Supreme Court - American Flashcards
Texas vs Johnson
It was a decision made by the SC (5-4) that invalidated the prohibitions of desecrating the American flag which was enforced in 48 out of 50 states. It was claimed that a fine and imprisonment violated the right to free speech under the First Amendment
Texas vs Lawrence (2003)
It struck down the sodomy law in Texas with a 6-3 majority but by extension it also invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states which made same sex sexual activity legal in every US State and territory.
The court ruled that intimate consensual sexual conduct was a liberty protected by substantive due process under the 14th amendment
Bush vs Gore (2000)
This case resolved the dispute surrounding the 2000 Presidential election. It claimed that any manual recount of votes seeking to meet the deadline of December 12th were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Florida SC reversed and remanded.
Grutter vs Bollinger (2003)
It was a 5-4 majority and the SC upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School.
They ruled in favour due to the admissions process favouring underrepresented minority groups but it also took into account many other factors which were evaluated on an individual basis - that was not claimed to be unconstitutional
United States vs Windsor (2013)
It was a 5-4 majority and it ruled that Section 3 of the Defence of Marriage Act - which federally defined marriage as a union between one man and one women - is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause’s guarantee of equal protection.
It stated that the federal government must recognise same sex marriages that have been approved by the states.
Gonzales vs Oregon (2006)
It was a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court.
It said that the US Attorney General cannot enforce the federal controlled substances act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, to terminally ill patients , seeking to end their lives.
It was the first major case heard by the Roberts Case under the first Chief Justice
Miranda vs Arizona (1966)
It was a 5-4 majority.
FIFTH AMENDMENT : ‘Pleading the Fifth’ that allows witnesses to decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate them.
The Fifth Amendment right against self - incrimination requires a law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his or her rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney.
Arizona Court reversed and remanded
Boumediene vs Bush (2008)
Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in US Courts.
Clinton vs City of New York - line item veto (1998)
It was a 6-3 majority.
The Court ruled that the line item veto of the line item veto act 1996 violated the presentment clause of the US Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the US the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been dually passed by the US Congress.
Reno vs American Civil Liberties Union (1997)
It was a 7-2 majority.
The court ruled that anti - indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) violated first amendments guarantee of freedom of speech.
Santa Fe Independent School District vs Doe (2000)
It was a 6-3 majority.
It ruled that a policy permitting student led, student initiated prayer at high school football games violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.
DC vs Heller (2008)
It was a 5-4 majority .
The second amendment protects an individuals right to possess a fire arm unconnected with service in the military for traditionally lawful services such as self Defense within the home and that Washington DC’s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shot guns be kept unloaded or disassembled or bound by a trigger lock - violated this guarantee.
Shelby County vs Holder (2013)
It was a 5-4 majority.
Section 5 : requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices
Section 4(b) : contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to preclearance based on their histories
The section 4(b) formula was based on data from over 40 years ago and was unconstitutional
The court did not strike down section 5, but without section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula
Burwell vs Hobby Lobby
Hobby Lobby won the case which said that the company did not have to offer its employees the contraceptive pill as part of its policy as it went against their religion.
Obergefell vs Hodges (2015)
It was a 5-4 majority
Thanks to the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it now requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognise a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out a state.
Judicial Review
The court can declare actions as unconstitutional if they are judged to be incompatible with a higher authority, usually a codified constitution
Justices on the Court
SWING JUSTICE : Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by Ronald Reagan. In the US vs Windsor (2013), Kennedy voted in favour of same-sex marriage , hence opposing DOMA.
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George H. W Bush and is the most conservative member . For the US vs Windsor (2013), voted for DOMA
Neil Gorsuch was appointed by Donald Trump and is a conservative member of the court (not voted on an important matter yet)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed by Bill Clinton and was a left-wing liberal. In Burwell vs Hobby Lobby she voted for it (companies did not have to offer contraceptive pill)
Stephen Breyer was appointed by Bill Clinton and was a left-wing liberal.
Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed by George W Bush and is ‘centre of the right’. In Shelby County vs Holder he voted to get rid of the act
Samuel Alito was appointed by George W. Bush and is relatively conservative. In Harris vs Quinn he voted that the first amendment prohibits the collection of agency fee from Rehabilitation Programme PA’s who did not want to join or support the union
Sonia Sotomayor was appointed by Barack Obama is more liberal/left - leaning . In Schuette vs BAMN she voted in favour of affirmative action and against conservative independents
Elena Kagan was appointed by Barack Obama and is liberal/left - leaning. She voted to KEEP the act in Shelby County vs Holder
Factors that President will consider when choosing Supreme Court nominees
Ideological leaning : someone who corresponds as closely as possible to his own judicial outlook. In the recent past it has been more obviously ideological by Republican Presidents than those put forward by Democratic President
Judicial Credentials : often they will have served as a judge and if they have not , they will have to have a certain level of judicial credibility
Composition of the Senate : consider the reaction of the senate - especially controlled by an opposing party e.g. BORK
Representation of different groups : Supreme Court more diverse and more representative of the people - Obama and Kagan and Sotomayor
Age : keen to appoint someone who will serve for a long time on the court and thus preserved the legacy of the President
Judicial Independence
Impartial from external pressures and other factors
How is judicial independence protected ?
The separation of powers means that the judicial function is vested solely in the court , and it is consequently free from political interference in its decision making process
Justices are appointed rather than elected - the do not feel as though they have to represent and act in behalf of the people that elected them ; furthermore there is no accountability of their actions
The salaries of the justices cannot be reduced during their period of office , therefore they won’t be forced into making decisions due to the threat of losing money , they can be independent
Justices also have a lifetime tenure and can only be removed by impeachment
The two stage appointment process of nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate reduces the possibility of overtly political appointments
Impeachment is the responsibility of both houses, making politically motivated impeachment less likely to succeed
Arguments in favour of originalism/strict constructionism
The amendment process is available if societies values change. It shouldn’t be left to the judges to interpret what the ‘will’ of the people might be or represent changes in what society deems acceptable
The constitution is law : every other law is dead and doesn’t change its meaning over time ; if anything, as a statement of fundamental principles , there is more reason to keep the constitution unchanged
It makes the courts judgements more predictable and stable. This will mean that the public has greater understanding of their rights and freedoms and institutions will have a better understanding of the framework they must operate in
Justices will not be able to find rights within the constitution furthermore if they found ideas and ruled laws on this interpretation basis, they would appear as imperialistic because it was ‘found and interpreted’ rather than stated
Arguments against originalism/ strict constructionism
Society’s values do change and no one would want the framers view of e.g. ‘cruel and unusual punishments’ to be applied today
Originalism as currently practiced is not consistent e.g. no originalist Justice is critical of the decision in Brown vs Board of Education , when there is every indication that the framers of the 14th amendment regarded it as consistent with segregated schools
The constitution was written in broad terms as the framers themselves envisaged the need for it to evolve. Originalism does not allow for this process to take place as justices must narrowly stick to the original meaning of the text
The framers misjudged the Amendment process to the constitution ; the requirement of 2/3’s majorities in Congress, and approval by 3/4 of the state legislatures is too demanding , so that it becomes the responsibility of the court to bring it up (why be in a prison of the past)
Arguments in favour of judicial activism/ loose constructionism
The courts own decisions are not immune from error and must be reversed if necessary, therefore justices must be active to ensure that incorrect decisions are overturned and not be too deferential to precedent
The principles of the constitution are clear, and it is the role of the court to protect them from delusion or erosion by other branches of government. This means that justices should be active in confronting other branches when they violate the constitution
Legislators are often risk- averse, and slow to act for fear of offending one group or another ; consequently , important social change can only be achieved by the court taking the lead and striking down archaic legislation
The constitution is a living document that must be interpreted to reflect the values of the society in which we live. The founders wrote in broad and vague terms so future generations could adapt and change the meaning of the text (2nd Amendment)
Arguments against judicial activism/ loose constructionism
If the court reversed its own decisions, especially within a relatively short space of time, again there is a danger that its authority is undermined
As the court lacks the legitimacy of the elected branches , it should strike down legislation only if it is in flagrant breach of the constitution. It should not seek to find rights or provisions in the constitution that merely serve to further their own political preference
Judges are not expert in social policy and if they attempt to substitute their judgement for legislators , it is unlikely to produce successful policy. Legal experts should leave the work of public policy to those with greater knowledge
If justices are seen to use judicial review to advance their own policy preferences , they risk eroding the standing and authority of court
The constitution is vague in many places and its provisions subject to interpretation ; consequently , no one can claim a definitive knowledge of its meaning, and as an unelected body , the court should defer to the judgement of the other branches
