Anasha Roberts

Block 3

April 29, 2014

Case Law Project

Establishment

Marbury vs. Madison

Backgroundo On his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the

peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office. The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall, but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s term as president. Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the end of Adams’s term. William Marbury was an intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus “…to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.”

Questiono Who decides the constitutionality of laws: the Court or the Congress?

Answero In ruling a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the Court

made clear that it was “emphatically the province of the judiciary to say what the law is.” This decision established the precedent for judicial review.

Legal Reasoningo Judicial Review gives the Supreme Court the right to judge the

constitutionality of the other 2 branches of government. Consequences

o The establishment of the Judicial Review is the major consequence.

Dartmouth College vs. Woodward

Backgroundo In 1816, the New Hampshire legislature attempted to change Dartmouth

College-- a privately funded institution--into a state university. The legislature changed the school's corporate charter by transferring the control of trustee appointments to the governor. In an attempt to regain authority over the resources of Dartmouth College, the old trustees filed suit against William H. Woodward, who sided with the new appointees.

Questiono Did the New Hampshire legislature unconstitutionally interfere with Dartmouth

College's rights under the Contract Clause? Answer

o The Court agreed with Dartmouth and decided that the College's corporate charter qualified as a contract between private parties, with which the legislature could not interfere.

Legal Reasoningo  US Const. Art 1, Section 10

Consequenceso Historians believe that the decision greatly encouraged business investment

and growth

Ex parte McCardle

Backgroundo William McCardle was arrested by federal authorities in 1867 for writing and

publishing a series of editorials in his Mississippi newspaper. The editorials were sharply critical of Reconstruction. McCardle sought a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the Reconstruction Acts under which he was arrested were unconstitutional. McCardle appealed to the Supreme Court under an 1867 congressional statute that conferred jurisdiction on appeal to the High Court. After hearing arguments in the case, but prior to announcing a decision, the Congress withdrew its 1867 act conferring jurisdiction.

Questiono May the Congress withdraw jurisdiction from the High Court after that

jurisdiction has been given? Answer

o The Court validated congressional withdrawal of the Court's jurisdiction Legal Reasoning

o Military Reconstruction Act Consequences

o Congress is allowed to exercise its authority to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing certain types of politically sensitive cases

Federalism

McCulloch vs MD

Backgroundo In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818,

the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax

Questiono  Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law

unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers? Answer

o In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers

Legal Reasoningo US Const. Art 1, Section 8 Clauses 1 and 18

Consequenceso This case declared that the United States government had implied powers as

well as those specifically listed in the Constitution. The decision provided the avenue for the federal government to expand or evolve its powers to meet an ever-changing world.

Gibbons vs. Ogden

Background

o A New York state law gave to individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. Laws like this one were duplicated elsewhere which led to friction as some states would require out-of-state boats to pay substantial fees for navigation privileges. In this case Thomas Gibbons -- a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey under a federal coastal license -- challenged the monopoly license granted by New York to Aaron Ogden. New York courts consistently upheld the state monopoly.

Questiono Did the State of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to

Congress, namely, the regulation of interstate commerce? Answer

o The unanimous Court found that New York's licensing requirement for out-of-state operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade. The New York law was invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause

Legal Reasoningo US Const. Art 1, Section 8, Clause 3

Consequenceso Established that only Congress has the power to control commerce between

states

We the People

US Term Limits vs Thorton

Backgroundo On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State

Constitution. The "Term Limitation Amendment," in addition to limiting terms of elected officials within the Arkansas state government, also provided that any person who served three or more terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Representative from Arkansas. Similarly, the Amendment provided that any person who served two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Senator from Arkansas.

Questiono Can states alter those qualifications for the U.S. Congress that are specifically

enumerated in the Constitution? Answer

o No. The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution

Legal Reasoningo Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Composition of the House of Representatives

Consequenceso The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot impose

qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. The decision invalidated the Congressional term limit provisions of 23 states. 

