possessing obscene
materials.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Issues:
1) Were the confiscated materials
protected by the First Amendment?
2) May evidence obtained in a search
that violated the Fourth Amendment
be used in a state court?
The Court held: all evidence obtained through
illegal searches and seizures is inadmissible in
state court. This decision created the
exclusionary rule, placing on all levels of
government the requirement of excluding
illegally obtained evidence from all criminal
court proceedings.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Another landmark decision
dealing that drew on the
exclusionary rule was the
1964 decision, Escobedo v.
Illinois.
Escobedo was arrested in connection with a
murder and, during interrogation at a local
police station, the police denied him access to
his attorney. Without his lawyer present, he
confessed to firing the shot that killed the victim
and, based on that confession, was convicted.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Issue: Is an accused person entitled to
have an attorney present during
questioning.?
The Warren Court held: based on the
“exclusionary rule” from Mapp v. Ohio (1961),
the police obtained Escobedo’s confession in
an illegal manner. His conviction was
overturned. The Court also created the
Escobedo Rule: based on the Sixth
Amendment, police must warn an accused of
the rights to remain silent and to have an
attorney present during questioning.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The exclusionary rule was the
altered by the Rehnquist Court
in the case Murray v. United
States (1988) and Wyoming v.
Houghton (1999)
Murray: Justice Scalia wrote the opinion of the
Court holding that the Fourth Amendment
protection against unreasonable search and
seizure does not require the suppression of
evidence initially discovered during an illegal
warrantless search if the same evidence is
discovered later in a legal search with a valid
warrant untainted by the initial warrantless search.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Question: May police officers, with
probable cause to search a car, inspect
personal items belonging to its
passengers without violating the Fourth
Amendment's protection against
unreasonable searches?
Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision the Court held that
so long as there is probable cause to search
a stopped vehicle, all subsequent searches
of its contents are legal as well.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Mustangs, Elle here. Our
next case is one of the most
famous in American history.
It involves the Fifth
Amendment: Miranda v.
Arizona (1966)
Miranda was arrested in Arizona and
the police questioned him without
advising him of his constitutional rights
under the Fifth Amendment (selfincrimination.) He confessed to part of
the crime. His confession was used in
court and he was convicted, based, in
part, on his confession.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Issue: Did the police practice of interrogating
individuals without advising them of their right
to counsel and protection against selfincrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
The Court held: Prosecutors could not use
statements in court that had been made by
defendants unless police had advised them
of their privilege against self-incrimination. The
Court also specifically outlined what police
warnings to suspects must include (right to
remain silent, right to counsel present during
questioning, etc.)
Criticisms of Miranda
The Supreme Court severely limited the ability of
police to bring criminals to justice. Over the
years, the Court has modified the original ruling
by allowing evidence obtained contrary to the
Miranda guidelines to be used to attack the
credibility of defendants who offer testimony at
their trial that conflicts with their statements to the
police.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Our next case concerns
the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments; specifically
the right to counsel:
Gideon v. Wainwright
(1963)
Gideon was arrested in Florida and charged
with felony breaking and entering. He lacked
funds to hire a lawyer and requested a courtappointed lawyer. The judge refused; Gideon
defended himself, was convicted, and
sentenced to 5 years in state prison.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Issue: Do the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments guarantee a right to legal
counsel in all cases?
The court held: Gideon had a right to
be represented by a court-appointed
attorney. Overturned Betts v. Brady (1942).
Justice Black: “an obvious truth” that a
fair trial for a poor defendant requires a
competent legal
counsel. “Lawyers
are a necessity, not
a luxury.”
