1|Page

SupremeCourtCases

Period3

Fall2015

2|Page

TableofContentsYear Topic Author PagePowersoftheFederalGovernment(Supremacy)1819 DartmouthCollegev.Woodward ByBrookeSturdivant 41819 McCullochv.Maryland By:MaddieFaughnan 51824 Gibbonsv.Ogden By:JasonBrown 61964 HeartofAtlantaMotelv.US By:LaurenHudak 71974 USv.Nixon By:EmmaBerg 8 FirstAmendment1943 WestVirginiaBoardofEducationv.Barnette By:MonikaRonk 101962 Engelv.Vitale By:BreanaMoore 111963 AbingtonSchoolDistrictv.Schempp By:MarissaRoberts 121968 Tinkerv.DesMoinesSchoolDistrict By:JoePalmieri 131972 Wisconsinv.Yoder By:RyanHofmeister 141982 IslandTreesSchoolDistrictv.Pico By:McKennaNixon 151985 Wallacev.Jaffree By:BenGrant 161986 BethelSchoolDistrictv.Fraser By:BaileyAmbrister 171988 HazelwoodSchoolDistrictv.Kuhlmeier By:RachelStephenson 181989 Texasv.Johnson By:EricaHardy 192010 CitizensUnitedv.FEC By:PierceSandy 20 RightsoftheAccused1942 Bettsv.Brady By:EmilyThomas 221961 Mappv.Ohio By:EmilyDolegowski 231963 Gideonv.Wainwright By:AlecBallard 241964 Escobedov.Illinois By:RachelMahr 251966 Mirandav.Arizona By:SeanNicol 261967 InReGault By:TyriqueMendez 271976 Greggv.Georgia By:AlexShearer 282013 Salinasv.Texas By:JakeHudgins 29 EqualProtectionoftheLaw1857 DredScottv.Sandford By:MattFranck 311896 Plessyv.Ferguson By:DaCariaAdams 321944 Korematsuv.US By:LaurenFrank 331954 Brownv.BoardofEducationofTopeka,Kansas By:MatthewGentry 341964 HeartofAtlantaMotelv.US By:LaurenHudak 351971 Swannv.Charlotte-MecklenburgBoardofEducation By:TannerGold 361972 Furmanv.Georgia By:AshleyPriest 371973 Roev.Wade By:LindsayZamminer 381978 RegentsoftheUniversityofCaliforniav.Bakke By:JacobNelson 39

3|Page

Part1:PowersoftheFederalGovernment(Supremacy)

4|Page

DartmouthCollegev.Woodward(1819)By:BrookeSturdivantBackgroundInformationIn1816,NewHampshirelegislatureattemptedtochangeDartmouthCollege,aprivateschool,toapublicinstitution.Thistransferredthecontroloftheschool’strusteeappointmenttotheGovernorofNewHampshire.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)NewHampshirelegislatureunconstitutionallyinterferedwithDartmouthCollege’srightsunderthecontractclause.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Ruledinfavorofthecollegeanddismissedtheformerlegislaturethathadbeenpassed-allowedthecollegetocontinuetobeaprivateinstitution.

Precedent

Sincethesupremecourtruledinfavoroftheschool,itsettheprecedentthatthegovernmentdoesnothavetherighttointerferewithaprivatecontract.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeWashington:Sighted"noStateshallpassanybillofattainder,expostfactolaw,oranylawimpairingtheobligationofcontracts,"fromthefirstarticleoftheconstitution.JusticeStory:SightedintheconstitutionthatnoStateshallpassanylaw“impairingtheobligationsofcontracts.”DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeDuvall:Saidthatsincethedefendanthadpaidtwentythousanddollars,thattheplaintiffhadgottenthejusticetheysought.

SourcesCited(MLA)"KeySupremeCourtCases:DartmouthCollegev.Woodward(ABADivisionforPublicEducation)."KeySupremeCourtCases:DartmouthCollegev.Woodward(ABADivisionforPublicEducation).N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.Bhatia,KedarS."ConcurringorDissentingWithoutanOpinion."DailyWrit.N.p.,8Jan.2013.Web.8Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttp://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/dartmouth.htmlhttp://dailywrit.com/2013/01/concurring-or-dissenting-without-an-opinion/

5|Page

McCullochv.Maryland(1819)By:MaddieFaughnan

BackgroundInformationIn1816,CongressestablishedtheSecondNationalBanktobettercontroltheamountofunregulatedcurrencyissuedbystatebanks.ThestateofMarylandimposedtaxesonallbanksnotcharteredbythestate.In1818,MarylandapprovedlegislationtoimposetaxesontheSecondNationalBankcharteredbyCongress.JamesW.McCulloch,aFederalcashierattheBaltimorebranchoftheU.S.bank,refusedtopaythetaxesimposedbythestatethereforeMarylandfiledasuitagainstMcCulloch.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Thecasebroughttheoverallquestion,doestheFederalGovernmentholdsovereignpoweroverstates?Specifictothecase,doestheConstitutiongiveCongressthepowertoestablishthebankinthefirstplace?Also,anotherconstitutionalquestionwascouldtheindividualstateofMarylandimposetaxontheSecondNationalBankorbanit?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheSupremeCourtruledthatCongresshadimpliedpowersundertheNecessaryandProperClauseofArticleI,Section8intheConstitutiontocreatetheSecondNationalBankoftheUnitedStatesandthatthestateofMarylandlackedthepowertotaxtheBankasitwasaninstrumentofthenationalgovernment.

Precedent

TheSupremeCourtruledthattheFederalGovernmenthasthepoweroverstatestonotbecontrolledbythem,andthatthestatescannotimposetaxesoverCongress.

ConcurringOpinion(s)None

DissentingOpinion(s)None

SourcesCited(MLA)"McCullochv.Maryland."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015.McBride,Alex."McCullochv.Maryland(1819)."PBS.N.p.,2006.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/17us316http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_mcculloch.html

6|Page

Gibbonsv.Ogden(1824)By:JasonBrown

BackgroundInformationAaronOgdenwasgrantedalicensebythestateofNewYorktooperatesteamboatsonacertainwaterwayfromNewYorktoNewJersey.Hislicensewasanexclusivelicense,meaningthatOgdenhadamonopolyforoperatingsteamboatsonthosewaterways.ThomasGibbonswasoperatingsteamboatsonthesamewaterwaysasOgden,butwasbasedinNewJersey.OgdensuedGibbonsforaninjunctioninaNewYorkcourt.GibbonsclaimedthathehadrightstothewaterwaysduetoanactofCongressin1794.TheNYstatecourtsruledinfavorofOgden.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)ThecommerceclauseoftheConstitutionstatedthatCongressregulatesinterstatetrade,butthequestionarose:Dostatesalsohavetheauthoritytoregulateinterstatecommerce?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Ina6-0ruling,(JusticeThompsondidnotvote)theMarshallcourtdecidedthatcongresshassolepowertoregulatecommercebetweenstates.Congresscannotregulatetradethatremainsinsideastateandstatescannotregulatetradethatleavesitsborders.

Precedent PaintingofdisputedwaterwaysinNY

CaseestablishedCongress'ssolepowertoregulatetradebetweenstates.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeJohnsonfeltthattheconstitutionalissuewastheoriginallicenseissuedtoOgden,insteadofwhohadoverallregulatorypowerbetweenstates.JohnsonbelievedthattheoriginalmonopolylicensegiventoOgdenwasunconstitutionalasitviolatedthefreedomofintercourse.

DissentingOpinion(s)None.

SourcesCited(MLA)Johnson,J."Gibbonsv.Ogden."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.CornellUniv.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.McBride,Alex."GibbonsV.Ogden."PBS.PBS,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/22/1-writing-USSC_CR_0022_0001_ZChttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_gibbons.html

7|Page

HeartofAtlantaMotelv.US(1964)By:LaurenHudak

BackgroundInformation:TheHeartofAtlantaMotelgotmostofitsbusinessfromout-of-statecustomers.ThebusinessrefusedtoaccommodateAfricanAmericansinviolationoftheCRA(CivilRightsAct),andarguedthatCongresshadoversteppeditscommercepowersinregulatingtheallowanceofcustomersintothehotel.ThecasewasarguedOctober15,1964andaverdictwasreachedDecember14,1964.

ConstitutionalIssue(s):WhiletheFourteenthAmendmentholdsthatcitizenshaveequalprotectionunderthelaws,TheHeartofAtlantaMotelfeltasthoughCongresswassteppingoutofitsborderstodirectlydictatewhowasabletostayattheMotel.TitleIIoftheCivilRightsActof1964alsoforbaderacialdiscriminationbyplacesofpublicaccommodationiftheiractionsaffectedcommerce,whichtheMotelwaschargedwithviolating.SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion):CivilRightsActisconstitutional.Therefore,Congresscanpreventstatesfromdiscriminating,statescanpreventprivatebusinessesfromdiscriminating,andCongresscanalsodirectlypreventthediscriminationoftheprivatebusinesses.

Precedent:

Thevotewasninetozero,favoringtheUnitedStates.TheSupremeCourtruledthatCongresshadthepowertoregulatelocalbusiness,andthatplacesofpublicaccommodationhadnorighttochoosewhotheyservedanddidnotserve.

ConcurringOpinion(s):JusticeBlack,JusticeDouglas,andJusticeGoldbergallagreedwiththeoutcomeverdictofthiscase.Themostreluctant,JusticeDouglas,hadpreviouslyservedasaJusticeonacourtnamedEdwardsv.California,acasewithsomesimilardynamics.DouglasfeltasthoughtheUnitedStatesfocusedfartoomuchonraceratherthantheeconomy,development,education,orotherthingshefelttobeimportant.Nonetheless,hestillfoundTheHeartofAtlantaMoteltobeatfaultandsidedwiththetwootherjudges.

DissentingOpinion(s):None,butaspreviouslymentioned,afewofthejudgeshadreasonstovotebothways.

SourcesCited(MLA):● "HeartofAtlantaMotel,Inc.v.UnitedStates."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015.● Burke,Alexandria."HeartofAtlantaMotel,Inc.v.UnitedStates."CasebriefsHeartofAtlantaMotelIncvUnitedStates

Comments.CaseBriefs,2012.Web.08Dec.2015.● Coenen,DanT."HeartofAtlantaMotelv.UnitedStates(1964)."NewGeorgiaEncyclopedia.NGE,17May2013.Web.

