CHRIS HEROLDSARAH WEISS

Study Book 2

Miranda v Arizona

Context: 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."

Question: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

Ruling: 5 votes for Miranda, 4 votes against Amendment/Clause: Self-Incrimination Implications: The government is required to notify arrested

individuals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights (their right to remain silent; an explanation that anything they say could be used against them in court; their right to counsel; and their right to have counsel appointed to represent them if necessary)

Plaintiff Defendant

Arizona

Miranda v Arizona

Miranda

Majority Opinion Dissenting Opinion

Earl Warning: an accused person is isolated from friends, family, and his or her attorney and is often fearful of the police

• Tom Clark: There is not enough evidence todemonstrate a need to apply a new rule as the majority finds here

• John Harlan:  5th Amendment rule against self-incrimination was never intended to forbid any and all pressures against self-incrimination.

Madison v Arizona

Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier

Context: A school principal censored a student newspaper by removing some of the articles prior to publication.

Question: Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment?

Ruling: 5 votes for Hazelwood School District, 3 votes against

Amendments/Clauses: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Implications: the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech

Plaintiff Defendant

Hazelwood Kuhlmeier

Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier

Majority Opinion Dissenting Opinion

Byron R White: A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the School.

William J Brennan: It is particularly insidious from a school principal to whom the public entrusts the task of inculcating in its youth an appreciation for the cherished democratic liberties that our constitution Guarantees.

Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier

Engel v Vitale

Context: A local school board in New York has provided that those pupils who wish to do so may join in a brief prayer at the beginning of each school day.

Question: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?

Ruling: 6 votes for Engel, 1 vote againstAmendments/Clauses: Establishment of ReligionImplications: By providing the prayer, New York

officially approved religion

Plaintiff Defendant

Engel Vitale

Engel v Vitale

Majority Opinion Dissenting Opinion

Hugo L Black: by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause.

Potter Stewart: to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.

Engel v Vitale

Brown v BOE Topeka

Context: Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races

Questions: 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?

Ruling: 9 votes for Brown, 0 votes againstAmendments/Clauses: Equal ProtectionImplications: The unanimous opinion sounded the

death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial separation.

Plaintiff Defendant

Brown BOE Topeka

Brown v BOE Topeka

Majority Opinion Dissenting Opinion

Earl Warren: The object of theFourteenthamendment was undoubtedly to enforce the equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color

None

Brown v BOE Topeka

Lemon v Kurtzman

Context: Pennsylvania has a statute that reimburses religious schools for teacher salaries, textbooks, and other instructional materials. Rhode Island has a similar statute that allows the state to pay private school teachers a 15% salary supplement.

Question: Is it constitutional for the state to provide financial assistance to religious schools for the cost of teaching secular subjects?

Ruling: 8 votes for Lemon, 0 votes againstAmendments/Clauses: Establishment of ReligionImplications: To be constitutional, a statute must have

"a secular legislative purpose,"

Plaintiff Defendant

Lemon Kurtzman

Lemon v Kurtzman

Majority Opinion Dissenting Opinion

Warren E Burger: There is an inherent conflict in this situation of which the state should remain clear. To ensure that teachers play a non-ideological role would require the state to become entangled with the church.

None

Lemon v Kurtzman

Plessy v Ferguson

Context: A Louisiana statute required railroad companies to provide separate, but equal accommodations for its Black and White passengers. Plessy was prosecuted under the statute after he refused to leave the section of a train reserved for whites.

Question: 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?

Ruling: 7 votes for Ferguson, 1 vote against Amendments/Clauses: US Const. Amend 14, Section 1 Implications: although the Fourteenth Amendment of the

Constitution was designed to enforce the equality between the races, it was not intended to abolish distinctions based on color, or to enforce a commingling of the races in a way unsatisfactory to either

Plaintiff Defendant

Plessy Ferguson

Plessy v Ferguson

Majority Opinion Dissenting Opinion

Henry B Brown The object of the Fourteenth Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color.

John M Harlan: I am of the opinion that the statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberties of citizens, white and black, in that State, and hostile to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States.

