Supreme Court Cases Paul Butrico Block 1 BD

Supreme Court Cases Paul Butrico Block 1 B/D

Gibbons v. Ogden Historical Context › Trial took place on March 2, 1824 › Early 19 th Century United States steadily expanding › Steamboat developed by Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton in 1807. Became fastest form of transportation Before railroads

Gibbons v. Ogden Historical Context (Continued) › Dispute centered around claims from rival steamboat franchises. New York State gave Aaron Ogden exclusive permission to operate steamboat ferries on the Hudson river, between New York City and New Jersey. Thomas Gibbons operated two ferries along this same course.

Gibbons v. Ogden Arguments › Ogden Wanted an injunction against Gibbons Claimed that New York State had given him exclusive privilege to utilize the route. › Gibbons Argued he could use this route due to the Act of Congress of 1793 pertaining to the regulation of coastal commerce.

Gibbons v. Ogden Arguments (Continued) › Gibbons Act of Congress in 1793 Stated that "no ships or vessels, except such as shall be so enrolled and licensed, shall be deemed ships or vessels of the United States, entitled to the privileges of ships or vessels employed in the coasting trade or fisheries. "

Gibbons v. Ogden Decision › Chief Justice John Marshal ruled in favor of Gibbons. The exclusive grant given to Ogden by New York Sate violates the Act of Congress presented by Gibbons

Gibbons v. Ogden Decision (Continued) › Interpreted Commerce Clause of Constitution Decided that Congress had the right to regulate the goods being traded and the right to regulate the navigation of these goods.

Gibbons v. Ogden Significance › Set precedent for expansion of congressional power over comerce. › Now Congress could regulate every aspect of trade.

Schenck v. United States Historical Context › Trial Took place on March 3, 1919 › May 18, 1917: Congress Passes Conscription Act Federal Crime to obstruct country’s war effort (WWII) › June 17, 1917: Congress passes Espionage Act Allowed government to form a military draft.

Schenck v. United States Historical Context (Continued) › Socialist Party sent 15, 000 leaflets to drafted men from the Party’s headquarters in Philadelphia. stated the first section of the thirteenth amendment and the sentence “Do not submit to intimidation. ” › Charles T. Schenck was the general secretary of the Philadelphia headquarters. Schenck arrested

Schenck v. United States Arguments › Schenck He had exercised his first amendment rights. Not enough evidence to tie him to sending the pamphlets. › United States Schenck was in violation of the Espionage Act.

Schenck v. United States Arguments (Continued) › Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes presented 3 arguments that tied Schenck to the leaflets: 1. Schenck was the general secretary of the Socialist Party’s headquarters, from where the pamphlets were sent from. 2. A report written by Schenck stated that he received new leaflets. 3. Schenck was given $125 to send the leaflets through the mail.

Schenck v. United States Decision › Schenk found guilty Schenk was obviously involved with sending the leaflets. Leaflets not protected by the 1 st Amendment during wartime. The words in the leaflets presented a “clear and present danger, ” and therefore are not protected by constitutional rights.

Schenck v. United States Significance › Marked the first time the Supreme Court ruled in favor of limiting speech. › Established the criteria of “a clear and present danger. ”

Korematsu v. United States Historical Context › December 7, 1941: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor › December 8, 1941: U. S. enters World War II › February 19, 1942: President Roosevelt issues Executive Order 9066 banned “all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien, ” from the western coast of the U. S. and established internment camps for the banned citizens.

Korematsu v. United States Historical Context (Continued) › Fred Korematsu refused to leave his home during the Japanese-American evacuation. › The Trial took place in 1944

Korematsu v. United States Arguments › Korematsu The restrictions placed on the civil rights of Japanese-Americans were unconstitutional. › United States The loyalties of some of the Japanese-Americans resided with Japan and removing all of them from the west coast was the only logical way to ensure the U. S. ’s safety.

Korematsu v. United States Decision › 6 -3 majority ruled Korematsu guilty. According to Justice Hugo Black… Restrictions of civil liberties of a racial group are usually subject to scrutiny. Only when public security is in doubt are they justifiable.

Korematsu v. United States Significance › Highly criticized court case. Never been explicitly overturned 1983: Congress declared the case “overruled in the court of history. ” › Civil Liberties Act of 1988 contained a formal apology.

Miranda v. Arizona Historical Context › Civil Rights Movement ongoing. › U. S. & U. S. S. R. involved in space race. › U. S. entrenched in Vietnam War. Enormous amount of protest

Miranda v. Arizona Historical Context (Continued) › Ernesto Miranda arrested for kidnapping, Rape, and Robery. 1963 › Trial took place on June 19, 1966 › Miranda confessed to the crime after interrogation. Was not informed of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.