08Dec.2015.QuickLinks:https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/515http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/the-federal-legislative-power/heart-of-atlanta-motel-inc-v-united-states/http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/heart-atlanta-motel-v-united-states-1964

8|Page

USv.Nixon(1974)By:EmmaBerg

BackgroundInformationNixonwasthepresidentoftheUnitedStatesfrom1969-1974.In1972therewasabreakinintheDemocraticNationalCommittee'sofficeintheWatergatecomplexofWashington,DC.PoliceinvestigatorsandaselectcommitteefromcongresssoonrevealedthatthiswasconnectedtoNixon’s,“CommitteetoRe-ElectthePresident.”NixonwasbroughttotrialaftergettingasubpoenatoreleasetapesfromtheWhiteHouse.Thetapeswerethoughttocontaindamagingevidenceagainstthepeopleinvolvedinthebreakinandthepresidenthimself.Nixon’slawyerarguedthathewasexemptfromtheprocessofthecourtbecauseof“executiveprivilege.”NixonleftofficeafterresigningduetoallegationsfromtheWatergatescandalandthethreatofimpeachment.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Isthepresident'srighttowithholdinformationfromthepublicandotherbranchesofgovernmentdueto“executiveprivilege”entirelyimmunefromjudicialreview?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Thesupremecourtruledunanimously(8-0)thatNixon’sexecutivepowerwasnotexemptfromjudicialreviewthereforeforcinghimtofollowthesubpoenaandreleasethetapes.Thecourtruledthatexecutiveprivilegeisnotabsoluteandissubjecttoreviewandjurisdiction.Thecourtdidexplainthatthereislimitedexecutiveprivilegeincertaincasesbutmostimportantlythecourtmustuphold"thefundamentaldemandsofdueprocessoflawinthefairadministrationofjustice."

Precedent

”Always remember others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.”

InthiscasetheSupremeCourtdefinedexecutiveprivilegeaslimitedandonlyincertainareassuchasmilitaryanddiplomacy.TheCourtheldthatneitherthedoctrineofseparationofpowersorthegeneralizedneedforconfidentialityofhigh-levelcommunicationscansustainanabsolute,unqualified,presidentialprivilege.ConcurringOpinion(s)

DissentingOpinion(s)

SourcesCited(MLA) "UnitedStatesv.Nixon(1974)."Infoplease.PearsonPrenticeHall.Web.8Dec.2015."Watergate:TheScandalThatBroughtDownRichardNixon."Watergateinfo.Web.8Dec.2015."UnitedStatesv.Nixon."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec7,2015.

QuickLinkshttp://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar41.htmlhttp://watergate.info/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-1766

9|Page

Part2:TheFirstAmendment

10|Page

WestVirginiaBoardofEducationv.Barnette(1943)By:MonikaRonk

BackgroundInformationTheWestVirginiaBoardofEducationrequiredforaflagsalutetobeamandatorypartoftheschoolingprograminallpublicschools.Allteachersandpupilswouldberequiredtohonortheflag,failuretodosowouldbepunishablebyinsubordinationanddelinquencycharges.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)ThisactisdeemedunconstitutionalduetoitsviolationoftheFirstAmendment’sFreedomofSpeech.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Themajorityopinionresultedina6-3vote,sidingwithBarnette.Barnettefeltthatcompellingpublicschoolchildrentosalutetheflagwasunconstitutional.Writingforthemajority,JusticeJacksonarguedthat"Ifthereisanyfixedstarinourconstitutionalconstellation,itisthatnoofficial,highorpetty,canprescribewhatshallbeorthodoxinpolitics,nationalism,religion,orothermattersofopinionorforcecitizenstoconfessbywordoracttheirfaiththerein,”(agreeingthatthissaluteisunconstitutional).

Precedent

TheresultofthiscaseoverruledthedecisioninMinersvilleSchoolDistrictv.Gobitis.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeMurphyagreeswiththeopinionoftheCourt.HestatesthatthecomplaintchallengesanorderoftheStateBoardofEducationwhichrequiresteachersandpupilstoparticipateintheprescribedsalutetotheflag.Murphyquotes,“Iamunabletoagreethatthebenefitsthatmayaccruetosocietyfromthecompulsoryflagsalutearesufficientlydefiniteandtangibletojustifytheinvasionoffreedomandprivacythatisentailedortocompensateforarestraintonthefreedomoftheindividualtobevocalorsilentaccordingtohisconscienceorpersonalinclination.”DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeFrankfurterisintheminorityopinion.Frankfurterthinksthatwe,Americans,oweequalattachmenttotheConstitution,andareequallyboundbyourjudicialobligationswhetherwederiveourcitizenshipfromtheearliestorthelatestimmigrantstotheseshores.

SourcesCited(MLA)● "WestVirginiaStateBoardofEducationv.Barnette."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec6,

2015.● WestVirginiaBoardofEducationv.Barnette.Digitalimage.BlowtheTrumpet.N.p.,n.d.Web.● "WestVirginiaStateBoardofEducationv.Barnette."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.LegalInformationInstitute,n.d.

Web.06Dec.2015.QuickLinks

● http://blowthetrumpet.org/WESTVIRGINIABOARDOFEDUCATIONV.BARNETTE.htm● https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624● https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/319/624%26gt%3B#writing-USSC_CR_0319_0624_ZD

11|Page

Engelv.Vitale(1962)By:BreanaMooreBackgroundInformationTherewasschool-wideprayerheldinNewYorkduringthebeginningofaschoolday.Religiousgroups,particularlythoseoftheJewishCommunity,wereagainstit,claimingthattheprayerenforcedaspecificreligiousbelief(mainlyundertonesofChristianimplications)thatconflictedwiththeirswhileitcompelledthestudentstoparticipateandbuildconfusiontowardsthereligionoftheirown.ThemainconcernthatpeoplehadaboutthissituationwaswhetherornotthiscompelledstudentstoquestiontheirfaithandifthatresultwasintendedorcausedbytheactionoftheNewYorkpublicschoolsystem.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Themainconcernwaswhetheritwasunconstitutionalforapublicschoolsystemtohaveprayerduringschooltimeandifthatwassubtlya“directioning”towardsaspecificreligionthatmayormaynotbethatofthestudent,whichwouldbeagainsttheFirstAmendmentRightforcitizenstochoosetheirownReligion.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)JusticeBlack:‘TheactwasoneagainsttheFirstAmendmentbecauseprayerisstillconsideredasreligiousandthereforecompelledstudentstofollowthatactdisplayingaspecificreligiousbelief.Hearguedthatalthoughthespeechoftheprayerwasmodifiedinattemptnottobereligiouslysteering,itstillwascompellingstudentstobelieveorbeinvolvedinreligiouspracticesnotoftheirown.ThisactalsodiscriminatedagainstreligionsthatdidnotrecognizeaGod,thereforebeingagainsttheFirstAmendmentrighttoupholdorindependentlydecideandupholdtheirreligiousbeliefsand/orvalues.’

Precedent

Sketchdrawnbyme.Supposetorepresentpeerpressureastudentmayhaveexperiencedduringtheprayerinschool.

ThedecisionofthissignificantSupremeCourtconclusionofthiscasebecametheprecedenttosituationssuchastheexamplesofprayerduringfootballgamesandatgraduationceremonies,asprovidedbyoneofthesourcesmentionedbelow.Thishelpedconcludethatthoseexampleswereunconstitutionaltoenforceandthereforecannotbedone.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeDouglas:‘Heemphasizedthattheparentshadachoiceaswell,notonlythestudents,whetherornottheyareableorwanttoparticipate,inwhichtheparentswereinformedoftheimpendingprayerandthestudentswereabletochoosetoparticipateornot.Thestudentsalsowerenottobecriticizedbecauseoftheirpossibledecisionnottoparticipateiteither.ItwasneitheraviolationoftheprecedentofMcCollumv.BoardofEducationbecausenowhereintheschoolwasusedasareligiousinstitution,noraviolationoftheBillofRightsbecausenostudentswerepunishediftheydidnotparticipateintheprayer.’

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeStewart:‘TheNewYorkSchoolSystemdidnotenforceanystudentstoparticipateinareligionnotofherorhisown.HearguedthatnotallowingtheretobeprayerinschoolistakingawaythefreedomtobeinvolvedoracknowledgethereligiousvaluesthatfoundingAmericanshadalso.HeprovideddetailsofinstancesinwhichGodismentioned,suchaswhenapresidentisswornintooffice,hewaslikelytobeckonGodforsupport,asdidtheSupremeCourt.HealsostatedthateveninthenationalanthemGodismentioned.Therefore,heconcludedthatallowingprayertotakeplaceschool-wideisnotaviolationoftheFirstAmendment;unallowingthatrightisinfactfailuretoacknowledgethevalueswhichtheUSwasbuiltupon.Wasthestate’sfundingofthisprayerinschoolinternalizingacertainreligion?However,heprovidedinformationofotherinstancesinwhichthefederalgovernmentfunded,suchasthefactthatreligiousgroupsareeligibleforfederalincometaxdecreases.’

SourcesCited(MLA)“Engelv.Vitale.”Law.cornell.edu.CornellUniversityLawSchool,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.Skelton,Chris.“Engelv.Vitale370U.S.421(1962).”Supreme.justia.com.Justia,n.d.Web.01Dec.2015.Skelton,Chris.“Engelv.Vitale370U.S.421(1962).”Supreme.justia.com.Justia,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/370/421#writing-USSC_CR_0370_0421_ZDhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/421

12|Page

AbingtonSchoolDistrictv.Schempp(1963)By:MarissaRoberts

BackgroundInformationArguedFebruary27-28,1963,decidedJune17,1963.Everyschoolday,studentsinpublicschoolsinPennsylvaniawererequiredtoreadatleast10versesfromthebible;AfterreadingallAbingtonTownshipstudentsarerequiredtorecitethelord'sprayer.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)EveryonehastherighttoundertheFirstAmendment,topracticewhicheverreligiontheyplease,theschoolisforcingreligiononthesekidswithoutquestion.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheCourtfoundsuchaviolation.TherequiredactivitiesencroachedonboththeFreeExerciseClauseandtheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendmentsincethereadingsandrecitationswereessentiallyreligiousceremoniesandwere"intendedbytheStatetobeso."Furthermore,arguedJusticeClark,theabilityofaparenttoexcuseachildfromtheseceremoniesbyawrittennotewasirrelevantsinceitdidnotpreventtheschool'sactionsfromviolatingtheEstablishmentClause.

Precedent

TheCourtexplicitlyupheldEngelv.Vitale,inwhichtheCourtruledthatthesanctioningofaprayerbytheschoolamountedtoaviolationoftheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution,whichstates,"Congressshallmakenolawrespectinganestablishmentofreligion."TheAbingtoncourtheldthatinorganizingareadingoftheBible,theschoolwasconducting"areligiousexercise,"and"thatcannotbedonewithoutviolatingthe'neutrality'requiredoftheStatebythebalanceofpowerbetweenindividual,churchandstatethathasbeenstruckbytheFirstAmendment"Overtheprevioustwodecades,theSupremeCourt,byincorporatingspecificrightsintotheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment,hadsteadilyincreasedtheextenttowhichrightscontainedinUnitedStatesBillofRightswereappliedagainstthestates.[5]AbingtonwasacontinuationofthistrendwithregardtotheEstablishmentofReligionClauseoftheFirstAmendment,andspecificallybuiltuponSupremeCourtprecedentsinCantwellv.Connecticut,Eversonv.BoardofEducation,andMcCollumv.BoardofEducation…

ConcurringOpinion(s) Douglas:WhiletheFreeExerciseClauseoftheFirstAmendmentiswrittenintermsofwhattheStatemaynotrequireoftheindividual,theEstablishmentClause,servingthesamegoalofindividualreligiousfreedom,iswrittenindifferentterms.TheChurchregaineditsplaceinthenationalbudget.Itinsistsonbaptizingallchildren,andhasmadethecatechismobligatoryinstateschools.TheviceofallsucharrangementsundertheEstablishmentClauseisthatthestateislendingitsassistancetoachurch'seffortstogainandkeepadherents.UndertheFirstAmendment,itisstrictlyamatterfortheindividualandhischurchastowhatchurchhewillbelongtoandhowmuchsupport,inthewayofbelief,time,activityormoney,hewillgivetoit."ThispureReligiousLiberty"

Brennan:TheCourt'shistoricdutytoexpoundthemeaningoftheConstitutionhasencounteredfewissuesmoreintricateormoredemandingthanthatoftherelationshipbetweenreligionandthepublicschools.Sinceundoubtedlyweare"areligiouspeoplewhoseinstitutionspresupposeaSupremeBeing,"Zorachv.Clauson,,deepfeelingsarearousedwhenaspectsofthatrelationshipareclaimedtoviolatetheinjunctionoftheFirstAmendmentthatgovernmentmaymake"nolawrespectinganestablishmentofreligion,orprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof....”Americansregardthepublicschoolsasamostvitalcivicinstitutionforthepreservationofademocraticsystemofgovernment.Itisthereforeunderstandablethattheconstitutionalprohibitionsencountertheirseveresttestwhentheyaresoughttobeappliedintheschoolclassroom.NeverthelessitisthisCourt'sinescapabledutytodeclarewhetherexercisesinthepublicschoolsoftheStates,suchasthoseofPennsylvaniaandMarylandquestionedhere,areinvolvementsofreligioninpublicinstitutionsofakindwhichoffendstheFirstandFourteenthAmendments.

