SUPREME COURT DEBATES Santa Fe Independent School District

SUPREME COURT DEBATES

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe ■ Background (2000) – Student Council member delivered a prayer over the PA system before each home football game – Families felt that this practice violated the Establishment Clause of the 1 st Amendment ■ Government cannot declare a formal religion or favor one religion over another – District established a policy where students can vote on whether to have a prayer and who gives the prayer – Question: Does student-led, student-initiated prayer at a football game violate the Establishment Clause?

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe ■ Result: 6 -3 Decision – Establishment Clause was violated because the speech was authorized by a government policy on government grounds – Student election does nothing to protect minority views and, therefore, does not constitute a public forum

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ■ Background (2014) – Green family owns Hobby Lobby and has organized the business around principles of the Christian faith ■ Believe contraception (birth control) is immoral – Under Affordable Care Act (ACA) health care plans must provide preventative care, including contraception ■ No exceptions for-profit employers – Hobby Lobby sues Secretary of Department of Health claiming that health care plan violates Free Exercise Clause of 1 st Amendment – Question : Does the Religious Freedom Act allow a for-profit company to deny its employees health coverage of contraception?

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ■ Result: 5 -4 Decision – Corporations are composed of individuals and, therefore, have the right to exercise Freedom of Religion – Only applies to question of contraception

United States v. Eichman ■ Background (1990) – In 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act, which made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of one. – Eichman set a flag on fire on the Capitol’s steps in protest of the government’s foreign and domestic policies – Question: Did this act violate freedom of expression protected by the 1 st Amendment

United States v. Eichman ■ Result: 5 -4 Decision – The Court struck down the Flag Protection Act because… ■ Its interest is related to the suppression of the freedom of expression and the content of the expression – Allowing the flag to be burned for disposal but not for protest is clearly an act of suppression of freedom.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ■ Background (1988) – After proof reading the school-sponsored newspaper, the principal (Robert Reynolds) found two articles in the upcoming issue to be inappropriate ■ Articles dealt with divorce and teenage pregnancy – Reynolds then ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be excluded from the publication – Question: Did the principal’s deletion of the articles violate the students’ right under the First Amendment

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ■ Result: 5 -3 Decision – The court found that the First Amendment did not require schools to promote particular types of speech. – Schools must be able to set high standards for student speech and schools retain the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was inconsistent with the shared values of the community

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans ■ Background (2015) – Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans work to preserve the memory and reputation of soldiers who fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War – Wanted to have a special license plate that had two Confederate flag on it – The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles denied the request because of its offensive nature – Sons of Confederate Veterans sued because they believed their 1 st Amendment rights were violated while the DMV stated that license plates are a form of government speech and thus Free Speech did not come into play – Question: Is a specialty license plate a form of government speech or free speech?

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans ■ Result: 5 -4 Decision – The Court ruled that the government can chose the content of its speech and, therefore, this is not a case of limiting free speech. – The public associates license plates with the state; so, Texas maintains control over the messages from design to final approval

Snyder v. Phelps ■ Background (2011) – The family of deceased Marine Matthew Snyder sued members of the Westboro Baptist Church for picketing at his funeral. – The family accused the church and its founders for defamation, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional stress for displaying signs that read “Thank God for dead soldiers” – Questions: Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral?

Snyder v. Phelps ■ Result: 8 -1 Decision – The Court ruled the First Amendment shields those protesting at a funeral. – Protesters were orderly, on public land, and discussing a matter of public concern and, thus, the court cannot suppress free speech because of the nature of the signs.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale ■ Background (2000) – The Boy Scouts of America revoked former Eagle Scout James Dale’s adult membership when the organization discovered that Dale was homosexual and a gay rights activists. – Dale sued the organization for discrimination based on sexual orientation – The Boy Scouts asserted that homosexuality was inconsistent with the values it was attempting to instill in young people and, as a private organization, they have a first amendment right of expressive association – Questions: Under the right of expressive association, can the Boy Scouts bar homosexuals as troop leaders?

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale ■ Result: 5 -4 Decision – Under the 1 st Amendment right of expressive association, the Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America do have the right to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders – Forcing the Boy Scouts to accept gay members would force the organization to send a message to its young members and the world that they accept homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior – Private organizations have the right to establish membership policies

Board of Education v. Earls ■ Background (2002) – The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy adopted by an Oklahoma School District requires all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in extracurricular activities – Two students alleged that the policy violates their Fourth Amendment rights of no unreasonable search and seizure – Question: Is Student Activities Drug Testing Policy consistent with the Fourth Amendment?

