Highlights: Landmark U.S. Supreme

Court Cases: Civil LibertiesSS.7.C.3.12

Analyze the significance and outcomes of landmark Supreme Court cases.

Terri Susan Fine, Ph.D.

Content Specialist, Florida Joint Center for Citizenship

Benchmark

SS.7.C.3.12

Analyze the significance and outcomes of landmark Supreme

Court cases including, but not limited to Marbury v. Madison,

Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v.

Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, in re Gault, Tinker v. Des

Moines, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, United States v. Nixon, and

Bush v. Gore (District of Columbia v. Heller).

Limiting Individual Rights

Limiting individual rights is often premised on the “balancing test” in Schenck

v. United States (1919).

Two concepts emerge from that decision that are relevant to First Amendment

cases today. According to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in

falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] “

“When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace

are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured

so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by

any constitutional right."

Tinker v. Des Moines

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Question: Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public

school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom

of speech protections?

Yes (7-2)

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High

School, was written and edited by students. In May 1983, the school principal

received the page proofs for the May 13 issue. He found two articles to be

inappropriate, and ordered that articles be withheld from publication. Cathy

Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to

court.

Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the

First Amendment? No (5-3)

The Rights of the Accused

The notion of balancing individual rights with the public

interest has also entered the public discussion regarding the

rights of the accused.

Questions arise as to whether stricter treatment of the accused

promotes the “general welfare”. Others argue that the accused

are guaranteed rights in the Bill of Rights that must be

protected. These rights include:

Freedom from self-incrimination

Representation by counsel in criminal trials

Two landmark cases that have dealt with these issues include

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? Yes (9-0)

The Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Hugo Black: “lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.“

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

The Court considered the constitutionality of defendants being questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in [a] significant way."

Does interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

Yes (5-4)

What is the Impact of these Constitutional

Questions on Individuals in Society?

On questions of unpopular behavior, such as the exercise of free speech or free press, policies, and their interpretation through the lens of the U.S. Constitution, change based on the target population, and the times (see Benchmark 3.6).

On questions of suspected criminal behavior, the government has an obligation to affirmatively protect these rights.

Example: Miranda warnings reflect both Gideon and Miranda cases

Miranda Card