Goldberg:TheFirstAmendment'sguarantees,asappliedtotheStatesthroughtheFourteenthAmendment,foreclosenotonlylaws"respectinganestablishmentofreligion",butalsothose"prohibitingthefreeexercisethereof."Thesetwoproscriptionsaretobereadtogether,andinlightofthesingleendwhichtheyaredesignedtoserve.ThebasicpurposeofthereligionclauseoftheFirstAmendmentistopromoteandassurethefullestpossiblescopeofreligiouslibertyandtoleranceforall,andtonurturetheconditionswhichsecurethebesthopeofattainmentofthatend.

DissentingOpinion(s)Stewart:Ithinktherecordsinthetwocasesbeforeusaresofundamentallydeficientastomakeimpossibleaninformedorresponsibledeterminationoftheconstitutionalissuespresented.Specifically,Icannotagreethat,ontheserecords,wecansaythattheEstablishmentClausehasnecessarilybeenviolated.ButIthinkthereexistseriousquestionsunderboththatprovisionandtheFreeExerciseClause--insofaraseachisimbeddedintheFourteenthAmendment--whichrequiretheremandofthesecasesforthetakingofadditionalevidence.TheFirstAmendmentdeclaresthatCongressshallmakenolawrespectinganestablishmentofreligionorprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof.TheFourteenthAmendmenthasrenderedthelegislaturesofthestatesasincompetentasCongresstoenactsuchlaws.

SourcesCited(MLA)"SchoolDistrictofAbingtonTownship,Pennsylvaniav.Schempp."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec13,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/142>"AbingtonSchoolDistrictV,Schempp."Wikipedia.WikimediaFoundation,June-July2003.Web.13Dec.2015."SchoolDistrictofAbingtonTownship,Pennsylvaniav.Schempp."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.N.p.,n.d.Web.13Dec.2015."SchoolDist.ofAbingtonTp.v.Schempp374U.S.203(1963)."JustiaLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.13Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/374/203#writing-USSC_CR_0374_0203_ZDhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/203/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/142https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

13|Page

Tinkerv.DesMoinesSchoolDistrict(1968)By:JoePalmieri

BackgroundInformation:-InDecember1965,agroupofstudentsinDesMoines,IowawantedtopublicizetheiropposingopinionstowardthehostilitiesinVietnam.TodothistheyworeblackarmbandsduringtheholidayseasonanddecidedtofastonDecember16thandthe24th.Whenschoolofficialsfoundthemeaningofthebands,sayingitwoulddistractothersfromdoingtheirwork,studentsweretoldtoremovethemandiftheyrefusedtheywouldbesuspended.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Canschoolofficialsban/censoranonviolentmeansofprotestwithoutshowingthatthemovementwillcauseadisruptionofeducationactivitiesanddoesn’tthisgoagainsttheFirstAmendmentsFreeSpeechClause,whichconsistsofyourrightstofreedomofspeech,press,assembly,andtopetitionthegovernmentforaredressofgrievances

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Thecourtruledinthestudentsfavorwithavoteof7-2majority.Thecourtheldthatschoolofficialscouldnotcensorstudents’meansofspeechunlesstheycouldprovidefactualevidencetoshowthatitoffendsschoolactivitiesandtherightsofothers.Thecourtalsoheldthatthearmbands,wornbythestudents,representsfreespeechandtheDesMoinesSchoolDistrictcouldnotpreventthat.

Precedent

ThePrecedentthatwassetinTinkerv.DesMoinesSchoolDistrictwasthatconstitutionalprotectionsofthefreespeechclauseextendstoyoungeragestudentseven“insidetheschoolhousegate.”

ConcurringOpinion(s)AbeFortasagreedthatstudentsdonotlosetheirconstitutionalrightswhentheywalkintoschoolbysaying“Itcanhardlybearguedthateitherstudentsorteachersshedtheirconstitutionalrightstofreedomofspeechorexpressionattheschoolhousegate”(JusticeAbeFortas).JusticePotterStewartagreedwiththemajorityandsaidthatstudentsarenotnecessarilyguaranteedtheir1stAmendmentrights.JusticeByronR.Whitealsoagreedwiththemajorityandwrotethatthecourt’smajorityopinionreliedonthedistinctionbetweencommunicationthroughwordsandactions.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeHugoBlack,oneofthetwodissentingvotes,wrotethattheFirstAmendmentdidn’tprovidetherightofexpressionatanytime.Blackalsowentontowritethatbecausetheappearanceofarmbandsinschooldistractedstudentsfromdoingtheirworkanddetractedfromtheabilityoftheschooldistricttodotheirjob.TheotherDissentingOpinioncamefromJusticeJohnM.Harlanwhowrote“Iamreluctanttobelievethatthereisanydisagreementbetweenthemajorityandmyselfonthepropositionthattheschoolofficialsshouldbeaccordedthewidestauthorityinmaintainingdisciplineandgoodorderintheirinstitutions”(JohnM.Harlan)SourcesCited(MLA)

● "FirstAmendment."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.LegalInformationInstitute,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.● "FirstAmendmentSchools:TheFiveFreedoms-CourtCase."FirstAmendmentSchools:TheFiveFreedoms-Court

Case.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.● “Tinkerv.DesMoinesIndependentCommunitySchoolDistrict”OyezN.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinks

● http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=404● https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21● https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

14|Page

Wisconsinv.Yoder(1972)By:RyanHofmeisterBackgroundInformationJonasYoderandWallaceMiller,bothAmish,wereprosecutedbythestateofWisconsinfornotsendingtheirchildrentoschooluntiltheywere16.Theycontestedthattheywouldberemovedinthe8thgradeaspartofareligioustradition.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)YoderprotestedthatWisconsin’sprosecutionviolatedhisFirstAmendment,freereligion.Thiscasewasoneofthefirstcasestogoupontheissue,statevsreligionthathasbeenseenthroughouthistoryindifferentcountries.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)YoderprotestedthatWisconsin’sprosecutionviolatedhisfirstamendment,freereligion.

Precedent [picture]ThedecisionmadebytheSupremeCourtbecameaprecedenttomanymorecasescomeinvolvingstatevsreligionsuchasBrownvstheBoardofEducationandWidmarvsVincent.

ConcurringOpinion(s)ChiefJustice,WarrenE.BurgerstatedtheprosecutionwasinsharpconflictwiththereligioustraditionoftheAmishpeople.Hebelievedthatstatelawshouldnotinterferewithreligioustradition.

DissentingOpinion(s)WilliamA.Douglasfiledapartialdissentbutlaterjoinedthemajority.

SourcesCited(MLA)Wisconsinv.Yoder."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec10,2015.

QuickLinksOyez.com

15|Page

IslandTreesSchoolDistrictv.Pico(1982)By:McKennaNixonBackgroundInformationTheIslandTreesUnionFreeSchoolDistrictBoardofEducationorderedthatcertainbooksthatwere“anti-American,anti-Christian,anti-Semitic,andjustplainfilthy”toberemovedfromitsdistrict’sjuniorhighandhighschoollibrarieseventhoughthecommitteeofparentsandschoolstaffrecommendedagainstit.StevenPico,onbehalfofotherstudents,broughtthecasetofederaldistrictcourttochallengetheBoard’sdecisiontoremovethebooks.TheBoardwonthentherulingwasreversedintheUSCourtofAppealsfortheSecondCircuit.TheBoardthenpetitionedtheUSSupremeCourtanditgrantedcertiorari.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)PicoarguedthatremovingthebookswentagainsttheFirstAmendment'sFreedomofSpeech.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheCourtruled5-4infavorofPicofortworeasons.OnebeingthattheFirstAmendmentrestrictsalocalschoolboardfromremovingbooksfromschoollibraries.ThelocalschoolboarddoeshaveauthorityinmanagingschoolaffairsbutshoulddosoinfollowingthelimitationsoftheFirstAmendment.TheBoardcandeterminethecontentoftheirlibrarybutnotinanarrowlypartisanorpoliticalway.ThesecondreasonisthatevidenceinthecaseshowedthatitmayhavebeenpossiblethattheBoard’sremovalprocedureswere“highlyirregularandadhoc”creatingsuspicionaboutthemotivationbehindtheremoval.

Precedent

TheFirstAmendment’sFreedomofSpeechrestrictsalocalschoolboardfromremovingbooksfromhighschoolandjuniorhighschoollibrariesbecauseofpolitical,racial,orreligiousreasons.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeBlackmunstatedthattheremovalofthebookssuggestedapoliticalmotivation.HedisagreedwiththemajorityopinionthattheremayhavebeensuspiciousmotivesbutthattheBoarddefinitelydecidedtosingleoutanideaandthendenyaccesstoitinthelibrary.JusticeWhiteagreedthatthereisunresolvedfactualissuesregardingtheremovalofthebooksthatneededtobereviewedbutdisagreedthatitwasaConstitutionalissueandthemajorityneededtogofurthertofindouttowhatextenttheFirstAmendmentlimitstheBoard’sdecision.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeBurgerreasonedthatthemotivationbehindremovingthebookswasnotbecauseofreligiouspurposesbutthattheywere“irrelevant,vulgar,immoral,andinbadtastemakingthemeducationallyunsuitable”forthestudents.HealsoarguedthatalltheplaintiffshadeithergraduatedorwereabouttograduatesothecasewasirrelevantandtherewasnothingbindingthecourttoresolvetheConstitutionalissue.Hesaidtheschoolboard’sonlyerrorwasthattheymadetheirowndecisiontoremovethebooksratherthanrelyingonexperts.JusticePowellstatedthattheschoolboarddoesn’tviewthelibraryasaplacewherestudentscanchoosefromunlimitedbooksbutaplacewheretheycanchoosefromaselectionofbooksthatcoincidewithaselectedreadinglist.JusticeO’ConnordisagreedbecausetheBoardcanmakethecurriculum,hireteachers,anddecidewhichbooksgointhelibrarysotheycandecidewhichbookstoremoveandthatitisnotthejobofthecourtstomakedecisionsfortheelectedmembersofschoolboards.JusticeRehnquistdisagreedwithJusticeWhite’spointthatitwasunnecessarytoresolvetheConstitutionalissuebecauseitgoesagainstthe“ruleoffour”thatfourjusticescangrantawritofcertiorari.Hedisagreedwiththemajorityopinionbecausesomebookscontainedprofanities,weresexuallyexplicit,ungrammatical,anti-Americanandsomewereoffensivetoracial,religious,orethnicgroups.

