Exam 2 - The "Supreme 18" Court Cases Flashcards
Gitlow v. New York (1925) was the first successful attempt to get some of the freedoms of the Bill of Rights to also include the States (not just the Federal Government). An attempt at “incorporation” to have the Bill of Rights also include the states was first made back in 1833 with Barron v. Baltimore, but this attempt failed.
It would be another 82 years Gitlow v. New York (1925) brought about a partial inclusion. Though this Incorporation was extremely limited, it was a good start. As of 2016, not all of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to include the states: Not the 2nd Amendment, nor the 3rd Amendment, nor the 7th Amendment have yet been satisfactorily incorporated.
McNabb v. United States (1943) covers ‘Procedural Due Process’ & ‘Procedural Safeguards’ - the right to “Due Process” is nowhere to be found in the original U.S. Constitution.
In the McNabb Decision of 1943, the Court proclaimed that the history of liberty in the United States has been largely the history of the observance of procedural guarantees (Due Process) - Felix Frankfurter
The right to “Due Process” can be found in the Fifth Amendment (of the Bill of Rights, 1791). But the 5th Amendment only guarantees “Due Process” in Federal cases, not the States. The right to Due Process for the States will come 77 years later with the Fourteenth Amendment (1868).
5th Amendment (1791) = Due Process concerning the federal government
14th Amendment (1868) = Due Process concerning the states
An example of Due Process would be a criminal case where the procedure from arrest to conviction must follow a certain Due Process (such as search, investigation, arrest, interrogation, indictment, trial, conviction, sentencing, etc.).
Korematsu v. United States (1944) upheld the following:
In February 1942, Franklin Roosevelt issued an Executive Order that would result in the relocation and incarceration of 120,000 Japanese-Americans from 1942-45.
Fred Korematsu lost, although he should have won because his internment was a triple violation of the Constitution: Habeas Corpus, Bill of Attainder, and the 14th Amendment.
Citizens can be denied their civil liberties in the interest of national security, whether it is Constitutional or not (if it is the mood of the country).
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Right to an attorney in all felony criminal cases.
The individual right that is widely regarded as one of the most basic of rights is the right to an attorney in criminal cases.
The “Scottsboro Decsion” of 1931 guaranteed the right to an attorney in Capital Cases, but not non-capital cases.
The “Giddeon Decision” of 1963 guaranteed the right to an attorney in all criminal cases, including non-capital.
As of 1963, States must furnish attorneys for poor defendants in all felony criminal cases.
Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) invalidated the Illinois policy of allowing the prosecution an unlimited number of juror challenges in capital cases.
Excessive juror challenges can lead to the “prosecution team” and the “defense team” constructing a jury that would not be able to come to a unanimous verdict.
When a jury can not come to a unanimous decision, the result is a “Hung Jury” or a “Mistrial”.
By limiting juror challenges, the court would be better able to prevent the imposition of a “Hung Jury”.
Lundman v. First Church of Christ (1993) ruled that parents are not protected from prosecution for failing to provide their children with necessary medical treatment, even if it is the result of a religious prohibition.
Whenever possible, the Court attempts to honor “freedom of expression” when it comes to religious practices. However, it is not always possible for the Court to do so. Therefore, the Court does a balancing act between “freedom of expression” of one’s religion and the “compelling interest” of the state.
Hutto v Davis (1982) upheld the sanctity of the principle of “precedence.”
“Unless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be.”
Stare Decisis: The principle by which judges are bound to precedents.
Precedent: A rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases.
Case Law: In common law jurisdictions, the set of decisions of adjudicatory tribunals or other rulings that can be cited as precedent.
Adjudication: The legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation, including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved.
United States v. Virginia (1996) ruled that male only admissions at state-supported military academies were unconstitutional.
This was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) dealt with sexual harassment in the workplace, which illustrates the ambiguity that can exist in a law such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, the Supreme Court had to read the Civil Rights Act, and infer certain provisions.
The Court implied certain protections from the context of the anti-discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, the Court implied that the Civil Rights Act also concerned the issue of “sexual harassment”.
Such is the power of the court.
Dickerson v. U.S (2000) reinforced the power of the Miranda v. Arizona ruling of 1966.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) resulted in the rights of the accused to remain silent, right to an attorney, etc.
The Miranda Decision was considered by many to be the “coddling of criminals.” This was a severe blow against law enforcement, and is still controversial today.
Zelman v. Simmons (2002) upheld the use of tax-supported vouchers to attend private or parochial school.
The Court did not see tax-supported vouchers as a violation of the rule requiring the “separation of church and state”. Zelman v. Simmons (2002) is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) upheld the Affirmative Action programs at the University of Michigan. The University’s point system’s “predetermined point allocations” that awarded 20 points to underrepresented minorities “ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed” and was therefore unconstitutional.
Their class-action lawsuit alleged “violations and threatened violations of the rights of the plaintiffs and the class they represent to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment… and for racial discrimination.”
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor “underrepresented minority groups,” but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.
Goodrich v. Department of Public Health (2004): By order of the state’s Supreme Court, Massachusetts instituted same-sex marriage.
Subsequently, the Massachusetts decision was upheld by the United States Supreme Court. As a result, Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex marriage in 2004.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) struck down the laws banning gay marriage in all states.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) ruled that in times of crisis, especially when national security is at stake, most Americans are willing to forego individual freedoms in the interest of that national security.
After the 9-11 Attacks in September of 2001, the Patriot Act allowed the U.S. Government to suspend civil liberties in the name of national security when necessary.
However, the “Hamdan Decision” was a minor check on the Patriot Act of 2001. With the “Hamdan Decision”, the Supreme Court ruled that certain tribunals were unlawful because they did not provide even minimal protections of detainees rights at Guantanamo, where suspected terrorists were being incarcerated.
Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007) was a reversal of the Supreme Court’s stance on partial-birth abortion, largely due to the replacement of Sandra Day O’Connor with Samuel Alito as an associate justice on the Court.
Moderate conservative justice Sandra Day O’Connor was a swing vote on the Supreme Court, who sometimes sided with the liberals.
Moderate conservative justice Sandra Day O’Connor was a swing vote on the Supreme Court, who sometimes sided with the liberals.