Board of Education v. Earls ■ Result: 5 -4 Decision – The Court ruled that because the policy reasonably serves the School District’s interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, it is constitutional and does not violate the 4 th Amendment – Also, involvement in an extracurricular activity diminishes the expectation of privacy and the method of urinalysis was minimally intrusive on students

Safford United School District v. Redding ■ Background (2009) – Savanna Redding, an eighth grader, was strip-searched by school officials on the basis of a tip by another student that Redding might have ibuprofen on her, which violates school policy. – Savanna Redding sued the School District under the claim that her 4 th Amendment rights had been violated – Question: Does the 4 th Amendment prohibit schools from strip searching students suspected of possessing drugs?

Safford United School District v. Redding ■ Result: 8 -1 Decision – The Court ruled that Savanna’s 4 th Amendment rights were violated when school officials searched her underwear for non-prescription pain killers – Measures taken by schools must be reasonably related to the objectives of the search and should take into account the age and sex of the student as well as the nature of the infraction

Roper v. Simmons ■ Background (2005) – Christopher Simmons was sentence to death in 1993 for the gruesome murder of an elderly woman who he apparently chose at random ■ Simmons was only 17 at the time – The Supreme Court had previously ruled that sentencing a minor to death was not unconstitutional; however, the Missouri Supreme Court overruled that case stating that public opinion had changed. – Question: Does the execution of minors violate the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” found in the Eight Amendment

Roper v. Simmons ■ Result: 5 -4 Decision – The Court ruled that, yes, standards of decency have evolved since their last case and, therefore, executing minors is “cruel and unusual punishment” – The Court pointed to international objection of the juvenile death penalty and also pointed out that the United States was the only country to official sanction its use

Miller v. Alabama ■ Background (2012) – In July 2003, Evan Miller, along with an accomplice, brutally killed Cole Cannon by beating Cannon with a baseball bat and burning Cannon’s trailer while Cannon was inside – At his trial, Miller was found guilty and sentenced to serve life in prison without the possibility of parole ■ Miller was 14 years old – Miller argued that the sentencing should be considered cruel and unusual punishment – Question: Does a life-without-parole sentence for a minor violate the Eight Amendment

Miller v. Alabama ■ Result: 5 -4 Decision – Court ruled that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a juvenile is considered cruel and unusual punishment – Minors are constitutionally different from adults when it comes to sentencing

Glossip v. Gross ■ Background (2015) – In 2014, Oklahoma executed Clayton Lockett using a three-drug lethal injection procedure ■ The procedure went wrong when Lockett awoke after the injection of the drugs that were supposed to make him unconscious…it took 40 minutes in total – Inmates on death row sued the state for its use of specific types of drugs linked to the botched execution ■ Claimed this was cruel and unusual punishment – Question: Does the use of a specific type of drug in a lethal injection procedure qualify as cruel and unusual punishment

Glossip v. Gross ■ Result: 5 -4 Decision – The court ruled that the use of midazolam (the drug in question) was not considered cruel and unusual punishment because there was insufficient evidence that it caused a higher risk of pain as compared to other options – In executions, it is implied that there will be some pain, therefore pain does not constitute cruel and unusual punishments – States must look for the best option that will decrease pain, not abolish pain

Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin ■ Background (2013) – In 1997, the Texas legislature adopted a law that required the University of Texas to admit all students who finished in the top ten of their high school class – Also, in order to better represent the state’s racial and ethnic makeup, the University of Texas also began taking race into account in admissions – Fisher, a Caucasian female, was rejected and sued the school claiming that using race in the admissions process was a violation of her 14 th Amendment right of equality under the law. – The University claimed that its use of race was tailored to obtain more diversity – Question: Does affirmative action violate the 14 th Amendment

Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin ■ Result: 7 -1 Decision – You can use race in admissions; however, the court ruled that the University was not held to strict scrutiny – Lower courts did not do a sufficient check to make sure that there was no alternative to race that would help diversity

Young v United Parcel Service ■ Background (2015) – Peggy Young was employed as a delivery driver for UPS – She requested a leave of absence due to pregnancy and her doctors advised her to not lift more than 20 pounds ■ UPS requires its employees to lift up to 70 pounds – Young had used up her medical leave time and, therefore, was forced to take an extended, unpaid leave of absence. – Young sued UPS on the basis of discrimination due to her pregnancy

Young v United Parcel Service ■ Result: 6 -3 Result – The Court ruled that while the Pregnancy Discrimination Act is not intended to give pregnant employees a favorable status, a plaintiff can show that she faced discrimination from the employer – Courts must determine if there are legitimate reasons for a employer’s policy that treats pregnant women less favorably than non-pregnant employees. – In this case, the Court found that UPS should review its policy.