SourcesCited(MLA)"BoardofEducation,IslandTreesUnionFreeSchoolDistrictNo.26v.PicobyPico."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec1,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-2043>"BoardofEduc.v.Pico."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.LegalInformationInstitute,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.FiveTeensWintheRighttoRead.Digitalimage.ChrisCrutcher.N.p.,n.d.Web.8Dec.2015."IslandTreesSch.Dist.v.PicobyPico457U.S.853(1982)."JustiaLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.QuickLinkshttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/853/https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/853#writing-USSC_CR_0457_0853_ZC

16|Page

Wallacev.Jaffree(1985)By:BenjaminGrant

Backgroundinformation:In1978,thestateofAlabamapassedastatutepermittingpublicschoolstopracticeoneminutesilenceatthebeginningoftheschoolday.Beingonly“formeditation,”notspecifyingprayer,oranyotherpracticeinsilence,thestatutewasfoundperfectlyconstitutional.Nevertheless,by1981,anewstatuteconveyedoneminuteofsilence“formeditationorvoluntaryprayer,”andby1982“willingstudents”couldbeledinprayerbytheirteachers--worshiping“AlmightyGod...theCreatorandSupremeJudgeoftheworld.”AtroubledfatherfromMobile,Alabama,Mr.IshmaelJaffreearguedthatMobileCountySchoolswereviolatingtheFirstAmendment'sprinciplethat“nolawrespectinganestablishmentofreligion”couldbeenactedbylegislation.WithteachersandadministratorsoftheMobileCountySchoolBoardnameddefendantsofhiscase,Jaffreetestifiedonbehalfofhisthreechildrenthatstudentswereledbytheirteachers,praying“inunison,”ona“dailybasis.”Ultimatelyostracizedandfigurativelyexiledbytheirpeers,Jeffree'schildrensufferedforsimplyhavingdifferentbeliefs.Aftermanyunsuccessfulrequestsforthedevotionalservicestostop,Jaffree,includingotherappellees,pressedontoextinguishtheinjusticescommittedintheclassrooms.

ConstitutionalIssue:Deviatingfrommaintainingabsoluteneutralitytowardreligion--endorsingprayerinpublicschools--theEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendmentwassupposedlyviolatedintheAlabamastatute.

MajorityOpinion:MajorityopinionremarkedtheAlabamastatutesof1981and1982unconstitutionalsixtothree,supportingJaffree--1978statutedisregardedbyDistrictCourt.JusticeStevensaffirmedtheAlabamastatutes’asendorsersofreligion,whichunderConstitutionmustbeinvalidated.HebelievedthatAlabamapublicschoolswerenotmerelygivingstudentstheprivilegeofoneminutemeditation,buthadtheintentofestablishingprayerinthepublicschoolsystem--violatingtheFirstAmendment--byadding“prayer”intothe1981and82’statutes.

Precedent:

Completeneutralitytowardreligionmustbeupheldbythegovernment,protectingthecountryagainstestablishmentofreligion.

ConcurringOpinions:JusticeO’Connorarguedthatthemoment-of-silencestatutecouldnotbetreatedinthesamewayasstate-led,vocalgroupprayerinapublicschoolclassroom;nostudentshouldhavetobeforcedintohearingtheprayersofothers.Simplemeditation(insilence)isfine,butassimilatingvocalprayerofanyreligionisunconstitutional,violatingtheEstablishmentClause.AlthoughJusticePowellagreedwithO’Connor’sopinion,heultimatelyfoundthestatuteunconstitutionalfornotclearlyexpressingaplausiblesecularpurposebesidesthemotivetoadvancereligion,thusviolatingthefirstprongoftheLemontestwhichwasestablishedinLemonvKurtzman.(Thefirstprongofthelemonteststatesthatastatutemustnotresultinan"excessivegovernmententanglement"withreligiousaffairs)

DissentingOpinions:JusticeBurgerbelievedthathavingtheword‘prayer’implementedintothestatuteshouldhavenogreatereffectonwhetherornotthestatuteisunconstitutional.JusticeWhitebelievedtheretobenoharminimplementingprayerintothestatutebecauseateacherwouldnotdisallowastudenttoprayifheorshehadaskedto,duringthemomentofsilence.JusticeRehnquistbelievedtheintentoftheEstablishmentClausewastorefrainfromestablishinga‘national’religion,nothavinganythingtodowithstatutes.

WorkCited:"Wallacev.Jaffree472U.S.38(1985)."JustiaLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015."Wallacev.Jaffree."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015.

QuickLinks:http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/472/38.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/472/38/

17|Page

BethelSchoolDistrictv.Fraser(1986)By:BaileyAmbrister

BackgroundInformationMatthewFraser,astudentatBethelHighSchool,deliveredaspeechwhichusedvividsexualmetaphorstonominateafellowstudentforaschooloffice.Theschooldeemedhisspeechaviolationoftheschool’s“disruptiveconductrule.”Fraserwassuspendedfor2daysandremovedfromthelistofcandidatesforgraduationspeakerattheschool'scommencementexercises.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)FirstAmendment-Canschoolslimitfreedomofspeech?FourteenthAmendment-Dotheschool’sactionsofremovingthestudent’snamefromthelistofspeakersviolatethedueprocessclause?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Thecourtruled7-2infavorofBethelSchoolDistrict.FirstAmendmentdoesNOTpreventtheschoolfromdiscipliningFraserbecausechildreninapublicschooldonotreceivethesameprotectionoffreedomofspeech.Itisappropriateforaschooltoprohibitvulgaroroffensivelanguage.ThecasedoesnotviolatestheFourteenthAmendmentbecausetheschool’sruledonotneedtobeasdetailedascriminallaws.

Precedent

Thecasesetaprecedentwhichsaidthatpublicschoolshavelooserrulesanddonotnecessarilyneedtogivethechildreninthemfullconstitutionalrightswhenitisforthebenefitofthestudentbodyasawhole.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeBrennanwrotethatwhilethemajorityopinionfeltthattheFirstAmendmentwasnotviolatedbecausestudentsforfeittheirconstitutionalrightsatthedooroftheschool,BrennanfeltthattheFirstAmendmentwasnotviolatedbecauseevenifitwerenotinaschoolsetting,thespeechcouldbepunishablesimplyforobscenelanguage.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeStevens-Astudentmustbegivenfairnoticeandinformationabouttheseverityofthepunishmentforacodeviolation.JusticeMarshall-Thecourtfailedtoprovethatthestudent’sremarkswereinfactdisruptiveandthereforepunishable.

SourcesCited(MLA)"BethelSch.Dist.v.Fraser478U.S.675(1986)."JustiaLaw.Web.9Dec.2015.“Dist.No.403v.Fraser."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.Web.9Dec.2015."BethelSchoolDistrictv.Fraser."BethelSchoolDistrictv.Fraser.Web.9Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/675/case.html#686https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/478/675#writing-USSC_CR_0478_0675_ZChttp://studentfreespeechrights.weebly.com/bethel-school-district-v-fraser.html

18|Page

HazelwoodSchoolDistrictv.Kuhlmeier(1988)By:RachelStephenson

BackgroundInformationTheSpectrumwasthestudentwrittenschoolnewspaperofHazelwoodEastHighSchool.InMay1983,PrincipalRobertE.Reynoldsreceivedthepagesproofsfortheupcomingissue.Reynoldsfoundtwoarticlesaboutdivorceandteenpregnancytobeinappropriateandorderedthatthepagesthatthearticlesappearedontobewithheldfrompublication.Asaresult,sevenarticleswerenotpublished.CathyKuhlmeierandtwootherformerHazelwoodEaststudentsfiledasuitinJanuary1984.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)DidHazelwoodEastHighSchoolPrincipalRobertC.Reynoldsviolatethestudent's’FirstAmendmentrightsbydeletingarticlesoutoftheschoolnewspaper?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Ina5-3ruling,thecourtheldthattheFirstAmendmentdidnotrequireschoolstoaffirmativelypromoteparticulartypesofstudentspeech.Thecourtheldthatschoolsmustbeabletosethighstandardsforstudentspeechdisseminatedundertheirauspices,andthatschoolsretainedtherighttorefusetosponsorspeechthatwas“inconsistentwiththesharedvaluesofacivilisedsocialorder.”ThecourtheldthattheactionsofPrincipalReynoldswere“reasonablyrelatedtolegitimatepedagogicalconcerns.”

Precedent

UndertheFirstAmendment,schoolofficialscancensornon-forumstudentnewspaperswhentheycanjustifytheirdecisionbystatinganeducationalpurpose.However,thisdoesnotallowschoolofficialstocensorarticleswantonlyorbasedonpersonalopinion.

ConcurringOpinion(s)None

DissentingOpinion(s)AssociateJusticeWilliamBrennan,joinedbyAssociateJusticesThurgoodMarshallandHarryBlackmun,expressedconcernaboutthemessagethatthemajorityopinionwouldsendstudents.JusticeBrennanstatedthat"TheyoungmenandwomenofHazelwoodEastexpectedacivicslesson,butnottheonetheCourtteachesthemtoday...Suchunthinkingcontemptforindividualrightsisintolerablefromanystateofficial.Itisparticularlyinsidiousfrom(aschoolprincipal)towhomthepublicentruststhetaskofinculcatinginitsyouthanappreciationforthecherisheddemocraticlibertiesthatourconstitutionguarantees.”

SourcesCited(MLA)"HazelwoodSchoolDistrictv.Kuhlmeier."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec6,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-836>"HazelwoodSchoolDistrictv.Kuhlmeier."Wikipedia.WikimediaFoundation.Web.6Dec.2015.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_School_District_v._Kuhlmeier>.

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-836https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_School_District_v._Kuhlmeier

19|Page

Texasv.Johnson(1989)By:EricaHardy

BackgroundInformationGregoryLeeJohnsonwastriedandconvicted,underaTexaslawoutlawingflagdesecration,attheTexasCityCourtofAppeals.Hewaschargeda$1,000fineandsentencedtoayearinprisonforburninganAmericanFlaginfrontofDallasCityHall,asaformofprotestagainstReaganadministrationpolicies.ThecasemadeitalltheuptotheSupremeCourt.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Publiclyburning,tramplingon,spittingon,tearing,vandalizing,oranyotheractofdisrespecttowardstheAmericanFlagisprotectedbytheFirstAmendment:FreedomofReligion,Assembly,Speech,PressandPetition.Although,CongresshasmadeseveralattemptstotryandoverruletheUSSupremeCourtbypassingaConstitutionalAmendmentwhichwouldhaveanexceptiontotheFirstAmendmenttoallowbanningofFlagDesecration.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Ina5-4rulingthecourtheldthatJohnson’sburningoftheflagwasprotectedundertheFirstAmendment.TheCourtstatedthatjustbecauseanactionoffendsthepublicitdoesnotjustifyprohibitionsofspeech.

PrecedentTherulingofthiscaseprotectedtherighttopubliclydisrespecttheAmericanFlagduetotheFirstAmendment."Contempt"ofFlag(1972):WhenaMassachusettsteenageboywasarrestedforseamingpartofanAmericanFlagontherearofhispantstheSupremeCourtsteppedinandruledthatlawsagainstthecontemptoftheFlagareunconstitutionalandviolatetheFirstAmendmentfreedoms.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JustinKennedystatesthateventhoughhedoesnotagreewithpubliccontemptoftheAmericanFlag,theConstitutiondoesnotgivestatestherighttoconstructflagdesecrationlaws.

DissentingOpinion(s):Opposingthemajority,JusticeRehnquistbelievedthatanyformofdisrespecttowardstheAmericanFlagdeserveda1,000dollarfineand/oramaximumofoneyearimprisonment.

SourcesCited(MLA)"Texasv.Johnson."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec2,2015."Texasv.Johnson491U.S.397(1989)."JustiaLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.07Dec.2015.

QuickLinks:https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-155https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/491/397#writing-USSC_CR_0491_0397_ZChttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/397/

20|Page

CitizensUnitedv.FederalElectionsCommission(2010)By:PierceSandy

BackgroundInformationArguedinMarch24,2010,CitizensUnitedv.FederalElectionsCommission,cameaboutwhenCitizensUnitedwantedaninjunctionagainsttheFederalElectionCommissiontopreventtheapplicationoftheBipartisanCampaignAct(BCRA)toitsfilmHillary:TheMovie.ThemoviegaveviewsinwhetherHillaryClintonwouldmakeagoodpresident.Attemptingtoregulatebigmoneycampaigncontributors,theBCRAappliesavarietyofrestrictionsto“electioneeringcommunications.”Sections203oftheBCRApreventscorporationsorlaborunionsfromfundingsuchcommunication,sections201and311requirethedisclosureofthedonorstosuchcommunication.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)CitizensUnitedarguesthatsection203violatestheFirstAmendmentwhenappliedtothemovieandit'srelatedtoadvertisements.Theyalsoarguedthatsections201and311arealsounconstitutionalasappliedtothecircumstances.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)5-4decisionforCitizensUnitedmajorityopinionbyAnthonyM.Kennedy.Thecourtheldthatpoliticalspeechmaybebannedonthespeaker'scorporateidentity.

Precedent [picture]TheFirstAmendmentprotectstherighttofreespeech,despitethespeaker'scorporateidentity.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeRoberts,Scalia,Stevens,andThomasallhadconcurringopinions.Robertsstatedthat“theFirstAmendmentprotectsmorethanjusttheindividualonasoapboxandthelonelypamphleteer.”Scaliastated,“thedissentprovidesnoevidencethattheirspeechinthepursuitofthoseobjectivescouldbecensored.”Stevenswhoalsohadadissentingopinionstated,“NeitherCitizensUnited'snoranyothercorporation’sspeechhasbeenbanned.”Thomasstated,“PoliticalspeechisentitledtorobustprotectionundertheFirstAmendment.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticesStevensandThomasbothhaddissentingopinions.Stevensstated,“theFirstAmendmentbarsregulatorydistinctionsbasedonaspeaker'sidentity.”Thomasstated,“Congressmaynotabridgetherighttoanonymousspeechbasedonthesimpleinterestinprovidingvoterswithadditionalrelevantinformation.”

SourcesCited(MLA)“{{meta.pageTitle}}.”{{meta.siteName}}.Web.9Dec.2015.“CitizensUnitedv.FederalElectionComm’n558U.S__(2010).”JustiaLaw.Web.9Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://supreme,justia,com/cases/federal/us/558/08-205/concurrence.htmlhttps://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205

21|Page

Part3:RightsoftheAccused

22|Page

Bettsv.Brady(1942)By:EmilyThomas

BackgroundInformationBettswasindictedforrobberyinMarylandintheCircuitCourtforCarrollcounty.Hewasunabletoaffordcounselandrequestedonebeappointedforhim.Hisrequestwasdenied.Bettscontinuedtoplead“notguilty”whileinsistinghehadarighttocounselandarguinghisowndefense.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)TheSixthAmendmentmakestherighttocounselincriminalcasesinviolablebytheFederalGovernment.TheFourteenthAmendmentmadetheSixthamendmentapplicabletothestatesandguaranteedBettsdueprocessoflaw.DenyingBettscounselviolatestheserightsstatedintheUSConstitution.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion):Inavoteof6-3Bettswasfoundguiltyandsentencedtoeightyearsimprisonment.TheCourtruledthattherighttocounselprovidedbytheFourteenthAmendmentdoesnotcompelstatestoprovidecounseltoanydefendant.

Precedent:Criminaldefendantswhocannotaffordalawyerdonothavearighttoastate-appointedattorneyintheirdefense.

ConcurringOpinion(s):none

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeBlack:JusticeDouglasandJusticeMurphyconcur“Therighttocounselinacriminalproceedingisfundamental."JusticeBlackfoundthiscasetobeunconstitutional;thecontradictionmadebythecourtsisinhibitingdefendantsfromreceivingproperdueprocess.Blackfurtherstatesthattheseverityofthecrimeshouldnothavedeterminedwhatrightsthedefendantwasentitledto,allcasesarewithintheproceduralprotectionaffordedbytheconstitutionalguarantyofdueprocess.

SourcesCited(MLA)"Bettsv.Brady."Bettsv.Brady|USLaw|LII/LegalInformationInstitution.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015."Bettsv.Brady."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015."Bettsv.Brady316U.S.455(1942)."JustiaLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/316us455https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/316/455#writing-USSC_CR_0316_0455_ZDhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/455/

23|Page

Mappv.Ohio(1961)By:EmilyDolegowskiBackgroundInformationIn1961,DollreeMappwasfoundguiltyofpossessingpornographicimagesafterherhomewasillegallysearchedbypolicelookingforafugitive.TheseimageswereillegalbecauseofanOhiostatutebanningapersonfromowningobscenematerials.MappappealedherconvictiontotheSupremeCourtonthebasisoffreedomofexpression.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)FourthAmendment:theillegalsearchandseizurethatresultedintheofficer'sfindingtheobscenematerialswentagainsttheFourthAmendment,andthereforeMs.Mapphadherconstitutionalrightsviolated.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheCourtseeminglyignoredtheFirstAmendmentissue,whichwasthebasisonwhichMs.Mapphadappealed.However,theCourtstillruledinherfavoronthebasisoftheFourthAmendment;themajoritydeclaredthat“allevidenceobtainedbysearchesandseizuresinviolationoftheConstitutionis,by[theFourthAmendment],inadmissibleinstatecourt.”Thisdecisionappliedthe:exclusionaryrule”totheFourthAmendmentamongalllevelsofgovernment.

Precedent

Thisdecisionsetaprecedentwhichplacedtherequirementofexcludingillegallyobtainedevidencefromcourtateverylevelofthegovernment,whichwasachangeforthestates.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeBlack:JusticeBlackfoundthattheappellant’srightshadnotbeenprotectedbecausewhentheFourthAmendment’sbanagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizuresiscoupledwiththeFifthAmendment’sbanagainstcompelledself-incrimination,aconstitutionalbasisisfoundwhichrequirestheexclusionaryrule.JusticeBlackbelievedthattheappellant’srighttonotincriminateherselfwasviolatedwhenherownpaperswereusedagainsther;JusticeBlacksawthisasnotthatdifferentfromforcingtheappellanttotestifyagainstherself.JusticeDouglas:JusticeDouglasfoundthattheappellant’srightshadnotbeenprotectedbecausetheofficershadviolatedherrighttoprivacy,andforthisreasonsheshouldnothavebeenconvicted.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeHarlan:JusticeHarlanconcludedthatbecausetheappellantwasconvictedunderanOhiostatutethatcriminalizedpossessingobscenematerials,suchaspornographicimages,thetrueissueathandwaswhetherthisstatutewas“consistentwiththerightsoffreethoughtandexpressionassuredagainststateactionbytheFourteenthAmendment.”JusticeHarlanbelievedthatthemajorityhadoutrightignoredprinciplessuchasjudicialrestraintandstaredecisisandhad,instead,stretchedthecasetomakeitanissueofexclusionaryrule.JusticeHarlanfoundthiscasetobeaFirstAmendmentcase;ithadnothingtodowiththeFourthAmendment’sexclusionaryrule.Heoveralldisagreedwiththeimpositionoftheexclusionaryruleonthestatesbecauseitwasdesignedforthefederalcourts.

SourcesCited(MLA)"LandmarkCasesoftheU.S.SupremeCourt."SummaryoftheDecision.N.p.,n.d.Web.07Dec.2015."Mappv.Ohio."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.N.p.,n.d.Web.07Dec.2015."Mappv.Ohio."Mappv.Ohio|Oyez.N.p.,n.d.Web.07Dec.2015.“Mappv.Ohio:Visual.”Digitalimage.MappVisual.N.p.,n.d.Web.7Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttp://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/357/Summary_of_the_Decisionhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/367/643https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/236http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/mappvis.html

24|Page

Gideonv.Wainwright(1963)By:AlecBallard

BackgroundInformationGideonv.Wainwrightisalandmarkcaseinthatitoverruledtheprecedentthatlegalcounselwasonlynecessaryin“Specialsituations”(Bettsv.Brady)suchascapitaloffences.Mr.Gideonwasdeniedfreelegalcounselinopencourtbythepresidingjudge.Mr.Gideoninturnhadtoprovidehisowndefenseagainstthatstate.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)TheconstitutionissueinthiscaseisthatthepreviousrulingbytheUSSupremeCourt,andFloridaStatecourts,deniedallpersonsnotchargedwithacapitaloffencelegalcounsel.Theserulingsviolatedcitizens’6thamendmentrightstolegalcounsel.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheCourt'sdecisionwasunanimous,inorderforacommoneverydaypersonwithlittletonolegalknowledgetohaveafairtrialtheymusthavetrainedlegalcounsel.Evenifthestatehastoprovideonforthem.

Precedent

ThedecisioninGideonv.Wainwrightsettheprecedentthatthe6thAmendmentappliestoallpeopleontrial,whocannotaffordanattorney.ThereforoverrulingBettsv.Brady

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeDouglassaidthatthe14thamendment“doesnotapplyawatered-downversionoftheBillofRightstothestates”,andJusticeClarkwrote,theConstitutionguaranteeslegalcounselasaprotectionofdueprocess.

DissentingOpinion(s)None,unanimousdecision.