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Our next case concerns
the death penalty:
McCleskey v. Kemp
(1987)
McCleskey, a black man, was convicted
of murdering a police officer in Georgia
and sentenced to death. In a writ of
habeas corpus, McCleskey argued that a statistical
study proved that the imposition of the death penalty in
Georgia depended to some extent on the race of the
victim and the accused. The study found that black
defendants who kill white victims are the most likely to
receive death sentences in the state.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The Court held that since McCleskey could not
prove that purposeful discrimination which had a
discriminatory effect on him existed in this particular
trial, there was no constitutional violation. Justice
Powell refused to apply the statistical study in this
case given the unique circumstances and nature of
decisions that face all juries in capital cases. He
argued that the data McCleskey produced is best
presented to legislative bodies and not to the
courts.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The Civil Rights (Reconstruction)
Amendments
Thirteenth—1865—outlawed slavery
Fourteenth (1868)
 Reversed Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
 All people born or naturalized in the U. S.
are citizens both of the U. S. and the
states in which they reside
 Privileges and immunities clause
 Due process clause
 Equal Protection clause
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The Civil Rights (Reconstruction)
Amendments
Fifteenth (1870)
States cannot prevent people from voting
on the grounds of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Hey! You! I’m a
slaughterhouse worker.
What was the
significance of the
Slaughterhouse Cases
(1873)?
Privileges and immunities clause of the 14th
Amendment--The Supreme Court carefully
distinguished between the privileges of US citizens and
those of state citizens. It held that the only privileges of
national citizenship are those that “owe their existence
to the Federal Government, its National Character, its
Constitution, or its laws.” These privileges have never
been completely specified, . . .
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
. . . but they include the right to use the navigable
waters of the US and to protection on the high seas,
peaceful assembly, to petition for redress of grievances,
to vote if qualified to do so under state laws and have
one’s vote counted properly, as well as to travel
throughout the U.S.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
But, in the
Slaughterhouse Cases
(1873), the Court ruled
that it was powerless to
protect African
Americans against
abuses by state
governments, including
barriers to voting and
office holding.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
In 1896 the
Court ruled, in
I was Justice Thurgood
Marshall. When I was an
attorney, I argued, and
won, the single most
important Supreme Court
case regarding civil
rights: Brown v. Board of
Plessy v. Ferguson, Education of Topeka, KS
that Blacks could be (1954).
placed in separate
facilities if they were
“equal” to those used
by whites. School
districts therefore
created separate “but equal” schools
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
An African-American girl named Linda
Brown lived near an all-white school in
Topeka, KS. To get to her all-black school,
she had to cross several dangerous roads
and railroads. Her father, Oliver Brown,
filed suit to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson to
enable Linda Brown to attend the all-white
school near her home.
Issue: Did the
“separate but equal”
provision of Plessy v.
Ferguson violate the equal protection clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
The Warren Court held: Plessy
v. Ferguson’s “separate but
equal rule” was a violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Racial
segregation in public education
“has a detrimental effect on
minority children because it is
interpreted as a sign of inferiority.”
Result: beginning of the end of all forms
of state-maintained racial segregation.
President Eisenhower immediately
asked Washington, D. C. officials to integrate
and make Washington a model for the
remainder of the nation. However, he and
Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. did
little else to
enforce the
decision until
1957.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
1955: Supreme Court handed down
a second Brown ruling: ordered district
courts to implement school desegregation
“with all deliberate speed.”
President Eisenhower and Congress did
not enforce. Eisenhower believed you
could not force desegregation on people.
Finally enforced at Central High School
in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as
subsequently amended) stipulated that
federal dollars under any grant program or
project must be withdrawn from an entire
school or institution of higher learning that
discriminates “on the ground of race, color,
or national origin,” gender, age, or disability
in “any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance.”
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Students, how did
southern states try to
circumvent the Fifteenth
Amendment?
Poll taxes
Literacy tests
Grandfather clauses
White primaries:
Primary elections only open to whites in the
one-party South where the only elections
that mattered were Democratic primaries;
effectively disenfranchised blacks
And I say to you, any form of
segregation is evil. So, who
can tell me the difference
between de jure segregation
and de facto segregation?
De Jure: laws that made it a crime for AfricanAmerican people to go to school together, or to
be served together in public places, or to sit
together in public transportation.
De Facto: Segregation that comes about
because of economic or social conditions or
results from individual choices.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Let’s discuss a landmark
case from the Burger Court
that had to do with “reverse
discrimination” under the
affirmative action issue:
Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke (1978)
Allan Bakke, 35 year old Caucasian, had twice
been rejected for admission to the UC Davis
medical school. The school reserved 16 places
in each entering class of 100 students for
“qualified minorities” as part . . .