Shaw vs. Reno

Backgroundo The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional

reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority

district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Questiono Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially

gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Answero Yes. The Court held that although North Carolina's reapportionment plan was

racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race

Legal Reasoningo Equal Protection

Consequenceso The 14th amendment. Protects against racial gerrymandering

Miller vs. Johnson

Backgroundo Between 1980 and 1990, only one of Georgia's ten congressional districts was

majority-black. According to the 1990 decennial census, Georgia's black population of 27% entitled blacks to an additional eleventh congressional seat, prompting Georgia's General Assembly to re-draw the state's congressional districts. After the Justice Department refused pre-clearance of several of the Assembly's proposed new districts, the Assembly was finally successful in creating an additional majority-black district through the forming of an eleventh district. This district, however, was called a "geographic monstrosity" because it extended 6,784.2 square miles from Atlanta to the Atlantic Ocean. In short, "the social, political, and economic makeup of the Eleventh District tells a tale of disparity, not community."

Questiono Is racial gerrymandering of the congressional redistricting process a violation

of the Equal Protection Clause? Answer

o Yes. In some instances, a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular and bizarre in shape that it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate voters based on race

Legal Reasoningo Equal Protection

Consequenceso The 14th amendment. Protects against racial gerrymandering

Checks and Balances

US vs. Nixon

Backgroundo Walter Nixon, a Federal District Judge, was convicted of a felony, making false

statements to a grand jury. The House of Representatives voted three articles of impeachment; impeachment in the Senate followed. In accordance with

Senate Rule XI, a Senate committee heard the evidence and reported its findings. The full Senate convicted Nixon and sought to remove him from office. Nixon challenged Senate Rule XI in federal court on the ground that the rule violated the impeachment clause of the Constitution, which declares that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." The lower courts deemed the issue nonjusticiable and declined to intervene in the dispute.

Questiono Is Nixon's claim -- that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial Clause --

justiciable, i.e., appropriate for judicial resolution? Answer

o No. A unanimous Court held that the question of whether or not the Senate rule violated the U.S. Constitution was nonjusticiable since the Impeachment clause expressly granted that the "Senate shall have sole Power to try any impeachments."

Legal Reasoningo Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 6

Consequenceso Defined the power of the president to claim executive privilege

US vs. Curtiss Wright Export Corp

Backgroundo Curtiss-Wright was charged with conspiring to sell fifteen machine guns to

Bolivia, which was engaged in an armed conflict in the Chaco. This violated a Joint Resolution of Congress and a proclamation issued by President Roosevelt.

Questiono Did Congress in its Joint Resolution unconstitutionally delegate legislative

power to the President? Answer

o The Court agreed that the President was allowed much room to operate in executing the Joint Resolution; it found no constitutional violation.

Legal Reasoningo US Const. Art. II

Consequenceso Congress may provide the President with a special degree of discretion in

external matters which would not be afforded domestically.

US vs. Lopez

Backgroundo Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon

into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone." Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release.

Questiono Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly

carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

Answer

o Yes. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.

Legal Reasoningo 18 U.S.C. 922

Consequenceso Lopez raised serious questions as to how far the Court might be willing to go

in implementing judicial safeguards against federal encroachments on state sovereignty. This precedent takes special significance in cases where the federal government is attempting to limit private conduct.

Civil Rights

Plessy vs. Ferguson

Backgroundo The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for

blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy--who was seven-eighths Caucasian--took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested.

Questiono Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an

unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Answero No, the state law is within constitutional boundaries. The majority upheld

state-imposed racial segregation. The justices based their decision on the separate-but-equal doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were equal.

Legal Reasoningo  US Const. Amend 14, Section 1

Consequenceso Plessy vs. Ferguson legitimized the move towards segregation practices

begun earlier in the South.

Brown vs. BOE

Backgroundo Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white

children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races. The white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries. This case was decided together with Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County.

Questiono Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race

deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?

Answero Yes. Despite the equalization of the schools by "objective" factors, intangible

issues foster and maintain inequality Legal Reasoning

o US Const. Amend 14, Section 1 Consequences

o The long-held doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected. 

California vs. Bakke

Backgroundo Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission

to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.

Questiono Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal

protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?

Answero No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices

contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria

Legal Reasoningo Equal Protection

Consequenceso The use of quotas in such affirmative action programs was not permissible

Free Speech

NY Times vs. Sullivan

Backgroundo Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a full-page ad

in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment.

Question

o Did Alabama's libel law, by not requiring Sullivan to prove that an advertisement personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?