SourcesCited(MLA)"FactsandCaseSummary-Gideonv.Wainwright."UnitedStatesCourts.Web.9Dec.2015"RighttoCounsel."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.Web.9Dec.2015."LandmarkCasesoftheU.S.SupremeCourt."Gideonv.Wainwright.Web.9Dec.2015."Gideonv.WainwrightbyChandlerCorriher."Gideonv.Wainwright.Web.9Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttp://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-gideon-v-wainwright

25|Page

Escobedov.Illinois(1964)By:RachelMahrBackgroundInformationThiscaseinvolvestheadministrationofdueprocesswhichisadefinedbytheU.Sgovernmentaspartofallcitizens’legalrights.DannyEscobedowasarrestedwithhissisterafterafatalshootingandwastakentoheadquartersforhavingconnectionwiththecrime.Hewasinterrogatedforover14hourswithoutaccesstolegalhelp.Escobedowasnotallowedtocontacthislawyer.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Escobedowasnotallowedhisrightsprotectedunderthe5thand6thamendments.Amendmentsincludingtherighttotalktolawyersandrighttobetreatedasasuspect.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)5–4decisionforEscobedo.TheSupremeCourtruledinfavorofDannyEscobedo.TheinterrogationprocessthatEscobedowasplacedunderwasbiasedandprejudiced.“…policetargetedDannylikehewasamurderernotasuspect”

Precedent:DueProcessclauseof14thAmendmentapplies.Hewasnotawardedhisrightsprotectedunderthe5thand6thAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitution.TheseamendmentsrequirethatpeoplearrestedaremadeawareoftheirrighttotalktoIllinoislawyersandtheirrighttobetriedforthesuspectedcrimes.Escobedowasnotawardedtheserightswhenhewasquestionedforthecrime.

ConcurringOpinion(s)none

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeHarlan:statedthebeliefthatthemajorityrulewas“illconceived”andthemethodsusedwerelegitimatecriminalenforcementmethodsandprocedures.JusticeWhite:Whentheaccusedhasnotbeinformedoftheirrights,thecourtlookscloselyatthesurroundingcircumstances.“…inthiscase,DannyEscobedoknewfullwellthathedidnothavetoanswer,andknewfullwellthathislawyerhadadvisedhimtonotanswer.”JusticeStewart:TheIllinoispoliceofficersdidnotinformEscobedoofhisconstitutionalrightsbeforeheconfessedtothemurder.

SourcesCited(MLA):"Escobedov.Illinois."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015."Escobedov.Illinois."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/615>"Escobedov.Illinois378U.S.478(1964)."JustiaLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinks:https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/615https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/478/

26|Page

Mirandav.Arizona(1966)By:SeanNicolBackgroundInformationIn1963,afterbeingarrestedinPhoenixforkidnappingandrapeduetocircumstantialevidence,ErnestoMirandafacedalengthyinterrogationwithoutbeinginformedofhisrighttoremainsilentorhisrighttoconsultwithanattorney.Duringwhich,heprovidedawrittenconfessionthathewasindeedguiltyofthecrime;however,helaterdeclaredsuchconfessioninvalidbecausehehadwrittenitunwillingly,intimidatedbythelengthyinterrogation.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)The5thAmendmentprovidesthatstatementsthatadefendantincustodymakescanonlybeusedasevidenceinatrialifthedefendantisinformedoftheirrighttoremainsilentandwaiveitwillingly.andthe6thAmendmentinsurestherightofadefendanttoconsultanattorneyatallstagesofacriminaltrial.Mirandav.Arizonadeterminediftheseprotectionsincludedtheinitialpoliceinterrogationafterarrest.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)A5-4majorityruledthatthedemandingenvironmentofpoliceinterrogationwarrants5thAmendmentprotectionagainstself-incriminationand6thAmendmentrighttoberepresentedbyanattorney.Theaccusedindividualmustbeinformedoftheserights,oftenreferredtoasthe“MirandaRights”,whileinastatethattheycouldeasilyunderstandthem.Thedefendantmayemploytheserightsatanytime,eveniftheinterrogationhasstarted;ifthedefendantwishestobesilent,thentheinterrogationmustcease,andifhewishesforanattorney,itcannotcontinueuntilanattorneyhasbeenprovided.Ofcourse,theimplicationoftheserightsshouldnotcause“undueinterferencewithapropersystemoflawenforcement”.

Precedent

Settheprecedentthatadefendant(ortheaccused)mustbeinformedoftheirrights.Thedefendantmaywaivetheserights,butonlyvoluntarily.AnyevidencegatheredinviolationoftheMirandaRightscannotbeusedagainstthedefendant.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeClark:Uneasyabouttheapparent“sweepingrule”themajorityhadcreated,JusticeClarkleanedtowardstheprecedentsetbyHaynesv.Washington,permittingacourttomakeacasebycasedecisioniftheserightswereupheld.Suchadiscoursewould(likethemajoritydecision)placeaburdenonthestatetoprovethatMirandarightswerewillinglywaived.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeHarlan:JusticeHarlanbelievedthemajoritydecisioncreatedanewdoctrine,extendingprotectionsofthe5thand6thamendmentwithoutdirectevidenceineithertheConstitutionoranylaw.JusticeWhite:JusticeWhitedevelopedasimilarconsensustoJusticeHarlanbutaddedthecaveatthatmanyseriouscriminalscouldescapejusticebywayofamisadministeredprocessifthemajoritydecisionweretobeapplied.

SourcesCited(MLA)Miranda Rights. Digital image. Rant Me a River. Word Press, 24 Mar. 2015. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.Skelton, Chris. "Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)." Justia Law. Justia, n.d. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.

QuickLinkshttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGOyzAaD_MI

27|Page

InreGault(1967)By:TyriqueMendez

BackgroundInformationGeraldFrancisGaultwasafifteenyearoldboywhomadealewdphonecallonenight,priortothisnightGaultwasonprobationforanearlierincident.Gaultwasarrested,buthisparentswhowereatworkatthetimewerenotmadeawareofthis.GaultwaslatercommittedtotheStateIndustrialSchooluntilhereachedtheageof21.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)The14thAmendment’sdueprocessproceduresaysthatadequatewrittennoticemustbegiventothechildandhisguardiansattheearliestpracticaltimeandofthespecificissuesthattheymustmeet.Theyarguethatthenoticethatwasgivenwasneithertimelynorspecific.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheSupremeCourtdecidedagainsttheoriginalruling.Itwasan8-1decisioninGault’sfavor.TheystatedthattheproceedingsoftheJuvenileCourtfailedtocomplywiththeConstitution.Theserequirementsincludeadequatenoticeofcharges,notificationofbothparentsandthechildofthejuvenile'srighttocounselandmanyothers.

Precedent ]

Thiscasesetsoutrulesforjuvenilesinvolvedinthelegalsystem.Alljuvenilecasesmustbetreateddifferentlythancriminalcases,butjuvenilesretaintheirrighttodueprocess.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeBlack:JusticeBlackbelievesthattheyhaveasystemsettobemorelenienttowardschildrensohebelievesforthistoworktheyhavelessformalandlesspublictrialsandthatiswhytheydonothaveequaltrials.JusticeWhite:JusticeWhitebelievesthattheprivilegeagainstcompelledself-incriminationappliesattheadjudicatorystageofjuvenilecourtproceedings.JusticeHarlan:JusticeHarlanhebelievesthateachstatehassetrulesinplaceforthesystemandfordifferentinstances

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeHarlan:JusticeStewart:Stewartstartsoffbytellinghowjuvenilecasesarenotcriminalcases.Hesayshowtheyarebasingthiscaseuponanobscurecriminalcase.

SourcesCited(MLA)"InreGault."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec9,2015."InReGault387U.S.1(1967)."JustiaLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.09Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/1/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/116

28|Page

Greggv.Georgia(1976)By:AlexShearer

BackgroundInformation(1976)TroyLeonGreggwasimprisonedbythestateofGeorgia,afterbeingfoundguiltyfor2countsofrobbery,and2countsofmurder.Inaseparatetrial,ajurywascalledtodecidethesentencingforGregg.Thepenaltyofthedeathsentencewasthencarefullyemployed,andGreggwassentencedthedeathpenalty.GreggappealedtotheSupremeCourtonthebasisthatthedeathpenaltyisunconstitutional,forthepunishmentwascruelandunusual.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)GreggchallengedthattheimpositionofthedeathpenaltyundertheGeorgiastatuteas“Cruelandunusualpunishment”underthe8thand14thamendments.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)-7-2decisionInextremecriminalcases,suchaswhenadefendanthasbeenconvictedofdeliberatelykillinganother,thedeathpenaltymaybetheresultingpunishment,aslongasthepunishmentiscarefullyemployed.ThismeantthatthedeathpenaltywasasuitablesentencingforGregg

Precedent

ThiscaseoverruledtheprecedentfromFurmanv.Georgia(1972).InthiscasetheSupremeCourtfoundthatthedeathpenaltyviolatedtheamendmentagainstcruelandunusualpunishment.Greggv.Georgiaestablishedthenewprecedentthatthedeathpenaltyisacceptablewhencarefullyemployed.

ConcurringOpinion(s)Bothconcurringopinions,fromJusticeWhiteandJusticeBlackmun,agreedwiththesentencingofthedeathpenalty,butdisagreedonthemeansatwhichjustifiedthedeathpenalty.

DissentingOpinion(s)Thereweretwodissentingopinions,onebyJusticeMarshall,theotherbyJusticeBrennan.JusticeBrennanbelievedthatthedeathpenaltyisprohibitedbythe8thandthe14thamendments.Marshallbelievedthatthedeathpenaltyisexcessiveandmorallyunacceptable.JusticeBrennanstatedthatthedeathpenaltytreats“membersofthehumanraceasnonhumans,asobjectstobetoyedwithanddiscarded.”

SourcesCited(MLA)"Greggv.Georgia428U.S.153(1976)."JustiaLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015."Greggv.Georgia."OyezLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-6257https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/153/

29|Page

Salinasv.Texas(2013)By:JakeHudgins

BackgroundInformationTwobrotherswereshotinHouston,therewerenowitnesses-onlyshotgunshellcasingsleftatthescene.GenovevoSalinashadbeentothehousethenightbeforeataparty,andpoliceinvitedhimdowntothestation.HewasnotarrestedandwasnotreadhisMirandawarnings.Whenthepoliceaskedhimwhetherthegunheownedwouldmatchtheshellsfromthemurder,Salinasstoppedtalking.Afterbeingchargedwithmurderprosecutorsarguedhisreactionofsilencetotheofficer’squestion.Salinasclaimedthisargumentviolatedthe5thamendmentanddeniedhimhisrightofstayingsilent.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Argumentthattheprosecutorsclaimviolatesthe5thamendmentwhichguaranteesthat“noperson…shallbecompelledinanycriminalcasetobeawitnessagainsthimself.”

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Themajorityopinionconcludedthattherighttoremainsilentbythe5thamendmentdoesnotapplywhenoneisinquestioning.Therearetwoexceptionstothisconclusion1)“thatacriminaldefendantdoesnotneedtotakethestandattrialinordertoexplicitlyclaimthisprivilege”;and2)“thatfailuretoclaimthisprivilegemustbeexcusedwhenthatfailurewasduetogovernmentcoercion.”TheseexceptionswerenotgiventoSalinasbecausethegovernmentshouldbenotifiedwhenclaimstothisprivilege;thisallowsthegovernmenttoeitherclaimthatthetestimonyisself-incriminatingtothedefendant,orthegovernmentcanofferthedefendantimmunitywiththepriorwrittenexceptions.

