Case studies - The Judiciary Flashcards
How does the SC strike down laws without hearing cases? - Roe v Wade (1973)
On 26th January 2015, the US Supreme Court refused to review a ruling by lower federal courts that a North Dakota law, banning abortions once a foetus had a detectable heartbeat, was unconstitutional. Only a week earlier, the Supreme Court had declined to hear an appeal over a similar abortion law struck down in Arkansas. Pro-choice groups argue that it is unnecessary for the Supreme Court to hear these appeals because the constitutional right to an abortion was already established in the case Roe v. Wade (1973). However, pro-life groups argue that the precedent set by this decades-old ruling is too broad and vague, and that state legislators would benefit from an updated, more precise decision.
Roe v Wade (1973) - What exactly do abortion laws do?
- When it was passed in 2013, the North Dakota Human Heartbeat Protection Act became the most restrictive abortion law in the US. The law made it illegal to perform an abortion when the foetus had a detectable heartbeat, unless there was a medical emergency that meant that an abortion was necessary to protect the life or health of the mother.
- The law was controversial because heartbeats can be detected as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, meaning that abortions would become illegal before many women would even have discovered that they were pregnant.
- After the law passed in 2013, North Dakota’s sole abortion provider, the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo, sued the state and judges blocked the implementation of the law until legal proceedings had been completed. The Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act (2013) similarly banned abortions when a heartbeat could be detected, but only after 12 weeks.
Roe v Wade (1973) - Why did the federal judges strike these laws down?
- In the landmark case Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court controversially ruled that the US Constitution protected a woman’s right to have an abortion. In order to balance the right of women to decide whether to continue with their pregnancy with the state’s interest in protecting foetal life, the Supreme Court ruled that states could pass laws limiting abortion ‘after the point of viability’, by which the Justices meant the point at which a foetus could survive outside the womb.
- In a later case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court then ruled that a foetus could be considered viable approximately 23 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy, effectively setting a time limit on when the right to an abortion was protected.
- In 2014, U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland said that, as a result of the viability precedent set in Roe and Casey, he had no choice but to find North Dakota’s Heartbeat Protection Act to be unconstitutional. He said that the Supreme Court had made it very clear that “no state may deprive a woman of the choice to terminate her pregnancy at a point prior to viability”. North Dakota’s lawyers argued that the existing viability precedent had become outdated, as advances in medicine have enabled some foetuses to be delivered at earlier stages, while embryos can be kept alive outside the womb in a lab.
- The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit noted this, and also criticised the viability standard for giving “too little consideration” to the states’ “substantial interest” in protecting “potential life throughout pregnancy.”
- However, the Eighth Circuit judges acknowledged that they “are bound by Supreme Court precedent” and, as North Dakota’s law banned abortions before viability “as the Supreme Court has defined that concept”, the law has to be found to be unconstitutional.
Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination
Amy Coney Barrett was nominated by President Trump following the death of justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and she was elected by a 52-48 Senate vote due to the Republican control of Congress. Therefore, with the given Republican control on votes, her confirmation was all but confirmed and therefore was not a difficult to get passed, and so the nomination process was smooth and fast, as she got confirmed only 30 days after her nomination.
Amy Coney Barrett’s Nomination - Opposition
Democratic senators opposed the decision due to the Conservative ideology she held, and so Democrats and pressure groups opposed her nomination and confirmation as it meant endangerment of abortion rights and healthcare reforms. Democrats boycotted a vote to advance her nomination partially due to how Obama’s nomination was blocked at the end of his presidency so the Republican Senate could allow a Republican nominee, cementing the Conservative dominance on the court. There was also concern about the threat to the legitimacy of the democracy through the heavy conservative weighting and the politicised environment of her nomination that would push party line voting in the court.
Amy Coney Barrett - Public / media reaction
The media reaction was heavily divided on partisan lines, with many liberal and Democratic supporters frustrated at the replacement of RGB with someone they saw as inadequate to rule on the SC due to how opposite her views were to her predecessor, especially around women’s rights, and they questioned the decision of creating such a conservatively weighted court in times of Black Lives Matter, abortion debates and LGBTQ+ rights; in such a liberal society, having conservative constitutional interpreters is incompatible, and that limiting diversity in the court amidst growing diversity in society seems counter-productive. However, there was conversely heavy Republican support both in the Senate and Representatives and in the Executive, as well as support from Republican voters.
Amy Coney Barrett - ideology of the nominee
A help to the legislative agenda of the Executive and Congress at the time, as votes on the constitutionality of laws would likely go in their favour due to the shared ideology of the branches. However, this is a hindrance to the checks and balances of the judiciary, as they lose their independence as a branch through their ideological connections and so become a mandate to agree and confirm laws that may not necessarily be constitutional.
Amy Coney Barrett - Constitutional views
ACB is an originalist, and so her view on the constitution is very conservative and aligned with Republican interpretation; this therefore means she is unlikely to vote in the introduction of new implied powers and allowances in the Constitution, making her a hindrance to Trump’s desires of power but also a hindrance to abortion rights and other civil rights in relevance to the 5th and 14th amendment.
Amy Coney Barrett links
- https://www.naacpldf.org/our-thinking/issue-report/supreme-court/opposition-to-the-confirmation-of-judge-amy-coney-barrett/
- https://www.npr.org/2020/10/26/927640619/senate-confirms-amy-coney-barrett-to-the-supreme-court?t=1648727561077
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2020/10/27/social-media-reactions-divided-on-partisan-lines-over-confirmation-of-amy-coney-barrett-to-the-supreme-court/?sh=3032d13933ec
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/26/amy-coney-barrett-originalist-but-what-does-it-mean
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54700307
Brown v Board of Education (Warren Court, 1954)
Overview of case
- This Supreme Court case ruled that ‘separate but equal’ was inherently unequal through the deeming of state laws on segregated schools as unconstitutional. It overturns the Plessy v Ferguson 1896 decision.
Court’s decision and dissenting opinions
- Unanimous decision handed down declared separate but equal was inherently unequal and violated the 14th Amendment. Initially, the U.S. District Court’s three-judge panel ruled against the plaintiffs, with one judge dissenting, stating that “separate but equal” schools were not in violation of the 14th amendment.
Reaction to the decision
- The court stated that the decision was not biassed toward any opinion but a legal one as the segregation of schools caused inferiority where there was no inferiority.
- Some people argued that the public school system could remain intact whilst desegregating schools, and others argued that desegregation could only truly happen with a reconstruction of the school system.
- Many reacted to the decision positively, seeing it as an incredible step in the Civil Rights Movement and a great victory for equality across the country.
- However, a Southern Manifesto was signed two years later by over 100 lawmakers which protested the decision, stating it was an abuse of judicial power.
- Overall, the reaction was split between the South and North, with the South seeing it is infringing on their school systems and the North valuing it as a victory for racial minorities.
Impact in the short/long term
Short term impacts -
- Declared segregation in schools unconstitutional therefore promoting integration - however, it did not force immediate or direct change
Long term impacts -
- Didn’t achieve school segregation on its own, but the ruling fueled the civil rights movement; just a year after the decisions, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and this sparked the Montgomery bus boycott, and then other boycotts, sit-ins and demonstrations
- Eventually led to the toppling of Jim Crow laws in the South and the passage of the Civil Rights Act 1964 which began the true process of desegregation and this was followed by the Voting Rights Act (1965) and the Fair housing Act (1968)
- Led to further court decisions such as the Runyon v McCray ruling that even private and non sectarian school that denied admission to students on the basis of race violated federal civil rights laws
- Set a legal precedent that would be used to overturn laws enforcing segregation in other public facilities - however, failed to achieve its primary mission of integrating the public schools
- Had social, psychological and political impact
- Still a debate over how to combat racial inequalities in the school system due to residential patterns and resource differences
Miranda v Arizona (Warren Court, 1966)
Overview of case
- The defendant (Ernesto Miranda) was arrested in his house and was brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defence attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation (fifth amendment). The jury founded Miranda guilty.
Court’s decision and dissenting opinions
- On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request
Reaction to the decision
- Widely criticised when it came down as it was deemed unfair to inform criminals of their rights
- Nixon denounced Miranda for undermining the efficiency of the police and argued it would contribute to an increase on crime
- Many supporters of law enforcement were angered by the decisions negative view of police officers
Impact in the short/long term
- With fewer confessions, the police found it more difficult to solve crimes.
- The rates of violent crimes solved by police fell, from 60% or more to about 45%, where they have remained.
- The rates of property crimes solved by police also dropped.
- The ruling had a minimal impact on the solving of homicides, rapes and assault