Answero The First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false

ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity).

Legal Reasoningo  Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Consequenceso The case collapsed

NY Times vs. US

Backgroundo In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon

Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co.

Questiono Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it

termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment? Answer

o Yes. In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case.

Legal Reasoningo  Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Consequenceso  Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an

inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified.

Texas vs. Johnson

Backgroundo In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, 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. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court.

Questiono Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of

speech that is protected under the First Amendment? Answer

o The Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature.

The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech

Legal Reasoningo  Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Consequenceso The Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because

society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable

Right of Privacy

Grisswald vs. Conn

Backgroundo Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of

Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.

Questiono Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state

restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? Answer

o Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy

Legal Reasoning o Due Process

Consequenceso  The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is

therefore null and void

Roe vs. Wade

Backgroundo Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas

law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall.

Questiono Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy

by abortion? Answer

o The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters

Legal Reasoningo  Due Process

Consequences

o  The laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.

Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services

Backgroundo In 1986, the state of Missouri enacted legislation that placed a number of

restrictions on abortions. The statute's preamble indicated that "[t]he life of each human being begins at conception," and the law codified the following restrictions: public employees and public facilities were not to be used in performing or assisting abortions unnecessary to save the mother's life; encouragement and counseling to have abortions was prohibited; and physicians were to perform viability tests upon women in their twentieth (or more) week of pregnancy. Lower courts struck down the restrictions.

Questiono Did the Missouri restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to

privacy or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Answer

o The Court held that none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri legislation were unconstitutional

Legal Reasoningo Due Process

Consequenceso Overturns all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were

inconsistent with the decision

Religious Freedom

Lemon vs. Kurtzman

Backgroundo This case was heard concurrently with two others, Earley v. DiCenso (1971)

and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971). The cases involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to "church-related educational institutions."

Questiono Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment's

Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to "church- related educational institutions"?

Answero Yes. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Burger articulated a three-part test

for laws dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional, a statute must have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion.

Legal Reasoningo Establishment of Religion

Consequenceso The verdict in Lemon v. Kurtzman led to the creation of the Lemon Test. This

test is a classification system that is used to see whether or not state laws regarding funding or creating religious institutions with public money violate the United States constitution.

Engle vs. Vitale

Backgroundo The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary

prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country."

Questiono Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day

violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment? Answer

o Yes. Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion.

Legal Reasoningo  Establishment of Religion

Consequenceso This was the first in a series of cases in which the Court used the

establishment clause to eliminate religious activities of all sorts, which had traditionally been a part of public ceremonies.

Edwards vs. Aquillard

Backgroundo A Louisiana law entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and

Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools unless that instruction was accompanied by the teaching of creation science, a Biblical belief that advanced forms of life appeared abruptly on Earth. Schools were not forced to teach creation science. However, if either topic was to be addressed, evolution or creation, teachers were obligated to discuss the other as well.

Questiono Did the Louisiana law, which mandated the teaching of "creation science"

along with the theory of evolution, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Answero Yes. The Court held that the law violated the Constitution. Using the three-

pronged test that the Court had developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to evaluate potential violations of the Establishment Clause, Justice Brennan argued that Louisiana's law failed on all three prongs of the test

Legal Reasoningo  Establishment of Religion

Consequenceso They continue to use the Lemon Test for cases similar to this one

Due Process

Miranda vs. Arizona

Backgroundo The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of

instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in

custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way." In Vignera v. New York, the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. Similarly, in Westover v. United States, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel. Lastly, in California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation.

Questiono Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of

their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

Answero The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from

custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination."

Legal Reasoningo Self-Incrimination

Consequenceso The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to

suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations.

Mapp vs. Ohio

Backgroundo Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an

admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.

Questiono Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May

evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?)

Answero The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all

evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court

Legal Reasoningo  Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

Consequenceso  It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court

at all levels of the government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.

Furman vs. Georgia

Backgroundo Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered

him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death (Two other death penalty cases were decided

along with Furman: Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas. These cases concern the constitutionality of the death sentence for rape and murder convictions, respectively).

Questiono Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases

constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Answero Yes. The Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the

death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution

Legal Reasoningo Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Consequenceso  The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their

statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner.