Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Case Take Aways

Question 1

Duncan v. Louisiana

Answer 1

Duncan v. Louisiana - Jury trial denied in simple battery proceeding

Trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice because it works to prevent governmental oppression

Argument that laymen cannot determine the facts in civil and criminal proceedings is unpersuasive

• Juries do understand the evidence and come to sound conclusions in most cases presented to them, hence the reason why we use them

Effect: Incorporation of the 6th Amendment’s guarantee to a trial by jury

Question 2

The Civil Rights Cases: United States v. Stanley

Answer 2

The Civil Rights Cases: United States v. Stanley - 14th Amendment, §5 & Private Individuals

Supreme Court holds the Civil Rights Act of 1875 as unconstitutional

• The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate private rights. (Origin of the State Action Doctrine)

Dissent would find state action in sustaining private discrimination because state action is the “backstop” upon which private individuals discriminate and therefore should be a relevant consideration

Question 3

Marsh v. Alabama

Answer 3

Marsh v. Alabama - Jehovah Witness charged with trespassing for distributing flyers in private town

Public Function Exception: A private entity that acts like a governmental body and performs a public function is subject to the United States Constitution (Constitution).

• The more an owner for his advantage open his property for public use, the more rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it
• Running a town is a public function, even if performed by a private entity, and therefore it must follow the Constitution
• Alabama’s attempt to convict Marsh cannot stand

Question 4

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.

Answer 4

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. - Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission shuts off electricity

Court narrows the public function exception to functions that are traditionally exclusively reserved to the state

• Although the P.P.U.C. had state conferred monopoly, it is not serving a traditionally an exclusive public function
• Service was terminated in a manner that the PPUC found permissible under state law for nonpayment.

Question 5

Shelley v. Kraemer

Answer 5

Shelley v. Kraemer (Racially motivated residential restrictive covenant enforced by Missouri Court)

Entanglement Exception: A state acts between its judicial and legislative departments therefore judicial enforcement is state action (Affirmative state action entangled with private conduct)

Post-Shelly courts have limited the influence of this holding mostly to areas involving racial discrimination