Download - Supreme Court Cases
![Page 1: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Supreme Court CasesPaul ButricoBlock 1 B/D
![Page 2: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Gibbons v. Ogden Historical Context
› Trial took place on March 2, 1824› Early 19th Century
United States steadily expanding› Steamboat developed by Robert R.
Livingston and Robert Fulton in 1807. Became fastest form of transportation
Before railroads
![Page 3: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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.
![Page 4: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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.
![Page 5: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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."
![Page 6: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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.
![Page 8: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Gibbons v. Ogden Significance
› Set precedent for expansion of congressional power over comerce.
› Now Congress could regulate every aspect of trade.
![Page 9: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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.
![Page 10: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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.
![Page 12: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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.
![Page 13: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Schenck v. United States Decision
› Schenk found guilty Schenk was obviously involved with sending
the leaflets. Leaflets not protected by the 1st Amendment
during wartime. The words in the leaflets presented a “clear
and present danger,” and therefore are not protected by constitutional rights.
![Page 14: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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.”
![Page 15: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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.
![Page 16: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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.
![Page 18: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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.
![Page 19: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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.
![Page 20: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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.
![Page 22: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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 5th & 6th Amendments
5th Amendment: Right to remain silent 6th Amendment: Right to an attorney
![Page 23: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Miranda v. Arizona Decision
› Ruled in favor of Miranda, 5-4 A person must be read his/her right against
self-incrimination and right to an attorney, prior to any questioning. Because these rights were not read, the confession
given by Miranda after interrogation was inadmissible.
![Page 24: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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.
![Page 25: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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. McCorvey ("Jane Roe") Filed against Henry Wade, Dallas Country
District Attorney.
![Page 26: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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
![Page 27: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Roe v. Wade Decision
› Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe, 7-2 Texas law violated Roe’s right to privacy
1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy.“ marriage, contraception, parenting, and abortion are
acts that lie in this “zone of privacy.”
![Page 28: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Roe v. Wade Decision (Continued)
› Amendments 1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech 4th Amendment: Violation of unreasonable
search and seizure (of the child) 9th Amendment: Bill of rights not only or
necessarily most rights of people. 14th Amendment: Due process and equal
protection must be provided to citizens.
![Page 29: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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.
![Page 30: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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.
![Page 31: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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
![Page 32: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Regents of CA v. Bakke Arguments
› Bakke The medical school's admission policy
violated… Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
![Page 33: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
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 14th Amendment
![Page 34: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
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.
![Page 35: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Regents of CA v. Bakke Significance
› Outlawed racial quotas.› Established basis on how much weight
race carries in college admissions process.
![Page 36: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
"Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)." The Founders' Constitution. The University of Chicago, 2000. Web. 9 June 2013. <http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces14.html>.Brunner, Borgna. "Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones." Infoplease. Pearson Education, 2007. Web. 10 June 2013. <http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.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
![Page 37: Supreme Court Cases](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070419/56815d73550346895dcb7d79/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
McBride, 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. Ed. Edward W. Knappman. Detroit: Gale, 1994. 284-87. Print.
Works Cited (Continued)