Plessy v Ferguson

Gitlow v. New York

Context: Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for distributing copies of a "left-wing manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form.

Question: Is the New York law punishing advocacy to overthrow the government by force an unconstitutional violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Court Ruling: 7-2 in favor of New YorkImplications: On the merits, a state may forbid both speech

and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though such utterances create no clear and present danger.

Amendments/Clauses: First Amendment right to freedom of speech

Plaintiff Defendant

Gitlow New York

Gitlow v. New York

Majority Dissenting

Edward T. Sanford:It is a fundamental principle, long established, that the freedom of speech and of the press which is secured by the Constitution, does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom.

Oliver Holmes If what I think the correct test is applied, it is manifest that there was no present danger of an attempt to overthrow the government by force on the part of the admittedly small minority who shared the defendant’s views.

Gitlow v. New York

Roe v. Wade

Context: Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life.

Question: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?

Court Ruling: 7-2 in favor of RoeImplications: 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.

Amendments/Clauses: Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy

Plaintiff Defendant

Roe Wade

Roe v. Wade

Majority Dissenting

Harry Blackmun This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

William Rehnquist But the Court's sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one.

Roe v. Wade

Schenck v. U.S.

Context: During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act.

Question: Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Court Ruling: 9-0 in favor of the U.S.Implications: During wartime, utterances tolerable in

peacetime can be punished.Amendments/Clauses: First Amendment right to freedom of

speech

Plaintiff Defendant

Schenck United States

Schenck v. U.S.

Majority Dissenting

Oliver Holmes:When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

None

Schenck v. U.S.

U.S. v. Nixon

Context:The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming executive privilege.

Question: Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?

Court Ruling: 8-0 in favor of the U.S. Implications: The Court granted that there was a limited executive

privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice.

Amendments/Clauses: Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Plaintiff Defendant

United States Nixon

U.S. v. Nixon

Majority Dissenting

Warren BurgerWe conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice.

None

U.S. v. Nixon

Craig v. Boren

Context: An Oklahoma law prohibited the sale of "non-intoxicating" 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. Curtis Craig, a male then between the ages of 18 and 21, and a licensed vendor challenged the law as discriminatory.

Question: Did an Oklahoma statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by establishing different drinking ages for men and women?

Court Ruling: 7-2 in favor of Craig Implications: Generalities about the drinking habits of aggregate

groups did not suffice. The Court also found that the Twenty-first Amendment did not alter the application of the Equal Protection Clause in the case.

Amendments/Clauses: Equal Protection clause – The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Plaintiff Defendant

Craig Boren

Craig v. Boren

Majority Dissenting

William Brennan:The Court held that the gender classifications made by the Oklahoma statute were unconstitutional because the statistics relied on by the state were insufficient to show a substantial relationship between the statute and the benefits intended to stem from it.

Harry Blackmun: A litigant may only assert his own constitutional rights or immunities

Craig v. Boren

Reed v. Reed

Context: The Idaho Probate Code specified that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates. After the death of their adopted son, both Sally and Cecil Reed sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate (the Reeds were separated).

Question: Did the Idaho Probate Code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Court Ruling: 7-0 in favor of Sally ReedImplications: The choice in this context may not lawfully be

mandated solely on the basis of sex.Amendments/Clauses: Equal Protection clause – The Equal

Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Plaintiff Defendant

Sally Reed Cecil Reed

Reed v. Reed

Majority Dissenting

Warren Burger:To give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and whatever may be said as to the positive values of avoiding intrafamily controversy, the choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex.

None

Reed v. Reed

Texas v. Johnson

Context: 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.

Question: Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?

Court Ruling: 5-4 in favor of JohnsonImplications: The fact that an audience takes offense to

certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech.

Amendments/Clauses: First Amendment right to freedom of speech (expression)

Plaintiff Defendant

Texas Johnson

Texas v. Johnson

Majority Dissenting

William Brennan: The State's interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support his conviction because Johnson's conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace. Nor does the State's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression.

William Rehnquist:The government may conscript men into the Armed Forces where they must fight and perhaps die for the flag, but the government may not prohibit the public burning of the banner under which they fight.

Texas v. Johnson