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke (1978)
. . .of the university’s affirmative action program,
in an effort to “redress long-standing, unfair
minority exclusions from the medical profession.” Bakke’s college GPA and MCAT
scores exceeded those of any of the minority
applicants who had been admitted ahead of him.
Bakke claimed that he was excluded from
admission solely on the purpose of race;
or “reverse discrimination.”
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke (1978)
Issue: Did UC violate the Fourteenth
Amendment’s equal protection clause, and
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by
practicing an affirmative action policy?
The Burger Court could arrive at no single
majority opinion. The Court ordered the UC
Davis Medical School to admit Bakke.
However, the Court also ruled that “the use of
race as a criterion in admissions decisions in
higher education was constitutionally
permissible.”
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Richmond v. Croson (1989)
The Rehnquist Court struck down a regulation
by the city of Richmond requiring nonminority
city contractors to subcontract at least 30% of
the dollar amount of their contracts to one or
more minority business enterprises
Hopwood v. Texas (1996)
The Rehnquist Court declined to review a
decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
striking down the University of Texas law
school’s affirmative action plan for admission
of students. That ruling called into question
the Bakke holding that race can be used as a
factor in university admissions
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
In 2003, my court made
another key ruling in
Gratz v. Bollinger.
Jennifer Gratz applied to the University of
Michigan’s College of Literature, Science and
Arts with an adjusted GPA of 3.8 and an ACT
score of 25 (about 1300 on the old SAT). The
University of Michigan admitted using race in
making admissions decisions—its policy is to
admit virtually all qualified applicants who are
African-American, Latino or Native American.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
Issue: Did the University of Michigan’s use of
racial preferences in undergraduate admissions
violate the Equal Protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment or the Civil Rights Act of
1964?
The Rehnquist Court held that the University’s
policy did violate both laws. In the Bakke
decision the Court took into account the fact that
the University of California provided
individualized consideration to Bakke. The Univ.
of Michigan did NOT do so because each
minority applicant received an automatic 20points.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
Despite ruling against the
University of Michigan’s
admissions policy, our
Court did, however,
confirm that affirmative
action plans in university
admissions are legal and
valid under the
Constitution.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
How did my Court rule
regarding employment
discrimination in Ricci v.
DeStefano (2009)?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
White and Hispanic candidates for promotion in the
New Haven, CT fire department sued various city
officials in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut when the New Haven Civil
Service Board (CSB) failed to certify two exams needed
for the plaintiffs' promotion to Lieutenant and Captain.
The CSB did not certify because the results of the test
would have promoted a disproportionate number of
white candidates in comparison to minority candidates.
The plaintiffs argued that their rights under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e,
and the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause were
violated.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Questions
1) Can a municipality reject results from an
otherwise valid civil service exam when the
results unintentionally prevent the promotion
of minority candidates?
2) Does 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e permit
federal courts to relieve municipalities from
having to comply with local laws that require
strict compliance with race-blind merit
selection procedures?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Maybe; fact dependent. Not answered. The Supreme
Court held that by discarding the exams, the City of New
Haven violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Before an employer can engage in intentional
discrimination for the purpose of avoiding a "disparate
impact" on a protected trait (race, color, religion, national
origin), the employer must have a "strong basis in
evidence" that it will be subject to "disparate impact
liability" if it fails to take the discriminatory action. Here,
the Court reasoned that New Haven failed to prove it
had a "strong basis in evidence" that failing to discard
the results of the exam would have subjected it to
liability.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Over the years American
women were treated poorly.
However, the Supreme Court
used the intermediate scrutiny
doctrine to improve our
position in American society.
What is intermediate scrutiny?
A legal test falling between
ordinary and strict scrutiny
relevant to issues of gender; the
Court will allow gender classifications in laws if
they are substantially related to an important
government objective.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Craig v. Boren (1976)
An Oklahoma law prohibited the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2 percent beer to males under
the age of 21 and to females under the age of
18. Curtis Craig, a male then between the
ages of 18 and 21, and a licensed vendor
challenged the law as discriminatory.
Question: Did an Oklahoma statute violate the
Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection
Clause by establishing different drinking ages
for men and women?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the
statute made unconstitutional gender
classifications. In the view of the justices, the
use of strict scrutiny would endanger
traditional sex roles, while the use of ordinary
scrutiny would allow blatant sex discrimination
to survive. Consequently, the Burger Court
instituted the concept of intermediate scrutiny.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
United States v. Virginia (1996)
The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) boasted
a long and proud tradition as Virginia's only
exclusively male public undergraduate
higher learning institution. The United States
brought suit against Virginia and VMI
alleging that the school's male-only
admissions policy was unconstitutional
insofar as it violated the Fourteenth
Amendment's equal protection clause.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Question: does Virginia's creation of a
women's-only academy, as a comparable
program to a male-only academy, satisfy the
Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection
Clause?
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
No. In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that VMI's
male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional.
Because it failed to show "exceedingly persuasive
justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions
policy, Virginia violated the Fourteenth Amendment's
equal protection clause.
Women’s rights have not
followed the path of other
rights and liberties. The
nation has not restructured
civil rights for women based
on an expansive reading of
the equal protection clause
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Prohibits discrimination
against women at
federally funded
institutions, including
universities
Generally credited with
enhancing funding for
women’s sports programs
in colleges and improving
the quality of women’s
athletics in the United
States
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
Poll: 20% have experienced some form of sexual
harassment in the workplace
Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc. (1993)
Workers do not have to prove that offensive actions
make them unable to do their jobs or cause them
psychological harm, only that the work environment is
hostile or abusive.
1998: Companies are liable for the behavior of
supervisors even if top managers are unaware of
harassing behaviors. Can be mitigated if companies
have solid and well-communicated harassment policies
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Mandatory retirement is now barred
Employers cannot discriminate against employees over
the age of 40 in pay, benefits, promotions, and working
conditions
Courts have begun to strike down hiring practices
based on age unless a compelling reason exists
So, OJUSD can’t get rid of me
just because I’m an old, gray
grandpa. They are stuck with me
until I want (or my wife allows
me) to retire!!!!
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
What is the significance of the
Supreme Court’s decisions in
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986),
Bowers: the Supreme Court refused to extend
constitutional protection for marital privacy to
relations between homosexuals. Specifically,
there was no constitutional protection for acts
of sodomy, and that states could outlaw those
practices.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
An important case not in your
textbook is Boy Scouts of
America v. Dale (2000).
BSA: a New Jersey public accommodations law
could not be applied to keep the Boy Scouts
from excluding gays from being scout leaders.
The Boy Scouts are a private association, and
as such they have a right to exclude people
whose beliefs and conduct are inconsistent
with the Scouts’ views and mission.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
What is the significance of the
Supreme Court’s decisions in
Romer v. Evans (1996)?
Romer: the Court struck down an initiative
amending Colorado’s constitution that
prohibited all legislative, executive, or judicial
action designed to protect homosexuals at any
level of state or local government. The
provision violated the equal protection clause
because it lacked a rational basis and simply
represented a prejudice toward a particular
group of people.
What is the significance of the
Supreme Court’s decisions in
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Lawrence: the Court overturned its own Bowers
decision and ruled that state anti-sodomy laws
designed to make homosexual sexual relations
Illegal were unconstitutional.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996
Defined marriage as a union of a man and a
woman
Declared that states are under no legal
obligation to recognize same-sex marriages
performed in other states
Overturned by a federal district court judge in
2010 as an inappropriate federal intrusion on
states’ traditional prerogatives regarding
marriage
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court
On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder
released a memo regarding two lawsuits challenging
DOMA Section 3. He wrote: After careful consideration,
including a review of my recommendation, the President
has concluded that given a number of factors, including
a documented history of discrimination, classifications
based on sexual orientation should be subject to a
more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President
has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied
to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that
standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that
conclusion, the President has instructed the Department
not to defend the statute in such cases.
Objective: students explain the circumstances surrounding, results of and
ramifications of landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court