The Supreme Court Expands its Power Marbury v

The Supreme Court Expands its Power

Marbury v. Madison, 1803 Facts of the Case -John Adams tried to appoint Marbury and several other guys to judicial positions the day before he left office. -The appointments were never completed -Jefferson refused to recognize the appointments. -The angry appointees sued for their jobs in the Courts Question Presented -Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? Conclusion -Yes - Established “Judicial Review” the ability for courts to interpret the Constitution

Supreme Court and Individual rights

Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 Facts of the Case -Louisiana passed a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites -Homer Plessy took a seat in the a “white only” car of a train. He refused to move to the car for blacks and was arrested Question Presented - Did this arrest violate his 14 th amendment (equal protection) Conclusion -Conclusion “You can keep things separated as long as they are equal. ” “Separate but equal” idea. Legalizes segregation

Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 Facts of the Case -Black children were denied admission to public schools -Things were equal in terms of building, curricula, and qualifications of teachers -Question -Is segregation legal or in violation of the 14 th “equal protection” amendment? Conclusion -You cannot possibly keep things equal by separating them. By definition the separation creates inequality. They cannot possibly be the same. “Separate is NOT equal” Schools must integrate and achieve equality with all due speed. What does this mean? How can schools become equal? Is it possible to force schools to integrate?

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U. S. , 1964 Facts of the case -Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by places of Public accommodation. -The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia refused to accept Black Americans Question presented -Did Congress deprive motels of the right to choose their own customers? Conclusion -The Court concluded that places of public accommodation had no “right to select guests as they saw fit, free from government regulations…. THEY HAD TO OPEN THE DOORS TO ALL. Think about how this might apply to smoking bans. Should a store owner have the right to smoke or allow smoking in his shop?

Korematsu v. United States, 1944 Facts of the case -During World War II, Presidential Executive Order 9066 gave the military authority to exclude citizens of Japanese ancestry from areas deemed critical to nation defense Question presented -Did the President and Congress go beyond their war power by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of American Japanese descent Conclusion - The courts sided with the government and held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu’s rights, but only during wartime. - How does that set the stage for what is happening today?

Supreme Court and the Power of Speech

Tinker V. Des Moines, 1969 Facts of the Case -John Tinker (15), Mary Beth Tinker (13), and Christopher Echardt (16) decided to protest the Vietnam war by wearing black arm bands to their school during the Christmas holiday season -The principals of the school districts said that all student wearing these arm bands were to take them off or face suspensions. -The students wore their armbands anyway and when they did not take them off they were suspended until after New Year’s Day Questions -Did this violate the students’ “First amendment right? ” Conclusion - The wearing of the armbands was part of freedom of speech. Although school officials have the right to prohibit certain actions, they fail to show the protest would cause trouble and disturbance in the school setting

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988 Facts of the case -THE SPECTRUM, the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. - The Principal, received the proof of the May 13 th issue and found that two of the articles were inappropriate -He ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared by withheld from publication -Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood students brought the case to court Question Presented -Did the deletion of the articles violate the student’s 1 st Amendment right? Conclusion - NO, school newspapers are sponsored by the school and articles not directly reflecting the view of the school for “learning” purposes can be deleted from the paper.

Engel v. Vitale, 1962 Facts of the Case -The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. -“ Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country. ” Question Presented -Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of each school day violate the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment? Conclusion - YES, Neither the prayer’s nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 1986 Facts of the case -At a school assembly Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office -In his speech Matthew used a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. -Fraser was suspended from school for two days Question Presented -Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly? Conclusion - No, the court found that it was appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language.

Texas v Johnson, 1989 Facts of the case -Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. -Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a $2, 000 fine. Question of the case -Is the burning of an American flag a form of speech protected under the 1 st Amendment? Conclusion - The court found that the burning of the flag is protected under “expression” in the 1 st amendment.

Supreme Court and the Rights of the Accused

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 Facts of the case -Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. Question Presented -Were the confiscated materials protected by the 1 st amendment? -Can evidence obtained through a search in violation of the 4 th amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? Conclusion - Materials obtained from a violation of the 4 th Amendment is inadmissible in a state court. Search Warrant

New Jersey v. T. L. O, 1984 Facts of the Case -T. L. O was a 14 year old accused of smoking in the girl’s bathroom -A principal at the school questioned her and searched her purse and found a box of cigarettes and rolling papers - He decided to search the pocketbook further and found a bag of marijuana (and other drug paraphernalia), plastic bags, money, and a list of people who still owed her money. Question presented -Did the search violate the 4 th Amendment? Conclusion -NO, the school official is allowed to search a student if he/she has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is in the act of being committed.

Gideon V. Wainwright, 1963 Facts of the Case -Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. -He lacked funds as was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense -When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused -Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to 5 years in a state prison Question presented -Did the state court’s failure the appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the 6 th 14 th (equal protection) Conclusion - Gideon had the right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney. The right to an attorney was essential to a fair trial. Lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.

Miranda V. Arizona, 1966 Facts of the case -Ernesto Miranda had been arrested at his home in Phoenix, Arizona and accused of kidnapping and rape. -He was questioned at the police station by 2 police officers has was not advised of his right to an attorney nor his right to remain silent. -After two hours of interrogation, he signed a written confession to the crime. -He was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison Question -Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against selfincrimination violate he 5 th Amendment? Conclusion -A person in police custody “or otherwise deprived of his freedom…must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says can be used against him in the court of law. . ”