Miranda v. Arizona Arguments › Miranda Because Miranda was not read his rights, the confession given by Miranda was not a valid piece of evidence. Rights stated in 5 th & 6 th Amendments 5 th Amendment: Right to remain silent 6 th Amendment: Right to an attorney

Miranda v. Arizona Decision › Ruled in favor of Miranda, 5 -4 A person must be read his/her right against selfincrimination and right to an attorney, prior to any questioning. Because these rights were not read, the confession given by Miranda after interrogation was inadmissible.

Miranda v. Arizona Significance › Establishment of the “Miranda Rights” Allows the defendant to defend himself by remaining quiet. Attorney present at questioning protects defendant from “evils, ” of interrogation.

Roe v. Wade Historical Context › Most states heavily restricted or banned abortion › Feminist movement of 1960’s › Two University of Texas graduates brought a lawsuit on behalf of Norma L. Mc. Corvey ("Jane Roe") Filed against Henry Wade, Dallas Country District Attorney.

Roe v. Wade Argument › Roe Texas law banning abortions violated Roe’s constitutional rights. Texas law stated abortion was permutable only if the mother’s life was in danger. Roe’s life was not in perile but she could not afford to travel to have an abortion or afford to keep the child. Wade › Defended the Texas State law

Roe v. Wade Decision › Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe, 7 -2 Texas law violated Roe’s right to privacy 1 st, 4 th, 9 th, and 14 th Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy. “ marriage, contraception, parenting, and abortion are acts that lie in this “zone of privacy. ”

Roe v. Wade Decision (Continued) › Amendments 1 st Amendment: Freedom of Speech 4 th Amendment: Violation of unreasonable search and seizure (of the child) 9 th Amendment: Bill of rights not only or necessarily most rights of people. 14 th Amendment: Due process and equal protection must be provided to citizens.

Roe v. Wade Significance › One of the most controversial decisions in history Presently heavily debated › First time court ruled based on ethics, religion, and biology. › Texas law deemed unconstitutional but… Cases where abortion is illegal, such as when the mother is in the third trimester of pregnancy.

Regents of CA v. Bakke Historical Context › 1961: President John F. Kennedy first references “affirmative action, ” in Executive Order 10925. › 1965: President Lyndon Johnson first enforces affirmative action in Executive order 11246 › 1969: President Nixon initiates “Philadelphia Order Strictest enforcement of fair hiring practices.

Regents of CA v. Bakke Historical Context (Continued) › Medical school of the University of California at Davis established a quota that required 16 minorities admission. › Allan Bakke (white) was denied admission twice. Bakke had a higher GPA and higher standardized test scores than minority students recently admitted. Bakke sued the school. Supreme Court case in 1978

Regents of CA v. Bakke Arguments › Bakke The medical school's admission policy violated… Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 The 14 th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Regents of CA v. Bakke Decision › The court ruled that UCAL’s quota policy was unconstitutional. School racially discriminated against whites because it restricted whites from 16 admission opportunities based on their race. Violates Equal Protection Clause in 14 th Amendment

Regents of CA v. Bakke Decision (Continued) › Also ruled that a school is allowed to take race into account during the admissions process… Only if considered along with other factors in a case-by-case comparison.

Regents of CA v. Bakke Significance › Outlawed racial quotas. › Established basis on how much weight race carries in college admissions process.

Works Cited "Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce). " The Founders' Constitution. The University of Chicago, 2000. Web. 9 June 2013. <http: //presspubs. uchicago. edu/founders/documents/a 1_8_3_commerces 14. html>. Brunner, Borgna. "Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones. " Infoplease. Pearson Education, 2007. Web. 10 June 2013. <http: //www. infoplease. com/spot/affirmativetimeline 1. html>. Dangerfield, George. "The Steamboat Case. " Quarrels That Have Shaped the Constitution. Ed. John A. Garraty. New York: Harper, 1987. 57 -69. Print. Konkoly, Toni. "Korematsu v. United States (1944). " Supreme Court Cases. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 9 June 2013. <http: //www. pbs. org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/landmark_korematsu. html>. Lawson, Don. Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Hillside: Enslow, 1987. Print.

Works Cited (Continued) Mc. Bride, Alex. "Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). " The Supreme Court. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 9 June 2013. <http: //www. pbs. org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_gibbons. html>. - - -. "Miranda v. Arizona (1966). " The Supreme Court. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 10 June 2013. <http: //www. pbs. org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda. html>. - - -. "Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978). " The Supreme Court. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 10 June 2013. <http: //www. pbs. org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents. html>. - - -. "Roe v. Wade (1973). " The Supreme Court. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 10 June 2013. <http: //www. pbs. org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe. html>. The People History. Copyscape, 2004. Web. 10 June 2013. <http: //www. thepeoplehistory. com/1966. html>. Ryan, Bernard, Jr. "Schenck v. U. S. Appeal: 1919. " Great American Trials. Edward W. Knappman. Detroit: Gale, 1994. 284 -87. Print.