Precedent

ThiscasesettheprecedentthattherighttoremainsilentandtheotherMirandarightsarenotapplicableduringaninterrogationbeforeanarrest.Minnesotav.MurphyGriffinv.CaliforniaMirandav.Arizona

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeThomas,withJusticeScalia,statedthattherewouldbeaneasierwaytodecidethiscase.Sincetheprosecutor’sclaimtowardsthedefendant’ssilencedidnotprovokethedefendanttowardsself-incrimination,Salinas’claimofprotectionofthe5thamendmentfails.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeBreyer,joinedwithJusticeGinsburg,JusticeSotomayor,andJusticeKaganstatingthattheuseofadefendant’ssilenceagainsthimselfatanytimeisabreachofthe5thAmendment.Theprosecutorwasoutoforderforstatingthatanon-guiltypersonwouldnothavewentsilentafteransweringthisquestion,becauseitmakesageneralizedassumptionandmakessilenceaself-incriminatingfactor.

SourcesCited(MLA)Salinasv.Texas."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246"SALINASv.TEXAS."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-246#writing-12-246_SYLLABUS

30|Page

Part4:EqualProtection

oftheLaw

31|Page

DredScottv.Sandford(1857)By:MattFranck

BackgroundInformationDredScottwasaslavefromMissouribetweentheyears1833to1843.HeandhismasterthenmovedtothestateofIllinoiswhichwasafreestatebecauseoftheMissouriCompromiseof1820,whichforbidslaveryintheLouisianaterritory.AfterreturningtoMissouri,Scottsuedforhisfreedomonthebasisthatsincehewasaresidentinafreestateheshouldbeafreeman.Scott’smasterarguedthatnodescendentofaslavecouldbeacitizenduetoArticleIIIoftheConstitution.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)FirstofallDredScottwasnotacitizenoftheUnitedStatesbecausehewasaslaveandslaveswereproperty,soScottshouldnothavebeenallowedtosuebecausethatisarightreservedexclusivelyforcitizens.SecondlyScott’smastershouldnotlosehisrighttoownproperty,inthiscaseScottistheproperty,whenhelivedintheLouisianaterritoryduetotheFifthAmendment.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)DredScottwaspropertyandshouldremainproperty.PartsoftheMissouriCompromiseareunconstitutionalbecauseitwithholdstherighttopropertyofslaveswhichviolatestheFifthAmendment.

Precedent

ThetwoprecedentssetbyScottv.SandfordarethatSlavesareproperty,notcitizens,andthatslaveryisconstitutionalinanypartofthecountrybasedontherighttopropertyinthefifthamendment.

ConcurringOpinion(s)Mr.JusticeCatronconcurredbecausetheplaintiffandhisfamilywerenotcitizensoftheUnitedStates,butratherproperty.JusticeWayne“Theopinionofthecourtmeetsfullyanddecideseverypointwhichwasmadeintheargumentofthecasebythecounseloneithersideofit.”JusticeNelson“IshallproceedtostatethegroundsuponwhichIhavearrivedattheconclusionthatthejudgmentoftheCourtbelowshouldbeaffirmed.”JusticeGrieragreedwiththecaseaspresentedandthemajorityopinionMr.JusticeCampbell.“IconcurinthejudgmentpronouncedbytheChiefJustice”

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeJohnMcleandissentedbecausetherewasnoreasonforAfrican-Americanstonotbeallowedcitizenship.HestatedthatnotallowingAfrican-Americanstobecitizenswas"moreamatteroftastethanoflaw".JusticeBenjaminRobbinsCurtisdissentedbecauseMissourishouldnothavetakenthecasetobeginwith,theallegedcrimetookplaceoutsideofthestateofMissourisoitwouldbeoutsideofthejurisdictionofaMissouricourt.

SourcesCited(MLA)"DredScottv.Sandford."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393>Skelton,Chris."Scottv.Sandford60U.S.393(1856)."JustiaLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/PBS.PBS,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.(photograph)

32|Page

Plessyv.Ferguson(1896)By:DaCariaAdams

BackgroundInformationThestateofLouisianarequiredthatblackandwhiteshadseparaterailwaycars.HomerAdolphPlessywhowas⅞th’sCaucasiansatinthe“whitesonly”carrefusingtomovetothecarreservedforblacks.ThetedioussituationendedwithPlessybeingarrestedonJune7,1892.TheironicthingaboutthearrestwasthatPlessywastravelingwithinthesamestate;however,hedidnotobey.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)EqualProtectionClauseofthe14thAmendment-“DoesLouisiana’slawmandatingracialsegregationinfringetheprivilegesandimmunitiesofthe14thAmendment?”13thAmendment-DoesthisstatutetreatAfricanAmericansasslavesoncemore?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheseparatetreatmentforwhitesandblacksimposedbyLouisianadidnotviolatetheEqualProtectionClauseofthe14thAmendment.Thejuryalsofoundthatthestatutealsodidnotconflictwiththe13thAmendment,whichabolishedslavery.Thewordslaveryimplies“involuntaryservitude.”

Precedent

“SeparatebutEqual”JusticeHenryBrowndissentedthatthe14thAmendmentintendedtoestablishabsoluteequalityfortheracesbeforethelawand“inthenatureofthingsitcouldnothavebeenintendedtoabolishdistinctionsbaseduponcolor,ortoenforcesocialasdistinguishedformofpoliticalequivalenceoracomminglingofthetworacesusattoeither.”

ConcurringOpinion(s)notapplicable

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeHarlandissentedtheLouisianastatuteaccordingtothecoachesandtraincarswhitesandblacksweretositintheirassignedseats.Ifanyonedidnotcomplytheywerejailedorfined.Onlynurses“attendingchildrenoftheotherrace”wereexceptedfromtheoperationofthestatute.InjusticebecausealthoughthestatutebyLouisianaisaconstituentoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionthequestionaboutprivateeminentdomainarose.Arepublichighwayssegregated?No.Thenwhyarerailroads?

SourcesCited(MLA)Plessyv.Ferguson."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec9,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/163us537>Plessyv.Ferguson163U.S.537(1896)."JustiaLaw.N.p.,n.d.Web.05Dec.2015.<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/537/>Plessyv.Ferguson."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.N.p.,n.d.Web.08Dec.2015.<https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/163/537#writing-USSC_CR_0163_0537_ZD>.

QuickLinks(above)

33|Page

Korematsuv.US(1944)By:LaurenFrank

BackgroundInformationAftertheattackonPearlHarbor,theUnitedStateswentintoafrenzy.CongressissuedthatanyonewithaJapaneseheritagewasbannedfromdesignatedplacesalongthecoastofWashingtontosouthernArizona.Thesepeoplewerethenissuedtomovetocampssetupforthemtoliveinfortherestofthewar.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)KorematsurefusedtoexithishomebecauseaccordingtotheConstitution,everyoneissupposedtobetreatedequal,nomatterwhatrace,heritage,orreligiontheyare.Thiscasebecameoneofracialscrutiny.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheSupremeCourthada6-3voteinfavorofTheUnitedStates.Theyagreedthatthenation'ssafetywasmoreimportantthanthepromiseofequalrightsduringawar,andsinceyoucouldnotseparatetheloyalfromthedisloyal,itwassaferforthemtoplaceeveryonewithaJapanesebackgroundinthesecamps.

Precedent

Afterthewar,CongresslaterlookedbackattherulingandtheypassedtheCivilLibertiesActof1988.ThiswasaformalapologytotheJapaneseaboutwhathadhappenedanditoverruledthecaseinhistory.However,in2003theKorematsuv.UScasewasusedintheGrutterv.Bollingercase.

ConcurringOpinion(s)None,everyonewhoagreedbelievedthatthesafetyoftheUnitedStateswasthemostimportantthingtokeepinmind.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeOwenRobertsstatedthatthecampsthatweremadefortheJapanesedidnothinginorderforprotectionofthecountry,butinsteaditsegregatedthem.

SourcesCited(MLA)"Korematsuv.UnitedStates(1944)."PBS.PBS,n.d.Web.09Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/landmark_korematsu.htmlhttp://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States(picture)

34|Page

Brownv.BoardofEducationofTopeka,Kansas(1954)By:MatthewGentry

BackgroundInformationTheNAACPlocatedinTopeka,KansasgotthirteenAfricanAmericanfamiliestochallengesegregation.In1951,allthefamiliesenrolledtheirkidsintotheschooltheclosesttotheirhomes.ThesewereallwhiteschoolstheAfricanAmericankidscouldnotgototheseschoolsduetosegregation.TheAfricanAmericankidshadtogotoallblackschoolslocatedthatwereveryfarawayfromthechildren'shouses.Afterthefamilieswerenotallowedtogototheallwhiteschool,theNAACPsuedtheschoolboard.TheNAACPlostatthedistrictcourtduetotheprecedentsetinPlessyV.Ferguson.ThecasewasappealedandsenttotheSupremeCourt.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)NAACPsaidthatsegregationofschoolsbasedonskincolorviolatesAfrican-AmericanchildrenoftheequalprotectionclauseundertheFourteenthAmendment.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Unanimousdecision.TheSupremeCourtsaidthatevenifallblackschoolshadequaleducationopportunitiesthatsegregationbyitselfisunconstitutionalundertheFourteenthAmendment'sequalprotectionclause.

Precedent

NAACPlawyerswhoarguedcase,(E.CHayes,Thurgood

MarshallandJamesNabritjr.)

Theprecedentsetinthiscasewasthatsegregationinpublicschoolswasnolongerallowed.OverturnedPlessyv.Ferguson's“separatebutequal”precedent.

ConcurringOpinion(s)None

DissentingOpinion(s)None

SourcesCited(MLA)"Brownv.BoardofEducationofTopeka347U.S.483(1954)."JustiaLaw.Web.9Dec.2015."Brownv.BoardofEducation."LII/LegalInformationInstitute.Web.9Dec.2015

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483http://thurgoodmarshall.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Thurgood-Marshall-After-Winning-Brown-v.-Board-of-Education.jpg

35|Page

HeartofAtlantaMotelv.US(1964)By:LaurenHudak

BackgroundInformation:TheHeartofAtlantaMotelgotmostofitsbusinessfromout-of-statecustomers.ThebusinessrefusedtoaccommodateAfricanAmericansinviolationoftheCRA(CivilRightsAct),andarguedthatCongresshadoversteppeditscommercepowersinregulatingtheallowanceofcustomersintothehotel.ThecasewasarguedOctober15,1964andaverdictwasreachedDecember14,1964.

ConstitutionalIssue(s):WhiletheFourteenthAmendmentholdsthatcitizenshaveequalprotectionunderthelaws,TheHeartofAtlantaMotelfeltasthoughCongresswassteppingoutofitsborderstodirectlydictatewhowasabletostayattheMotel.TitleIIoftheCivilRightsActof1964alsoforbaderacialdiscriminationbyplacesofpublicaccommodationiftheiractionsaffectedcommerce,whichtheMotelwaschargedwithviolating.SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion):CivilRightsActisconstitutional.Therefore,Congresscanpreventstatesfromdiscriminating,statescanpreventprivatebusinessesfromdiscriminating,andCongresscanalsodirectlypreventthediscriminationoftheprivatebusinesses.

Precedent:

Thevotewasninetozero,favoringtheUnitedStates.TheSupremeCourtruledthatCongresshadthepowertoregulatelocalbusiness,andthatplacesofpublicaccommodationhadnorighttochoosewhotheyservedanddidnotserve.

ConcurringOpinion(s):JusticeBlack,JusticeDouglas,andJusticeGoldbergallagreedwiththeoutcomeverdictofthiscase.Themostreluctant,JusticeDouglas,hadpreviouslyservedasaJusticeonacourtnamedEdwardsv.California,acasewithsomesimilardynamics.DouglasfeltasthoughtheUnitedStatesfocusedfartoomuchonraceratherthantheeconomy,development,education,orotherthingshefelttobeimportant.Nonetheless,hestillfoundTheHeartofAtlantaMoteltobeatfaultandsidedwiththetwootherjudges.

DissentingOpinion(s):None,butaspreviouslymentioned,afewofthejudgeshadreasonstovotebothways.

SourcesCited(MLA):● "HeartofAtlantaMotel,Inc.v.UnitedStates."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015.● Burke,Alexandria."HeartofAtlantaMotel,Inc.v.UnitedStates."CasebriefsHeartofAtlantaMotelIncvUnitedStates

Comments.CaseBriefs,2012.Web.08Dec.2015.● Coenen,DanT."HeartofAtlantaMotelv.UnitedStates(1964)."NewGeorgiaEncyclopedia.NGE,17May2013.Web.

08Dec.2015.QuickLinks:https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/515http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/the-federal-legislative-power/heart-of-atlanta-motel-inc-v-united-states/http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/heart-atlanta-motel-v-united-states-1964

36|Page

Swannv.Charlotte-MecklenburgBoardofEducation(1971)By:TannerGoldBackgroundInformationSchoolswerehighlysegregatedinthe1960sto1970s.Manyschooldistrictsfacedthisissuebutcouldneverreacha“solution”.14,000blackstudentswenttoschoolsthatwereentirelyblackorwasmadeupofatleast99%blackstudents.Solutionswerenevercreateduntilitreachedthesupremecourts.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)Didfederalcourtshavetheconstitutionalrighttooverseeandcreatesolutionstostate-imposedsegregation?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Plansweretobejudgedbytheireffectivenessandusingmathematicalquotasandratiosweretobethe“startingpoint”fornewsolutions.Also,schoolsthatwerepredominatelyblackunderwentharshscrutinyfromthecourts.Finally,thecourtshadtherighttocreateinterimchangesor“correctivemeasures”.

Precedent

Courtsdidhavetherighttomakechangestoschoolsystemstohelppreventmajorsegregationwithinschools.

ConcurringOpinion(s)N/A

DissentingOpinion(s)N/AUnanimousDecision

SourcesCited(MLA)"Swannv.Charlotte-MecklenburgBoardofEducation."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec8,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/281>"Swannv.Charlotte-MecklenburgBoardofEducation."Swannv.Charlotte-MecklenburgBoardofEducation.Web.9Dec.2015.

QuickLinks

37|Page

Furmanv.Georgia(1972)By:AshleyPriest

BackgroundInformationInthecase,Furmanv.Georgia,Furmanwassentencedthedeathpenaltybecausehewasconvictedofmurderingaresidentinhishome.TheresidentfoundhimafterahomeburglaryandwhenFurmantriedtorunawayhetrippedandthegunshotandkilledtheresident.Furmanwaschargedwithmurderandresultedtothedeathpenalty.ThiscasewasarguedonJanuary17,1972anddecidedonJune29,1972.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)WouldthechargeofthedeathpenaltyinthissituationinfringeuponthebasicrightsinsuredintheFourteenthAmendmentbutenactviolationofcruelandunusualpunishmentintheEighthAmendment?

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)TheverdictofthiscasewasthattheEighthandFourteenthAmendmentswereviolatedbytheenactmentofthedeathpenaltyinthiscase.ThevoteonthiscaseintheSupremeCourtwas5-4.TheCourtdecidedthatthedeathpenaltyshouldnotbeusedinanysortofdiscriminatorywayorimpulsivechoice.Thistypeofcaseshouldbeinvestigatedandthoughtoutbeforemakinganyfinaldecisiontoleadtothedeathpenalty.

Precedent

Bytakingawaythediscretiontojuriestogivethemtoomuchpowerinsuchcruelandunusualpunishments,theprecedentchangedthedeathpenaltylawstonotviolatetheEighthorFourteenthAmendmentsintheConstitution.

ConcurringOpinion(s)TheconcurringsideopinionscamefromJusticeDouglas,JusticeBrennan,JusticeStewart,JusticeWhite,andJusticeMarshall.JusticeDouglasdeterminedthattheprejudiceslikerace,religion,wealth,socialposition,orclassofthedefendantis“unusual”whichviolatestheConstitutionandshouldnotbeconvictedofthedeathpenaltyforthisreason.JusticeBrennandeterminedthathumandignitymaynotswaythepunishmentofsuchaseverepunishmentasdeathinthecourtroom.JusticeStewartdeterminedthatthedeathpenaltyhasbeenconsideredaformofanarchyinsocietytodayandthatthepunishmentofdeathformurderorrapeisan“unusual”and“cruel”sentence.JusticeWhitedeterminedthatthedeathpenaltyisnotanequalpunishmentforthecrimecommittedinthecase.JusticeMarshalldeterminedthattheConstitutionmeansthatthedeathpenaltyisanimpositionofaninhumaneformofpunishment.

DissentingOpinion(s)ThedissentingsideopinionscamefromJusticeBurger,JusticeBlackmun,JusticePowell,andJusticeRehnquist.JusticeBurger,JusticePowell,andJusticeRehnquistdeterminedthattheConstitutionimposesanysortofextremecrueltybutdoesnotmentionhowfrequentlyorinfrequentlyitisimposed.JusticeBlackmundeterminedthattheCourthasoversteppedandjudgesshouldnotusepersonalpreferencestooverlookthelaw.

SourcesCited(MLA)"Furmanv.Georgia."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec7,2015.<https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/69-5030>"FurmanvGeorgia."FurmanvGeorgia.N.p.,n.d.Web.07Dec.2015.<http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/furman.html>.

QuickLinkshttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/238/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/69-5030

38|Page

Roev.Wade(1973)By:LindsayZamminerBackgroundInformationJaneRoe,aresidentofTexas,chosetoterminateherpregnancybyabortion.Texasstatelawsstatedthatitisforbiddentohaveanabortionunlessthepregnancyisfromacrimeorwouldsavethepregnantwoman’slife.Feelingthatthelawviolatedherrights;shesuedtheconstitutionalityofthestatelaw.AftergrantedCertiorari,theTexasdistrictcourtagreedtohearoutthecasetwice.HenryWadesatonthedefendantsideofthecasewithseveralotherswhostoodagainstRoe’sdecisionincludingachildlesscouplethatprotestedagainstabortionandaphysicianwhoagreedtojoin,despitethepreviouschargesagainsthim.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)ThequestionaboutwhetherornotTexasabortionlawsareinviolationoftheConstitution’sRighttoPrivacyforwomenwhowantedanabortion.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Thevotestoodat7-2infavorofRoe.Thecouple’scomplaintwasrulednotjustifiableenoughtohaveastanding,whileRoe’scomplaintdoes.BaseduponadecisioninGriswoldv.Connecticut,thecourtruledthatthestatelawagainstabortionwastoovagueandbroadanditviolatestheplaintiff’sNinthandFourteenthAmendmentrightstoprivacy.Thelawisrepealedasaresults;andtherulingeffects46otherstateswithabortionlaws.

Precedent

Thewomanhastotalautonomyoverherpregnancy,howeverthestatedefinedthisautonomybythestageofthepregnancy.Shehasfullpowerduringthefirsttrimester,whilecertainstateshasinterestduringthesecondandthirdtrimester.

ConcurringOpinion(s)JusticeStewart:WhilethestateofTexascannotoverridetherighttoprivacyinrelationtoabortion,thestatecanhavelegitimateinterestsinprotectingboththewoman’shealthandthepotentialhumanlife;eachwhichhavereachacompellingpointatvariousstagesofpregnancy.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeRehnquist:Thestatemayimposevirtuallynorestrictionoftheperformanceofabortionsduringthefirsttrimesterofpregnancy.Butsincethecourt’sopinionindicatesthatTexasmightnotconstitutionallyapplyitsproscriptionofabortionaswrittentothestageofpregnancyitshowsthatthelawmaystayvalidforanyotherstages.

SourcesCited(MLA)"RodeV.Wade."photograph.StreetLaw,inc.andSupremeCourtHistoricalSociety.LandmarkCasesoftheU.S.SupremeCourt.,n.d.Web.4Dec.2015."Roev.Wade."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec1,2015.Skeleton,Chris.RoeV.Wade::410U.S.113(1973)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter.JustiaU.S.SupremeCourt,n.d.JustiaLaw.Web.1Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttp://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/roe_v_wadehttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18

39|Page

RegentsoftheUniversityofCaliforniav.Bakke(1978)By:JacobNelson

BackgroundInformationTheUniversityofCaliforniaMedicalSchoolatDavisreservedsixteenoftheonehundredavailableadmissionsineachenteringclasstoracialminorities.AllanBakke,awhitemale,wastwicedeniedadmissionintheschooldespitereceivingmuchhigherscoresthanthestudentsadmittedintheaffirmativeactionprogram.AllanBakkearguedthathewasdeniedadmissionbasedonlyonhisrace.

ConstitutionalIssue(s)TheadmissiondecisionviolatedTitleVIoftheCivilRightsActof1964andtheEqualProtectionClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.

SupremeCourtDecision(MajorityOpinion)Ina5-4decision,theSupremeCourtruledinfavorofAllanBakke.TheSupremeCourtruledthatschoolsmayuseraceasafactorofadmission,butitcannotbethesolefactorandmustbeusedonacasebycasebasis.TheSupremeCourtorderedthatAllanBakkebeadmittedintotheUniversityofCaliforniaMedicalSchoolatDavis.

Precedent

Affirmativeactionisconstitutional,butonlyasoneofmanyfactorsofadmission.

ConcurringOpinion(s)SupremeCourtJusticesBrennan,White,Marshall,andBlackmunwroteaconcurringopinionstatingthattheyagreedinpartwiththemajorityopinionbutarguedthataffirmativeactionshouldundergosignificantreform.

DissentingOpinion(s)JusticeBrennan-Disagreedinpartwiththemajorityopinion.Dissentingopinionusedaspartofconcurringopinion.JusticeWhite-ArguedthatTitleVIoftheCivilRightsActof1964isnotrelevanttothiscase.JusticeMarshall-Arguedthataffirmativeactionracialquotasshouldbeunconstitutional.JusticeBlackmun-Arguedthataffirmativeactionshouldnotexistinitscurrentform.

SourcesCited(MLA)"RegentsoftheUniversityofCaliforniav.Bakke."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Dec6,2015."RegentsofUniversityofCaliforniav.Bakke(1978)."PBS.PBS,n.d.Web.06Dec.2015.

QuickLinkshttps://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents.html